FedSoc Events: Recent Episodes
The Federalist Society
The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. This podcast feed contains audio files of Federalist Society panel discussions, debates, addresses, and other events related to law and public policy. Additional audio and video can be found at https://fedsoc.org/commentary.
This panel will analyze Justice Alito’s contributions to the Supreme Court’s religious liberty and free speech jurisprudence. Panelists will examine his role in shaping the Court’s approach to the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, and the First Amendment more broadly, including cases involving religious accommodations, expressive freedom, and the interaction between government authority and individual conscience.
Featuring:
Prof. Stephanie Barclay, Professor of Law and Faculty Co-Director for the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, Georgetown University Law Center
Prof. Nicole Garnett, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law and Associate Dean for External Engagement, University of Notre Dame Law School
Matthew A. Schwartz, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
Moderator: Hon. Steven J. Menashi, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Justice Alito has played a significant role in shaping contemporary criminal law and procedure, particularly in cases involving the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. This panel will explore his influence on doctrines governing search and seizure, sentencing, the rights of criminal defendants, and the administration of the criminal justice system. Panelists will analyze key opinions and dissents to assess Justice Alito’s emphasis on text, history, and practical consequences, as well as his views on the balance between individual rights, public safety, and institutional competence.
Featuring:
Hon. Sarah K. Campbell, Justice, Supreme Court of Tennessee
Hon. Benjamin Cassady, Commissioner, Sacramento County
Hon. Amul Thapar, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Moderator: Hon. Andrew Oldham, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
This panel will examine Justice Samuel Alito’s jurisprudence as a whole, with particular attention to the principles and methodologies that have guided his judicial analysis and decision-making. Panelists will discuss Justice Alito’s approach to constitutional interpretation, precedent, and judicial restraint, as well as his views on the proper role of courts within the constitutional structure.
Featuring:
Prof. J. Joel Alicea, Of Counsel to Cooper & Kirk and St. Robert Bellarmine Professor of Law at the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law
Prof. Sherif Girgis, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
Prof. E. Garrett West, Associate Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Hon. Michael H. Park, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Moderator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Justice Alito’s statutory interpretation jurisprudence reflects a sustained commitment to textual analysis, structural coherence, and due respect for legislative prerogatives. This panel will assess his approach to interpreting federal statutes, including his treatment of statutory text, legislative history, and administrative deference. Through an examination of significant cases, panelists will explore how Justice Alito’s methodology has shaped outcomes across a range of substantive areas and contributed to broader debates over the judiciary’s role in construing and applying enacted law.
Featuring:
Hon. Charles J. Cooper, Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC; Former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice
Hon. Gregory Katsas, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Eric M. Palmer, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
Moderator:Prof. Robert George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University
From litigation challenging COVID regulations to the recent legal challenges to state laws regulating transgender surgery and medications to recent actions to reassess the EPA's "Endangerment Finding," important questions have emerged about how courts should evaluate scientific claims. What are the challenges “with appealing and deferring to the authority of the expert class,” as Justice Thomas wrote in his Skrmetti concurrence? What is the role of the judge and the jury in evaluating scientific claims made by the parties?
Featuring:
Mr. Benjamin M. Flowers, Partner, Ashbrook Byrne Kresge Flowers LLC
Prof. Michael Gerrard, Professor, Columbia Law School; Faculty Director, Sabin Center for Climate Change Law
Mr. Rob Johnson, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Mr. J.J. Snidow, Partner, Keller Postman LLP
Moderator: Hon. Jennifer Mascott, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Introducer: Mr. David Haungs, President, Yale Student Chapter
The advent and rise of AI over the past several years poses radical questions for lawyers and the law. How will AI change the practice of law, including the work of law firms and inside judges’ chambers (“AI for the Law”)? And how should courts respond to the myriad legal issues implicating AI – copyright and beyond (“The Law of AI”)? Do the last five years of legal cases against social media companies tell us anything about the future of AI companies in the courts? Will there be a “techlash” against AI similar to the “techlash” against social media? How might national security concerns inform the AI legal and regulatory landscape?
Featuring:
Mr. Ryan L. Bangert, Senior Vice President, Strategic Initiatives & Special Counsel to the President, Alliance Defending Freedom
Mr. James M. Burnham, Managing Partner, King Street Legal; President, Vallecito Capital
Hon. Kevin C. Newsom, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Mr. Mike Trinh, Associate General Counsel, OpenAI
Mrs. Tobi Young, General Counsel, Saronic Technologies
Moderator: Hon. Jennifer Walker Elrod, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Introducer: Mr. Gabriel Powell, President, Notre Dame Student Chapter
What do the tools of originalism teach us about significant immigration legal issues? For example, what was the President’s authority to remove aliens at the time of the Founding? How much of immigration is left to the President versus Congress? What can originalism tell us about immigration and due process? Experts discuss cutting edge issues in immigration law and ask how and whether originalism can help provide answers.
Featuring:
Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale Law School
Prof. Stephanie Barclay, Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center & Faculty Co-Director, Georgetown Center for the Constitution, Georgetown University Law Center
Mr. Trevor W. Ezell, General Counsel, Office of Texas Governor Greg Abbott
Mr. Gene P. Hamilton, President & Co-Founder, America First Legal Foundation
Moderator: Hon. James P. Sullivan, Texas Supreme Court
Introducer: Ms. Jordan Lamb, Former President, Texas Student Chapter
This year marks the 20th anniversary of the Roberts Court. Many of the Court's most high-profile rulings have occurred this decade—and the decade is only half over. The advocates who argued and won five of the most high-profile rulings of the Roberts Court discuss trends of the Roberts Court; the path to victory in their respective cases; and what is on the horizon for the Roberts Court. Cases discussed include Dobbs, Students for Fair Admissions, Loper Bright, Skrmetti, and Bruen.
Featuring:
Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLC
Mr. Cameron T. Norris, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC
Mr. Matthew Rice, Solicitor General, Tennessee
Mr. Scott G. Stewart, Solicitor General, Mississippi
Moderator: Hon. Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida
Introducer: Mrs. Morgan Larson, President, Arizona State Student Chapter
Overflow: Hutchins Hall Michigan Law School
We are pleased to announce that the Honorable James C. Ho & Allyson Newton Ho will be the keynote speakers for a Fireside Chat at the Saturday evening banquet.
Hon. James C. Ho, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Allyson Newton Ho, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Moderator Katherine Rifiotis Slivensky, Michigan Student Chapter President
Moderator JJ Marshall, Michigan Student Chapter, Symposium Co-Director
Featuring:
Prof. Jamal Greene, Dwight Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
Prof. Tara Leigh Grove, Professor and Vinson & Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas School of Law
Prof. Richard Primus, Theodore J. St. Antoine Collegiate Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Prof. Amanda Tyler, Thomas David & Judith Swope Clark Professor of Constitutional Law, University of California, Berkeley School of Law
Prof. Keith E. Whittington, David Boies Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Moderator: Hon. Raymond Kethledge, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Featuring:
Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School
Prof. Julian Davis Mortenson, James G. Phillipp Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Moderator: Hon. Joan Larsen, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Featuring:
Prof. Nicholas Bagley, Thomas G. Long Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Prof. Emily Bremer, Professor, Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Jennifer Nou, Ruth Wyatt Rosenson Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School
Hon. Paul J. Ray, Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation
Moderator: Hon. Neomi Rao, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Featuring:
Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director of the Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Hon. Justin Amash, former United States Congressman from Michigan
Prof. Josh Chafetz, Agnes Williams Sesquicentennial Professor of Law and Politics, Georgetown University Law Center
Prof. Gillian E. Metzger, Harlan Fiske Stone Professor of Constitutional Law, Columbia Law School
Amanda H. Neely, Of Counsel, Gibson Dunn and former General Counsel to Senator Rob Portman
Moderator: Hon. Robert J. Luck, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Featuring:
Prof. Jeffrey Pojanowski, Biolchini Family Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Jennifer L. Mascott, Director of the Separation of Powers Institute and Associate Professor of Law, The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law
Prof. Nina A. Mendelson, Joseph L. Sax Collegiate Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Environmental and Energy Law Program, University of Michigan Law School
Prof. Thomas W. Merrill, Charles Evans Hughes Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
Prof. Aaron Nielson, Solicitor General of Texas and Professor of Law, Brigham Young University Law School
Moderator: Hon. Chad A. Readler, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Featuring:
Prof. John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law and Director of the Center on Intellectual Property Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor, University of Michigan Law School
Moderator: Sarah Isgur, Senior Editor, The Dispatch
Featuring:
Sheldon Gilbert, President and CEO, The Federalist Society
Moderator: Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
In recent years the Supreme Court has decided critically important executive power and administrative law cases. From agency deference and adjudication, to presidential immunity, to “jaw boning”—what does it all mean for the future of the presidency and the administrative state the president oversees? How might the country’s new president approach these issues?
Featuring:
Steven Engel, Partner, Dechert LLP
Jack Goldsmith, Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard University
Sarah Harris, Partner, Williams & Connolly LLP
Moderator: Hon. Chad Readler, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Featuring:
Hon. Gregory J. Katsas, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Hon. Barbara Lagoa, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Hon. Steven J. Menashi, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Hon. Amul R. Thapar, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Moderator: Hon. Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida
Nearly twenty five years after the election of Governor Jeb Bush, the Florida state courts have transformed. Previously, many state judges had a more activist, progressive view of the role of a judge. Today, many state judges hold originalist and textualists views of judicial interpretation. Our panel will consider the last 25 years of judicial appointments in Florida, discussing how the roles of the executive, the JNC, and the conservative legal movement have contributed to these transformations. They will discuss how the Florida Supreme Court today differs from the Court that ruled on Bush v. Gore in 2000.
Featuring:
Jason Gonzalez, Shareholder, Lawson Huck Gonzalez, PLLC and Former General Counsel to Governor Charlie Crist, 2008
Ryan Newman, General Counsel to Governor Ron DeSantis, 2021 - 2025
Daniel Nordby, Partner, Shutts & Bowen LLP, Former General Counsel to Governor Rick Scott, 2017 - 2019
Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and Former General Counsel to Governor Rick Scott, 2012 - 2013
Raquel “Rocky” Rodriguez, Shareholder, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC and Former General Counsel to Governor Jeb Bush, 2002 - 2007
Moderator: Hon. T. Kent Wetherell II, Judge, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida and Former Deputy Solicitor General of Florida, 1999-2002
Featuring:
Hon. Jeb Bush, Former Governor, Florida
Moderator: Raquel “Rocky” Rodriguez, Shareholder, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC and Former General Counsel to Governor Jeb Bush, 2002 - 2007
Featuring:
Prof. Sadie Blanchard, "Adjudicating ESG Reputation," Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Benjamin Chen, "What are Linguistic Canons for?," Associate Professor, University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law
Prof. Robert Leider, "The Individual Right to Bear Arms for Common Defense," Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Prof. Tyler Lindley, "Reconstructing Section 1983," Associate Professor, Brigham Young University, J. Reuben Clark Law School
Mr. Luke Schumacher, “A Council of Grand Strategists: The Original Hope, Fear, and Intent of the U.S. Senate in Foreign Affairs,” J.D. Candidate, Stanford Law School and Ph.D Candidate, University of Virginia Department of Politics
Commenter: Prof. Jud Campbell, Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
Commenter: Prof. Tara Leigh Grove, Vinson & Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas at Austin School of Law
Commenter: Prof. Robert Miller, F. Arnold Daum Chair in Corporate Finance and Law, University of Iowa College of Law
Commenter: Prof. Brian Slocum, Stearns Weaver Miller Professor, Florida State University College of Law
Commenter: Prof. Keith Whittington, David Boies Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Moderator: Prof. Christina Mulligan, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School
This panel will explore the Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright as well as its major questions cases. What impact will overturning Chevron deference have on the major questions doctrine? How do the two doctrinal developments relate? How do they connect to the non-delegation doctrine? These and related questions will be examined.
Featuring:
Prof. Eric Bolinder, Assisant Professor of Law, Liberty University School of Law
Prof. Tara Leigh Grove, Vinson & Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas at Austin School of Law
Prof. Brian Slocum, Stearns Weaver Miller Professor, Florida State University College of Law
Moderator: Prof. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School
Featuring:
Prof. Stephanie Barclay, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Dean Rachel Rebouché, Kean Family Dean and Peter J. Liacouras Professor of Law, Temple University School of Law
Prof. Stephen Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Prof. Mary Ziegler, Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, UC Davis Law School
Moderator: Sherif Girgis, Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
Opaque algorithms shape what news stories you see on social media, dictate how artificial intelligence answers prompts, and can even decide whether applicants get a mortgage or a job interview. Amidst claims of algorithmic race, gender, and viewpoint discrimination, more and more individuals of all political affiliations are calling for greater government regulation of algorithms, while regulatory skeptics worry that government intervention will impede important technological innovation. This panel will explore the wisdom of efforts to regulate algorithms and how best to frame concerns about algorithmic errors and bias.
Featuring:
Prof. Gregory Dickinson, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Nebraska–Lincoln College of Law
Mr. Dhruva Krishna, Visiting Jurist, University of California Los Angeles School of Law
Prof. Christina Mulligan, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School
Prof. Eugene Volokh, Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution and Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California Los Angeles School of Law
Moderator: Prof. Saurabh Vishnubhakat, Professor of Law & Director, Intellectual Property and Information Law Program, Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Featuring:
Prof. Sam Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Public Law, New York University School of Law
Prof. Chimène Keitner, Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, University of California Davis School of Law
Moderator: Hon. David Stras, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard was the most important decision on affirmative action in generations, banning preferential treatment based on race in higher education admissions. How are colleges and universities complying with SFFA? What else will be necessary in order to ensure compliance? What does the next generation of cases look like? Outside of higher education, what will be the effect of SFFA? Does it apply to employment and contracting? Does it apply to gender as well as race? What does it say about disparate impact?
Featuring:
Prof. Peter Arcidiacono, William Henry Glasson Professor of Economics, Duke University
Prof. David Bernstein, University Professor of Law; Executive Director, Liberty & Law Center, George Mason University
Prof. Kyle Rozema, Professor of Law, Co-Director of the JD/PhD Program and Academic Placement, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
Prof. Sonja Starr, Julius Kreeger Professor of Law & Criminology, University of Chicago Law School
Moderator: Hon. Lisa Branch, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
The 2024 National Lawyers Convention will take place November 14-16, 2024 at the Washington Hilton in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference is "Group Identity and the Law." The conference will conclude with the annual Hon. Robert H. Bork Memorial Lecture, featuring remarks by Prof. Stephen Sachs.
Featuring:
Prof. Stephen Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
RESOLVED: That Congress Can Ban TikTok
Featuring:
Mr. Miguel Estrada, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Mr. Patrick Philbin, Partner, Torridon Law PLLC
Moderator: Prof. Eugene Volokh, Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution; Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Distinguished Research Professor, UCLA School of Law
Artificial Intelligence is now part of daily life. AI has improved efficiency, predicted outcomes with accuracy, and even created innovations. At the same time, however, AI and its capabilities are evolving faster than the laws and regulations governing its use. AI presents new challenges to intellectual property—from inventorship and authorship issues to liability. This panel will explore the intersection of AI and Intellectual Property rights. In the copyright context, it must be determined who is the owner of AI-generated works to whether it is fair use to train AI models using copyrighted works. In the patent context, it must be determined whether AI can be an inventor and whether AI can or should be used to assist in the drafting of patents. It is also not settled who has the power to regulate AI—the USPTO and other federal agencies, or only Congress? These are all questions that will eventually be answered by the courts or legislation. This panel will explore these questions and more as it looks to try and answer how we can move forward in a world filled with AI while ensuring the protection of intellectual property rights.
Featuring:
Mr. Jordan Gimbel, Associate General Counsel, Microsoft
Hon. Melissa Holyoak, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
Hon. Darrell Issa, United States Representative (CA 48th District)
Hon. Paul Redmond Michel, Former Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Moderator: Hon. Ryan T. Holte, United States Court of Federal Claims & Jurist-In-Residence Professor of Law, The University of Akron School of Law
In the twentieth century, state supreme courts and legislatures limited the practice of law to licensed law school graduates and prevented nonlawyers from investing in law firms. This regulatory structure has not yielded a sufficient supply of affordable legal services to keep pace with demand: despite government and charitable funding and pro bono work, over 90% of the basic civil legal needs of low-income Americans now go unmet.
As lawyers have taken an interest in regulatory reform in this century, some have begun to scrutinize our own profession and explore whether innovative structural changes can help close this justice gap. The experts on this panel will equip attendees to consider reform in their states by examining the pros and cons of three such changes: (1) licensing legal paraprofessionals to perform limited legal services; (2) allowing nonlawyers to invest in legal service providers; and (3) reforming legal education and licensure to increase the supply of lawyers, especially in underserved geographic and practice areas.
Featuring:
Hon. Clint Bolick, Justice, Supreme Court of Arizona
Hon. Charles Canady, Chief Justice, Florida Supreme Court
Ms. Danielle Hirsch, Managing Director, Court Consulting Division, National Center for State Courts
Ms. Lucy Ricca, Executive Director, Deborah L. Rhode Center on the Legal Profession, Stanford Law School
Moderator: Hon. J. Brett Busby, Justice, Texas Supreme Court
Featuring:
Ms. Rebecca Dormon, Labor Consultant, People Results
Mr. Pepper Crutcher, Partner, Balch & Bingham LLP
Mr. Bradford J. Kelley, Shareholder, Littler
Moderator: Hon. Chad A. Readler, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Last term, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Rahimi, which built upon the text-first, history-second methodology articulated by the Supreme Court in Heller and reaffirmed in Bruen. Many hot button Second Amendment issues are percolating through the lower courts and are likely to reach this Supreme Court in the coming terms. This panel will discuss Rahimi's impact on the text and history methodology as applied to legal challenges to "gun free zones", bans on semi-automatic rifles and "high capacity" magazines, age restrictions, and restrictions on misdemeanants. The panel will also discuss several important methodological issues that are common to many Second Amendment litigations, including the debate whether 1791 or 1868 is the correct time to determine the meaning of the Second Amendment.
Featuring:
Prof. William Merkel, Associate Professor, Charleston School of Law
Mr. Mark W. Smith, Senior Fellow, Ave Maria School of Law and Host of the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment Channel
Mr. David Thompson, Partner, Cooper & Kirk
Moderator: Hon. Amul Thapar, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
(Ticketed event)
On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society believes that it is most fitting to dedicate an annual lecture on limited government and the spirit of freedom to the memory of Barbara Olson. She had a deep commitment to the rule of law and understood well the relationship between respecting limits on government power and the preservation of freedom. And, significantly, Barbara Olson was an individual who never took freedom for granted in her own life, even in her final terrifying moments-her inspiring and energetic human spirit is a testament to what one can achieve in a world that places a premium on human freedom. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals.
Featuring:
Prof. Jonathan R. Turley, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law; Director of the Environmental Law Advocacy Center; Executive Director, Project for Older Prisoners, The George Washington University Law School
Theories of nuisance, market-share, and consumer protection liability have become increasingly popular among plaintiffs who cannot trace an alleged harm to any specific defendant. Recently, states and local governments have sought to impose market-share liability on companies based on allegedly misleading statements (or silence) about the potential effects of their products. These cases raise difficult legal issues that remain underdeveloped because the risk of a crippling damages award often pressures companies to settle claims early in litigation.
Featuring:
Mr. Theodore J. Boutrous, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Mr. Elbert Lin, Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Mr. Oramel H. Skinner, III, Executive Director, Alliance For Consumers
Moderator: Hon. William H. Pryor, Jr., Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Over the past year, college campuses have been filled with student protests and demonstrations. A large number of these protests involved students camping out on campus for weeks, taking over administrative and academic buildings, harassing and threatening other students and faculty members, and destruction of property. Many administrators have refused to discipline students or enforce their policies because of First Amendment concerns. Instead, they contend the First Amendment prohibited them from punishing the students or enforcing their policies because the students were engaged in protected speech. When it comes to protests and demonstrations, what does the First Amendment protect? When does protected speech cross the line into unprotected conduct? What duties does a public university have to protect its students from harassment and intimidation? How does a university determine what speech is likely to incite imminent violence?
This panel will examine the scope and limits of the First Amendment, especially as it relates to public colleges and universities.
Featuring:
Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law
Dean Thomas J. Miles, Dean & Clifton R. Musser Professor of Law and Economics, The University of Chicago Law School
Prof. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, Emerita, New York Law School; Former President, American Civil Liberties Union
Prof. Eugene Volokh, Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution; Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Distinguished Research Professor, UCLA School of Law
Moderator: Hon. David R. Stras, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
As international courts have addressed issues arising from the Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Hamas wars, we will explore whether engagement with the ICC and ICJ institutions is beneficial or harmful to the United States and how U.S. policymakers should approach these courts.
Feature:
Hon. Charles Brower, Judge, Iran-United States Claims Tribunal and Arbitrator Member, Twenty Essex Chambers
Prof. Diane Desierto, Professor of Law and Global Affairs, Notre Dame Law School; Faculty Director, LL.M. in International Human Rights Law; Global Director, Notre Dame Law School Global Human Rights Clinic
Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law; Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University Law
Prof. Michael A. Newton, Professor of the Practice of Law and Professor of the Practice of Political Science, Vanderbilt Law School
Moderator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Featuring a conversation addressing regulation of artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, tech platform regulation, privacy, spectrum policy, broadband funding and other government spending, and consumer protection issues.
Featuring:
Ms. Robin Colwell, Principal, BGR Government Affairs, LLC
Mr. Scott Blake Harris, Co-Founder and Managing Partner, Crest Hill Advisors
Mr. Umair Javed, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, CTIA
Prof. Mario Loyola, Research Assistant Professor, Florida International University; Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
Moderator: Hon. Michael H. Park, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Featuring:
Hon. Eric Schmitt, United States Senator, Missouri
Moderator: Mr. Elbert Lin, Former Solicitor General, West Virginia; Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Accomplishing anything of significance in this political environment requires courage. The legal industry has a few well-trodden pathways: law school, clerkship, large law firm, and perhaps a brief stint in government. Yet without courage, there is little potential for lasting impact along these pathways. While prior administrations may have emphasized conventional career paths and credentials in their selection process, there is an emerging interest in selecting for courage, independent thought, and sound judgment.
But what paths best equip future leaders to accomplish great things in public service? Does the pressure to keep the option to return to a large law firm hinder one from accomplishing great things? What should we be doing to support people who demonstrate courage - including those who make the courageous choice to balance their careers with responsibilities to family and children?
Featuring:
Ms. Libby Locke, Partner, Clare Locke LLP
Hon. Jonathan Mitchell, Principal, Mitchell Law PLLC
Hon. Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General, Tennessee
Ms. Annie Donaldson Talley, Partner, Luther Strange & Associates
MODERATOR: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Most would agree that all of these [tribalism, polarization, racism, religious enmity, and antisemitism] are bad for society. They are perhaps a particular threat in a democracy like ours, which is predicated on the idea that people of very different backgrounds and ideas can coexist peacefully. Following decades of improvement in all these areas, they seem to be resurgent in the United States. What role have the law, the courts, and the culture played in contributing to this state of affairs? How can law best be deployed to combat it and what is the role of civil society vs. law?
Featuring:
Mr. Jay Edelson, Founder & CEO, Edelson PC
Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School
Prof. David M. Schizer, Harvey R. Miller Professor of Law and Economics and Dean Emeritus, Columbia Law School
Mr. Matt Stoller, Director of Research, American Economic Libertie
Moderator: Hon. Steven J. Menashi, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
CLE credit for this event is available at On-Demand CLE.
Much has been made of the promise and concerns around AI technical advances, and guardrails that might be considered to reduce the downside of opaque quasi-algorithmic outcomes associated with current large language model approaches. This panel will examine the current AI regulatory debate and explore how current and proposed corporate and governmental AI is being shaped and normed to provide outputs that reinforce “mainstream” economic, ideological and operational norms, with the risk of vested interests defining such norms. From national security applications, autonomous vehicle safety decisions, economic predictions, pareto-optimal and social benefit determinations, and health care deployment, to how you are entertained and educated, can we control what most of us can’t understand?
Featuring:
Mr. Stewart A. Baker, Of Counsel, Steptoe & Johnson LLP
Mr. Christopher Ekren, Global Technology Counsel, Sony Corporation of America
Ms. Victoria Luxardo Jeffries, Director, United States Public Policy, Meta
Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution
Moderator: Hon. Stephen Alexander Vaden, Judge, United States Court of International Trade
CLE credit for this event is available at On-Demand CLE.
Critics have raised concerns about the inadequacy of the consumer welfare standard for the 21st century, while others defend the standard as a proven and manageable test. Has the focus on consumer welfare led to under-enforcement? Is there an objective and administrable alternative to replace it? This panel will discuss which approach to antitrust is best and ways forward to increase U.S. competitiveness and economic growth.
Featuring:
Mr. Adam Cella, Chief Counsel for the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust, House Committee on the Judiciary
Mr. Thomas DeMatteo, General Counsel, Senate Judiciary Committee
Mr. Michael Kades, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
Mr. Christopher Mufarrige, Chief of Staff and Attorney Advisor, FTC Commissioner Melissa Holyoak
Mr. Alex Okuliar, Co-Chair of Morrison Foerster’s Global Antitrust Law Practice Group, Morrison Foerster
Moderator: Hon. Jennifer Walker Elrod, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
CLE credit for this event is available at On-Demand CLE.
The Supreme Court's latest term was one of its most significant for administrative law. The Court ended Chevron deference, declared a right to a jury trial in securities fraud adjudications at the Securities and Exchange Commission, and expanded the statute of limitations to challenge agency decisions. Other leading cases included a challenge to a major Trump-era rulemaking on guns and a challenge to a significant federal environmental implementation plan. The Court's opinions have raised important questions about the separation of powers, the role of Congress, and the future of regulatory governance in America. Now that the Court has issued its rulings, the panel considers: What comes next for the regulated public, Congress, executive branch agencies, and the States?
Featuring
Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLC
Prof. Cary Coglianese, Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science; Director, Penn Program on Regulation, Penn Carey Law, University of Pennsylvania
Prof. Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
Hon. Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, Judge, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida
Moderator: Hon. Neomi Rao, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
It has been almost ten years since the advent of the ‘progressive prosecutor,’ local elected district attorneys and attorneys general throughout the country who ran on and then implemented a revolutionary new model of public prosecution. If states are the “laboratories of democracy” then there plainly has been a series of bold experiments testing the efficacy of this new model of law enforcement. Was it a success, or a failure? Has public safety and order been promoted, or jeopardized? Or is it all simply too soon to tell? Please join us as we present a panel of distinguished current and former elected officials, academics, and other experts in the field as they discuss all facets of these important questions of law, order, and the public interest.
Featuring:
Hon. John Creuzot, District Attorney, Dallas
Prof. Carissa Byrne Hessick, Anne Shea Ransdell and William Garland "Buck" Ransdell, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law
Mr. Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage Foundation
Hon. Ray Tierney, District Attorney, Suffolk County, New York
Moderator: Hon. Kevin C. Newsom, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Recent times have seen growing criticism of the Supreme Court's legitimacy, with some claiming that the Supreme Court has amassed too much governmental and political power. Such critics have proposed judicial reform to even out this perceived imbalance, suggesting changes like term limits for justices and a binding code of ethics. Opponents say, however, that these changes could undermine the authority of the Supreme Court and upset the delicate system of checks and balances between the branches of government put in place by our Constitution. These debates have led to increased polarization within the legal profession. What is the real purpose and importance of preserving an independent judiciary? How can one engage with the Court's decisions without undermining its authority? Can we champion the integrity of the Court while fostering respectful and constructive dialogue within the legal community?
Featuring:
Prof. Daniel Epps, Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis
Hon. Edith H. Jones, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Mr. Kannon K. Shanmugam, Partner, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
Prof. Stephen I. Vladeck, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Moderator: Hon. James C. Ho, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
CLE credit for this event is available at On-Demand CLE.
In recent years, the legal profession has increasingly prioritized diversity in law firm hiring and litigation leadership, driven by demands from corporate clients, alumni, and judges. Efforts to increase the representation of women and non-white lawyers have become so integral that they are now reflected in proposed formal rules, such as the FRCP 16.1, which would require judges to consider identity characteristics when selecting leadership teams for multidistrict litigation (MDL). This potential codification raises important questions about the legality and implications of identity-based preferences in the legal profession. How should client preferences for diversity be balanced with Title VII commitments, and what role should diversity of background play in law firm hiring and the selection of MDL legal teams? This panel will explore these issues, examining both the legal and policy arguments surrounding identity-based preferencing in legal employment.
Featuring:
Dean andré douglas pond cummings, Dean and Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School
Prof. Darrell D. Jackson, Winston Howard Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Wyoming College of Law
Mr. Roger Severino, Vice President, Domestic Policy & The Joseph C. and Elizabeth A. Anderlik Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
Ms. Tobi Young, Senior Vice President Legal & Chief Corporate Affairs Officer, Cognizant; Board of Directors, Halliburton
Moderator: Hon. Patrick J. Bumatay, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
In 2022, the ABA updated its Standard 303, Curriculum which relates to “cross-cultural competency” and “professional identity.” Because the ABA’s Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar is responsible for law school accreditation through an appointment from the U.S. Department of Education (and the agreement of State Bars), this change and the ways it can be implemented could have widespread implications.
This panel will discuss the nature of the obligations the revised Standard places on law schools and the scope of such terms as "cross-cultural competency" and "racism." Do these new standards require new courses or course changes? Will the new courses displace any of the old ones? Will the implementation turn out to be education or training? Does this standard create any tension with later developments in law including Students for Fair Admissions v. UNC (2023)? What role does the Department of Education and State Bars have in scrutinizing and altering the effects of this new standard?
Featuring:
Dean Michael F. Barry, Professor of Law and Former President and Dean, South Texas College of Law Houston
Dr. Dayna Bowen Matthew, Dean & Harold H. Greene Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School
Ms. Jennifer L. Rosato Perea, Managing Director, Accreditation and Legal Education, ABA
Hon. Nels Peterson, Justice, Supreme Court of Georgia
Moderator: Hon. Carlos T. Bea, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
CLE credit for this event is available at On-Demand CLE.
State and federal laws in a wide variety of settings tend to support gender transition in children. This has given rise to religious liberty and parental rights lawsuits. Conflicts include parental objections to gender ideology in public school curricula, secret gender transitions in public schools, state conversion therapy bans, denials of parental custody, foster care, and adoption, and gender transition treatment in the healthcare context. This panel will explore the intersection of the transgender legal movement, religious freedom, and parental rights.
Featuring:
Prof. Ira Lupu, F. Elwood and Eleanor Davis Professor Emeritus of Law, The George Washington University Law School
Hon. Jason Miyares, Attorney General, Virginia
Prof. Melissa Moschella, Professor of the Practice, Philosophy, McGrath Institute, University of Notre Dame
Prof. Steve Sanders, Associate Dean and Professor of Law, Indiana University Maurer School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Kyle Duncan, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
This year, in a pair of decisions known as Loper Bright, the Supreme Court overruled the Chevron doctrine. As courts begin to apply the principles announced in Loper Bright, important changes are expected to occur within the federal government and its relationship to the states. For example, Congress may begin to write federal statutes with increasing specificity, courts may begin to apply their own reasoned judgment instead of deferring to agency experts in litigation involving the Administrative Procedure Act, and the states may have greater success in asserting their authority over important legal matters within their domain.
These developments in administrative law will likely have a large effect on the realm of environmental and energy regulation. If courts can no longer presume that statutory ambiguities are implicit delegations by Congress to the Executive Branch, how ought Congress, federal agencies, and the states respond to a post-Chevron world?
Featuring:
Prof. Todd Aagaard, Professor of Law, Charles Widger School Of Law, Villanova University
Hon. Lindsay See, Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Hon. Andrew Wheeler, Partner and Head of Federal Affairs, Holland & Hart; Former EPA Administrator
Moderator: Hon. Thomas M. Hardiman, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
The importance of judicial selection and confirmation is now a point of emphasis for all presidential administrations. In 2025 and going forward, what principles and considerations will govern judicial selection (and confirmation) in a new administration, with a new Senate majority. These and other important Article III issues will be considered by our panel of experts.
Featuring:
Mr. Michael Fragoso, Chief Counsel, Office of the Republican Minority Leader
Mr. David Lat, Founder, Above the Law
Prof. Robert Luther III, Distinguished Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Prof. Carl Tobias, Williams Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Michael B. Brennan, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
The “disparate impact” approach to civil rights enforcement makes it presumptively illegal to use selection criteria that result in statistical disparities based on, inter alia, race or ethnicity. It is no defense that the use of a challenged criterion had no discriminatory motive; the only defense is if its use meets some “necessity” standard. The inevitable result is to encourage race-based decision-making when selection criteria are chosen and implemented. Yet using this approach is widespread and found in numerous statutes and regulations. Given the Supreme Court’s decision striking down racial preferences in SFFA v. Harvard, what impact will this have on the disparate-impact approach?
Featuring:
Mr. Dan Morenoff, Executive Director & Secretary, American Civil Rights Project
Mr. Joshua P. Thompson, Director of Equality and Opportunity Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation
Hon. Jenny R. Yang, Adjunct Professor of Law, New York University School of Law
Moderator: Hon. John B. Nalbandian, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
The future of the national bank system is increasingly uncertain as federal regulators have incorporated DEI and ESG into bank supervision, creating tensions with some states. Several states have responded by attempting to ban such practices, potentially creating conflicting legal duties for banks. Meanwhile, other states are challenging interest rate exportation and other aspects of state preemption, which arguably undermines the value of national charters and hampers the ability of banks and fintechs to scale nationwide. The Supreme Court's recent overruling of the Chevron doctrine adds another layer of uncertainty as federal regulators will receive reduced deference. Do these conflicts signal the end of national bank charters, and are we headed toward a red-state/blue-state banking system? This panel will explore these questions.
Featuring:
Mr. John Court, Executive Vice President, General Counsel & COO, Bank Policy Institute
Mr. Will Hild, Executive Director, Consumers’ Research
Prof. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Moderator: Hon. Ryan D. Nelson, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
By the time of the National Lawyers Convention, the American electorate will have decided on a new president and, with him or her, a new administration. What will a Donald Trump or Kamala Harris administration mean for American business? How will the new administration handle corporate tax, federal regulations, agency guidance, antitrust questions, and helming the administrative state in a post-Chevron world? How should American companies, and their in-house counsels, prepare for the next four years?
Featuring:
Hon. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, Iowa
Mr. Martine Cicconi, Partner, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
Mr. Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
Moderator: Hon. Rachel Brand, Executive Vice President of Global Governance, Chief Legal Officer & Corporate Secretary, Walmart Inc.
Over the past four years, state attorneys general have brought many significant lawsuits against the Biden administration. From border enforcement and student loan forgiveness, to Title IX rules and environmental regulations, states have brought the executive branch into court over divisive legal questions. Some of these suits remain active. This panel of experts will recap the most notable cases of the past presidential term and discuss what the recent election could mean for the future.
Featuring:
Mr. T. Elliot Gaiser, Solicitor General, Ohio
Mr. Eric Olson, Former Solicitor General of Colorado; Partner, Olson Grimsley
Hon. Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General, Tennessee
Moderator: Hon. Britt C. Grant, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
The generation of political leaders that produced the landmark legislation of the Civil Rights Era no doubt saw themselves as working to make one’s race, ethnicity, religion, sex, etc. matter less to one’s future prospects. And in many ways, they clearly succeeded. They would almost certainly be surprised and disappointed to learn how much emphasis those factors are still getting. Why has this happened? Is the problem that our focus on issues of race, ethnicity, sex, religion, gender, etc. has gone too far? Or is the problem that we haven’t yet focused on them enough? To what extent has the law helped create the current state of affairs? How can the law help us move in a better direction?
Featuring:
Mr. Jonathan Berry, Managing Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC
Prof. Tyler Austin Harper, Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies, Bates College
Hon. Gail L. Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law
Prof. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law
Ms. Heather Mac Donald, Thomas W. Smith Fellow, Manhattan Institute; Contributing Editor, City Journal
Moderator: Hon. Paul Matey, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
The Supreme Court’s most recent term was one of significance with respect to the separation of powers. The Court held that the President is immune from criminal prosecution for most official acts. The Court also overturned the Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright v. Raimondo and determined that administrative agencies typically cannot impose civil penalties against individuals without a jury trial in SEC v. Jarkesy. These cases followed not long after the Supreme Court’s express recognition of the major-questions doctrine in West Virginia v. EPA. Yet the Supreme Court also upheld the CFPB’s novel funding method in the face of an Appropriation Clause challenge, issued an important opinion bearing on facial challenges in Moody v. NetChoice, and rejected a petition asking that it reconsider the nondelegation doctrine. What is driving these decisions—originalism, history, or pragmatic concerns? What issues might be ripe for further development or reexamination—nondelegation, removal restrictions on officers, the major questions doctrine, or something else? And how should advocates think about separation of powers challenges moving forward, in the context of both strategic and corporate litigation?
Featuring
Mr. Russell Balikian, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Ms. Zhonette Brown, General Counsel and Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Mr. Roman Martinez, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP
Mr. Luke McCloud, Partner, Williams & Connolly
Moderator: Hon. Daniel Bress, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Last year, the Supreme Court decided the cases of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Student for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (SFFA). The Court held that the admissions programs of Harvard and UNC violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The decision has been interpreted broadly as outlawing race affirmative action in college and university admissions. However, in footnote 4 of the opinion, the Court indicated that its decision “does not address the issue” of race-based admissions programs at the military academies. Shortly after the release of SFFA, Students for Fair Admissions sued both West Point and the Naval Academy to directly challenge their admissions programs. This webinar will provide a litigation update in these cases and explore the ramifications of the exemption to the SFFA holding created by footnote 4 of the opinion.
Featuring:
John E. McGlothlin, Special Projects Officer, National Guard Bureau, Office of the Inspector General; Adjunct Professor, University of Maryland Global Campus
John J. Park, Jr., General Counsel, Indigo Energy
(Moderator) Devon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity
CLE credit for this event is available at On-Demand CLE.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act outlaws discrimination on the basis of sex in employment. In addition, in 1972, The Higher Education Act was amended to prohibit the exclusion of any person from any federally funded educational program or activity on the basis of sex. These seemingly simple prohibitions have recently been the focus of considerable attention. How, for example, do they apply to individuals whose gender identity is seemingly at odds with their biological sex? What does the Bostock decision say about their situation? Is a federally funded school required to assign bathrooms, showers, changing rooms, and sleeping quarters based on gender identity? Is an employer required to do so? If not required, is it permissible for these entities to do so under the law? What about athletics? What about prisons? And quite apart from what the law is now, what should it be? What about what is often called “gender affirming” treatment? Should a parent be able to obtain such treatment for a child? Should a parent be able to refuse it? What is the role of schools? Should the government be obligated to fund “gender affirming” care for prisoners or individuals on relief? Finally, does or should the law require others to accept a person’s preferred gender identity—at work, at school, elsewhere—and/or adjust their speech to reflect that identity?
Featuring:
Prof. Doriane Coleman, Thomas L. Perkins Distinguished Professor of Law, Duke Law School
Ms. Erin Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom
Hon. Andrea Lucas, Commissioner, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Prof. Sarath Sanga, Professor of Law & Co-Director, Center for the Study of Corporate Law, Yale Law School
Mr. D. John Sauer, Principle, James Otis Law Group LLC; Former Solicitor General, Missouri
Moderator: Ms. Jennifer Braceras, Founder, Independent Women’s Law Center; Former Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
This year's roll-out of the new Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) has changed postsecondary education for students, institutions, and federal policymakers. This evolving landscape will be explored by Emmanuel Guillory from the American Council on Education, Steve Taylor from the Stand Together Trust, and Diane Auer Jones, a former acting undersecretary of the Department of Education. The informative discussion will be moderated by Jim Blew, a co-founder from the Defense of Freedom Institute.
Join us on July 26 at 3 pm EST for a lively discussion on the far reaches of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA).
Featuring:
(Moderator) Jim Blew, Co-Founder, Defense of Freedom Institute
Diane A. Jones, Former principal deputy under secretary, U.S. Department of Education
Steven Taylor, Director and Senior Fellow, Education & Workforce, Stand Together Trust
Emmanual Guillory, Senior Director, Government Relations, American Council on Education
Join Webinar
On June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court issued their opinion in Murthy v. Missouri. Originally filed as Missouri v. Biden, this case concerns whether federal government officials violated five individuals’ freedom of speech by “coercing” or “significantly encouraging” social media companies to remove or demote particular content from their platforms.
Experts discuss and react to this 6-3 ruling.
Featuring:
Moderator: Brent Skorup, Legal Fellow, Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Insitute
Speakers:
Corbin K. Barthold, Internet Policy Counsel and Director of Appellate Litigation
Josh Divine, Solicitor General, Missouri Attorney General's Office
Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
With conflict rising across the globe and a presidential election this year, the United States is positioned to reevaluate its foreign policy approach to current and future challenges. This panel will examine the role the US should play in global affairs. What should American engagement look like today? This discussion will explore whether the US should recalibrate its grand strategy to effectively address emerging conflicts, technological advancements, and global threats.
By evaluating past strategies and envisioning future directions, the panel aims to offer insights and opinions on the future of US foreign policy in the 21st century.
Featuring:
Lt. General (Ret.) Keith Kellogg, Co-Chair, Center for American Security
Dr. Kori Schake, Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute
Matthew R. A. Heiman, Chief Legal & Administrative Officer, Waystar Health
Lunch will be served at 12:00 p.m. with remarks from Prof. Eliot A. Cohen to follow.
The address is titled "Can America Remain a Global Power?"
Over the past two years, a series of regional conflicts has resulted in diplomatic tensions and increased conflict. The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine has raised concerns about the future of Europe's diplomatic landscape. Additionally, renewed conflict in the Middle East, particularly following the October 7th terror attack, has led to questions about the future of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the threat posed by Iran, and the stability of relations between the West and the Arab world. Furthermore, China's persistent aggression towards Taiwan has heightened concerns about the potential for conflict in the Pacific region.
This panel will examine how the US can effectively prioritize its engagement in these regions. Panelists will offer perspectives on whether greater attention should be given to Asia, Europe, or the Middle East, and how to address the specific challenges in each region.
Featuring:
Michael Allen, Managing Director, Beacon Global Strategies LLC
Mark Dubowitz, Chief Executive Officer, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Prof. Julian Ku, Interim Dean, Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law & Faculty Director of International Programs, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University
Moderator: Jamil N. Jaffer, Adjunct Professor, NSI Founder, and Director, National Security Law & Policy Program, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
At the Federal Communications Commission’s November 2023 meeting, the agency approved rules aimed at preventing and eliminating digital discrimination. These rules are a culmination of a controversial multi-year proceeding, kicked off by Section 60506 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021.
In this webinar, a panel of experts will discuss policies and issues underlying the FCC’s rules, challenges that companies may face in compliance with the rules, as well as the issues before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the FCC’s digital discrimination order is being challenged. Panelists will also discuss some of the potential future obligations that remain open in the FCC’s proceeding.
Featuring:
Diana Eisner, Vice President, Policy & Advocacy, USTelecom
Denny Law, General Manager / CEO, Golden West Telecommunications
Dr. Alisa Valentin, Broadband Policy Director, Public Knowledge
Moderator: Danielle Thumann, Senior Attorney, Government Relations, Crown Castle
To register, click the link above.
Join us for a closing banquet and the Arthur N. Rupe Debate, entitled "Resolved: The Separation of Powers is a Dangerous, Extraconstitutional Maxim." Special code on nametag required for admission.
Featuring:
Prof. Noah Feldman, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law and Director, Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law, Harvard Law School
Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School
Moderator: Hon. Steven J. Menashi, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Suppose we don’t like how our governmental powers are separated. Perhaps we think the executive branch has too much power. Or perhaps we think that it is doing more than the original meaning of “the executive power” would suggest, but we think that is a good thing. What are the legitimate methods of constitutional change in our republic? Must we amend the Constitution? How should an originalist approach these questions?
Featuring:
Prof. Sherif Girgis, Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Lawrence Lessig, Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership, Harvard Law School
Prof. Stephen E. Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Moderator: Hon. Britt C. Grant, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
New presidential administrations start with a flurry of administrative actions. These fresh rules, guidelines, and procedures in turn face judicial scrutiny from the moment they are finalized. Oversight from the judiciary can keep agencies accountable and within the bounds of the law. But when judges get the final say on everything the executive does, policies can take years—even decades—to implement and can fluctuate wildly with the ebbs and flows of litigation. Has something gone awry with the way judges are “saying what the law is”?
Featuring:
Prof. John C. Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Amanda L. Tyler, Shannon C. Turner Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley School of Law
Prof. Jeannie Suk Gersen, John H. Watson, Jr. Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Prof. Gary S. Lawson, Associate Dean for Intellectual Life and Philip S. Beck Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Benjamin Beaton, Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
Many critics of modern administrative law want a world where Congress does more things, and the executive does less—which would lead to relative stability across administrations. Simultaneously, many also want their vote in presidential elections to have meaningful policy consequences. Between these two competing intuitions lies a tension at the heart of much contemporary political strife, which, of course, has a great deal to do with who controls Congress and who controls the White House.
Featuring:
Prof. Julian Davis Mortenson, James G. Phillipp Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP
Prof. Jed Handelsman Shugerman, Professor of Law and Joseph Lipsett Scholar, Boston University School of Law
Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Moderator: Hon. Jennifer Walker Elrod, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Professor Cass Sunstein and Judge Raymond Kethledge will open the symposium with a fireside chat exploring the conceptual question of why states choose to separate powers along with the relationship between the separation of powers and the rule of law.
Featuring
Hon. Raymond M. Kethledge, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School
Prof. Cass R. Sunstein, Robert Walmsley University Professor, Harvard Law School
Featuring:
Hon. Joseph Deters, Justice, Supreme Court of Ohio
Hon. Michael Donnelly, Justice, Supreme Court of Ohio
Hon. Lisa Forbes, Judge, 8th District Court of Appeals, State of Ohio
Hon. Daniel Hawkins, Judge, Franklin County Court
Hon. Megan Shanahan, Judge, Hamilton County Court
Hon. Melody Stewart, Justice, Supreme Court of Ohio
Moderator: Professor Chris Walker, University of Michigan Law School
Zionism: An Indigenous People’s Fight for its Ancient Homeland
Judge Altman led us on a journey from 1208 BC (when the Merneptah Stele, the first extra-biblical mention of the People of Israel, was composed) to Israel's current war with Hamas. Along the way, Judge Altman showed that Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel, that Jews have lived in (and often ruled) the land of Israel for thousands of years, and that the State of Israel is a legitimate sovereign over the lands it now governs. Judge Altman also addressed--and refuted--claims that Israel is an apartheid state, that Gaza was in any way occupied by Israel on October 7, and that Jews have obstructed the establishment of a Palestinian state. Finally, Judge Altman explained that Israel's military response to the horrific terror attacks of October 7 was (and remains) proportional under international law.
Featuring:
Hon. Roy K. Altman, U.S District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Perspectives on the Role of the Nation’s Chief Legal Officer
A Conversation with Three U.S. Attorneys General
Featuring:
Hon. John Ashcroft, Former U.S Attorney General (2001-2005)
Hon. William P. Barr, Former U.S Attorney General (1991-1993 and 2019-2020)
Hon. Jeff Sessions, Former U.S Attorney General (2017-2018)
Moderator: Beth Williams, Board Member, U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy
Lawmakers and courts have been reforming Florida’s tort and insurance laws for decades. From expansion of insurance bad faith and contraction of comparative fault in the 1990’s, to restrictions on medical malpractice suits in the 2000’s, to changes in tort and insurance litigation in the 2020’s, the legal landscape shifted dramatically. This panel will examine the latest reforms in the context of recent history, and it will debate where Florida policy should go from here.
Featuring:
Kansas R. Gooden, Shareholder & Practice Group Leader, Boyd & Jenerette, PA
Fred Karlinsky, Shareholder and Global Co-chair, Greenberg Traurig
William Large, President, Florida Justice Reform Institute
Hon. Paul Renner, Speaker, Florida House of Representatives
Prof. Jay Tidmarsh, Judge James J. Clynes, Jr. Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
Moderator: Pat Kilbane, Partner, General Counsel & Wealth Advisor, Ullmann Wealth Partners, President of Jacksonville Lawyers Chapter
The panel will discuss how these decisions are transforming the admissions process in higher education and the impact on the legal profession. Included in the discussion will be the response from academia, the permissible limits of the use of race in admissions after these decisions, and what impact this is expected to have on corporate America and the legal profession.
Featuring:
Prof. Tracey Maclin, Raymond & Miriam Ehrlich Chair in US Constitutional Law , University of Florida Levin College of Law
Cameron Norris, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC
Devon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity
Moderator: Hon. Meredith Sasso, Justice, Florida Supreme Court
The state and federal bench has transformed in recent years, with more textualist/originalist judges appointed or elected. These changes are influencing how advocates should prepare to make winning arguments. A panel of jurists and leading litigators will offer their best advice to young advocates in making successful oral arguments and incorporating originalism and textualism into their briefs. They will offer their perspectives on how litigation tactics might change, if at all, at the appellate or trial court levels. They will also discuss why litigators play such a key role in encouraging textualist and originalist decisions.
Featuring:
Whitney Hermandorfer, Director of Strategic Litigation Unit and Assistant Solicitor General, Office of the Tennessee Attorney General
Hon. Bobby Long, Judge, 1st District Court of Appeal, Florida
Hon. Jay Mitchell, Associate Justice, Alabama Supreme Court
Ed Wenger, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC
Moderator: Hon. Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida
The citizen-initiative process allows the People of Florida to propose amendments to the state constitution, subject to Supreme Court review. But what is the appropriate scope of judicial review of such ballot initiatives? Does the single-subject rule enable outcome-driven judicial decision-making? This panel will discuss these questions and others in the context of the Adult Personal Use of Marijuana and the Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion initiatives.
Featuring:
Daniel Bell, Chief Deputy Solicitor General, Office of Florida Attorney General
Anastasia Boden, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
Hon. Alan Lawson, Shareholder, Lawson Huck Gonzalez PLLC
Prof. Jonathan Marshfield, Associate Professor of Law, University of Florida Levin College of Law
Moderator: Hon. Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe, Judge, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida
It has been said that American-style split sovereignty provides the people a “double security” for their liberties. And a distinct security too: where the Framers’ primary restraint on the avarice of the United States was the enumeration of its powers, each state is omnipotent and yet typically bound by a thicker conception of the proper ends of government. But these separate sovereigns interact in unique and sometimes puzzling ways that leave the state of the vertical separation of powers in flux. And given that “split[ting] the atom of sovereignty,” as Justice Kennedy characterized it in US Term Limits v. Thornton, is a uniquely American contribution, is it really necessary to secure the people’s liberty?
Featuring
Prof. Maureen Brady, Louis D. Brandeis Professor of Law and Deputy Dean, Harvard Law School
Hon. Sarah K. Campbell, Justice, Tennessee Supreme Court
Hon. James E. Tierney, Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School and former Attorney General, Maine
Prof. Ernest A. Young, Alston & Bird Distinguished Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Traditionally, education has been seen as instilling the common shared civic values that Americans have held for since the nation’s founding. As the educational establishment has become increasingly more progressive, many states have begun to offer alternatives to traditional public-school education, particularly in the wake of the Covid pandemic when many schools were shut down. This has included laws that allow for educational savings accounts, charter schools, and home-schooling. However, these proposals have met fierce opposition from the educational establishment, legislatures, and education unions. At the heart of this opposition is access to funding and the degree to which parents have the right to make educational decisions for their children. Will education choice laws restore balance to American education? How does this battle affect the trust in America’s educational system? Are there proposals that all sides agree upon that can restore a sense of shared civic values? How do these battles affect local school board races and what does that mean for representative government? Panelists will answer these questions as well as address some of the key educational questions affecting the Western States.
Featuring:
Hon. Clint Bolick Moderator, Justice, Arizona Supreme Court
Cara Fitzpatrick, Story Editor, Chalkbeat National
Tim Keller, Executive Director, The Institute for Justice Arizona Chapter
Erin Valdez, Policy Director, Next Generation Texas
From the 1960s onward, election lawyers on the political left focused on securing and expanding voting access. Lawyers on the political right focused on ensuring the integrity and accuracy of the voting process. Now, most academic literature suggests that there's fairly little disenfranchisement and fairly little voter fraud. Despite this evidence, the voting process has become increasingly controversial in recent years, with increasing attacks on election integrity and voting access. This rhetoric has all led to decreased voter trust in the process. Headed into another presidential election year, panelists will consider whether recent developments in mail-in voting, voter ID, and voter harvesting laws, among other issues, merit the decreased trust voters have in the process and how election lawyers should respond.
Featuring:
Audrey Perry Martin, Partner, Gober Group
Hon. Michael T. Liburdi Moderator, Judge, United States District Court, District of Arizona
Stephen I. Richer, County Recorder, Maricopa County
Bradley Schrager, Attorney, Bravo Schrager LLP
All levels of the judiciary have faced increased attacks on their independence in recent years. Even trial court judges have faced increased scrutiny, particularly those in single-judge districts and those who have granted nationwide injunctions. “Reform” proposals such as adding justices, term limits, ethics codes, abolishing blue slips, and limiting the Court’s jurisdiction have been proposed by critics to limit the power of the courts. However, these proposals are nothing new: in decades past, when the ideological balance of the Court was different, similar proposals were floated by those who sought to limit the role and influence of the courts. What’s changed? What is the role of the organized bar, if any, in defending judicial independence? How, if at all, has the increased politicization of the judicial confirmation process affected judicial independence? What does all of this mean for trust in the judiciary? And are there changes that should be considered that are both constitutional and would receive bipartisan support? Should conservatives be more aggressive in defending attacks against the judiciary? Panelists will discuss these and other questions in considering judicial independence and the people’s trust in the judiciary.
Featuring:
Hon. Carlos T. Bea Moderator, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Benjamin M. Flowers, Partner, Ashbrook Byrne Kresge LLC; Former Solicitor General, State of Ohio
Prof. Michael D. Ramsey, Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation, Professor of Law; Director, International & Comparative Law Programs, University of San Diego School of Law
Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
Debra Wong Yang, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Join the DC Young Lawyers Chapter and the George Mason Student Chapter for an evening conversation and reception.
Featuring:
Prof. Jennifer Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law and Co-Executive Director, C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Thomas McCarthy, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC; Adjunct Professor, George Mason University Scalia Law
Prof. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Doors open at 6 with the program to begin promptly at 6:30. A reception will follow.
This event is free to attend.
On Wednesday, November 29, the Harvard Student Chapter held a conversation, produced in partnership with the Harvard Alumni for Free Speech, featuring Prof. Randall Kennedy and Prof. Nadine Strossen to commemorate the 164th anniversary of Frederick Douglass's "Plea for Free Speech in Boston."
Featuring:
Prof. Randall Kennedy, Michael R. Klein Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Prof. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law Emerita, New York Law School; Former President, American Civil Liberties Union
Collegiality and the presumption that opposing counsel work together in good faith are bedrocks of the American legal profession, as well as unpopular ideas and clients being able to obtain competent representation and equal access to justice under the law. In recent years, there has been an increase in disruptive activity in law schools. We have seen law students declare ideas "too harmful" for open debate and try to “cancel” or “shame” anyone who challenges their views. We have also seen instances where law students shout down invited speakers, even federal judges. But today's law students are tomorrow's lawyers. How should the legal profession prepare to deal with these recent trends on campus? What’s the responsibility of faculty and administrators to model and educate on appropriate behavior in an academic community and in the legal profession? Should there be consequences for students that engage in disruptive activity in law school? Should legal employers be concerned how these students will handle representing clients and making arguments that do not align with their own views? Should clients be worried about hiring lawyers that have personally disrupted an event by a judge? Our panel will feature leaders from all the major institutions that will have to answer these important questions: academia, the courts, law firms, and in-house legal departments.
Featuring:
Robert Ahdeih, Dean and Anthony G. Buzbee Endowed Dean's Chair and Vice President for Professional Schools and Programs, Texas A&M University
Hon. Jimmy Blacklock, Justice, Supreme Court of Texas
Gregg Costa, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute
J. Ammon Smartt, General Counsel, North America; Global Lead Counsel, Treasury, WTW
Moderator: Hon. Reed O’Connor, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas
Litigation and legislation involving complex issues regarding gender identity are at the forefront of public interest. States and other authorities face questions about legality, morality, or advisability of treatment for minors. Courts are being asked to adjudicate who can participate in sex-segregated sporting competitions. Advocates on all sides of these complex gender identity issues portray their position as a matter of fairness. When minors are involved all sides claim to seek to protect the best interest of the child and there is not a clear ideological breakdown in terms of whether states should adopt a parents rights approach, which cautions deference to parents to protect their child’s best interests, versus those who advocate for state intervention to protect the child. In both red and blue states, advocacy for the respective ideological approaches can draw opposing conclusions, wherein, for example, some states are banning medical intervention for minors over parents’ objections and other states are permitting medical intervention for minors over parents’ objections. Our panel today will discuss these and other legal issues facing state governments, parents, and children as they work to navigate these new legal challenges.
Featuring:
Christiana Kiefer, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
Prof. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
Shannon Minter, Legal Director, National Center for Lesbian Rights
Christopher Mills, Principal, Spero Law, LLC
Moderator: Hon. Elizabeth Kerr, Justice, Second Court of Appeals, State of Texas
Featuring:
Prof. J. Joel Alicea, Co-Director, Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition, Assistant Professor of Law, Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America
Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Founding Director, Georgetown Center for the Constitution
Prof. Richard H. Fallon, Story Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Prof. Stephen E. Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Moderator: Hon. Neomi Rao, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
The 2023 National Lawyers Convention will take place November 9-11, 2023 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference is "Originalism on the Ground." The final day of the conference will feature the fifteenth annual Rosenkranz Debate.
RESOLVED: States Can Constitutionally Regulate the Content Moderation Policies of Facebook and Twitter
Featuring:
Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law
Mr. Clark Neily, Senior Vice President for Legal Studies, Cato Institute
Moderator: Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Professor of Law, Georgetown School of Law
In patent and copyright law, injunctions are now a subject of significant policy debate. Innovators say they are unable to stop predatory infringement. Creators state they are unable to stop large-scale piracy websites. If so, this undermines the rewards promised by the intellectual property system and devalues the commercial assets that drive the global innovation economy in new technologies and creative works. Others state that intellectual property owners use injunctions to hold up innovation or chill legitimate commercial activity. This panel will discuss the role of injunctions in facilitating or constraining commercialization of patented technologies and copyrighted works, and what the current state of the law portends for the future, such as in the development of next-generation innovations like AI and its use of creative works.
Featuring:
Hon. John W. Holcomb, United States District Court, Central District of California
Prof. Kristen Jakobsen Osenga, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law
Ms. Laurie Self, Senior Vice President & Counsel, Government Affairs, Qualcomm
Ms. Laura Sheridan, Head of Patent Policy, Google
Moderator: Hon. Ryan T. Holte, U.S. Court of Federal Claims; Jurist-In-Residence Professor of Law, The University of Akron School of Law
Overflow: Chinese Room
Oral argument was held in U.S. v. Rahimi on November 7, 2023. The case asks whether 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(8), which prohibits possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders violates the Second Amendment on its face. What does the Court's jurisprudence foretell about the decision? Is there an obvious originalist answer?
Featuring:
Prof. William G. Merkel, Associate Professor, Charleston School of Law
Prof. Mark W. Smith, Senior Fellow, Ave Maria School of Law
Mr. David H. Thompson, Managing Partner, Cooper & Kirk
Moderator: Hon. Lawrence VanDyke, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Overflow: Cabinet & Senate Rooms
Is the National Labor Relations Board doing more than any other federal agency to impose broad restrictions on non-coercive speech, based exclusively on whether the speaker is an employer? Under other statutes, speech prohibitions require evidence of actual threats, unlawful retaliation or potential injury to health and safety, and the National Labor Relations Act expressly protects the right to express “views,” “argument” and “opinion” unless the message “contains” an illegal threat or promise. The NLRB General Counsel is prosecuting numerous complaints claiming it is “inherently” coercive and “per se” unlawful for employers to address certain subjects in the workplace.
This session will involve diverse views about important questions: Where do these cases leave the First Amendment? Does commerce regulation override the First Amendment? Does the NLRB have authority to prohibit workplace discussions by employers regarding certain subjects? And what role exists in this critical area for the courts?
Featuring:
Hon. Philip A. Miscimarra, Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Craig Becker, General Counsel, American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations
Moderator: Hon. Chad A. Readler, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Featuring:
Prof. John C. Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Hon. Randolph Moss, United States District Court, District of Columbia
Hon. Andrew S. Oldham, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Prof. Jed H. Shugerman, Boston University School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
The U.S. Supreme Court’s originalist jurisprudence has been on display in its most recent terms – consider the constitutional analysis in major cases like Bruen and Dobbs. But is the Court’s originalism sound? In his newly released book, Mere Natural Law, Professor Hadley Arkes argues that the Court’s ascendant mode of interpretation insufficiently relies upon the natural moral law. Critics assert that such reliance would be difficult, if not impossible, to moor to objectively discernible standards. This panel brings together several of the most formidable constitutional scholars of a generation to discuss natural law and constitutional conservatism alongside Professor Arkes.
Featuring:
Prof. Hadley P. Arkes, Founder and Director, James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights and the American Founding & Edward N. Ney Professor in American Institutions Emeritus, Amherst College
Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Hon. Edith H. Jones, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Moderator: Prof. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence & Director, James Madison Program, Princeton University
Overflow: Chinese Room
(Ticketed event)
On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society believes that it is most fitting to dedicate an annual lecture on limited government and the spirit of freedom to the memory of Barbara Olson. She had a deep commitment to the rule of law and understood well the relationship between respecting limits on government power and the preservation of freedom. And, significantly, Barbara Olson was an individual who never took freedom for granted in her own life, even in her final terrifying moments-her inspiring and energetic human spirit is a testament to what one can achieve in a world that places a premium on human freedom. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals.
Featuring:
Ms. Bari Weiss, Founder & Editor, The Free Press
Introduction: Mr. Theodore W. Ullyot, Co-Chairman, Board of Visitors, The Federalist Society
Recent years have seen unprecedented controversies about election rules, including mail-in ballots and drop boxes, partisan and racial gerrymandering, early voting, ballot harvesting, and methods of vote counting. Because election laws have partisan consequences, the legislators who make election laws, the officials who administer elections, and the judges who decide election cases are often suspected of exercising power so as to increase their own side’s electoral chances. As we look ahead to future elections, this panel will consider what it means to have a fair election process and how much deference judges should pay to the determinations of officials whose actions in formulating and applying election laws may have partisan motivations.
Featuring:
Hon. Michael G. Adams, Secretary of State, Commonwealth of Kentucky
Prof. Richard Briffault, Joseph P. Chamberlain Professor of Legislation, Columbia Law School
Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School
Prof. Richard H. Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law
Hon. Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law, Capital University Law School; Former Commissioner, Federal Election Commission
Moderator: Hon. Thomas M. Hardiman, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Featuring:
Hon. Stewart Baker, Of Counsel, Steptoe & Johnson LLP
Hon. Beth A. Williams, Board Member, United States Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
Mr. Gene C. Schaerr, Partner, Schaerr Jaffe LLP
Prof. John Yoo, Emanuel Heller Professor of Law, University of California Berkeley School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Paul Matey, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Updated 12/20/2023: The Colorado Supreme Court recently decided Former President Donald Trump in ineligible to appear on the 2024 ballot. Read that decision here.
Featuring:
Prof. William Baude, Professor of Law and Faculty Director, Constitutional Law Institute, University of Chicago Law School
Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution
Moderator: Prof. Julia D. Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law and Joseph C. Carter, Jr. Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
In recent months, the U.S. Senate confirmed a third Democratic Commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission, putting the agency in full force for the first time since January 2021. This panel will focus on the FCC’s likely agenda as we look to 2024. It will also explore the bounds of the Communications Act of 1934, as updated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, when applied to modern technology, areas for possible legislative reform, and how the existing regulatory authority provided by Congress impacts the Commission's initiatives in the year ahead.
Featuring:
Hon. Jonathan Adelstein, President & CEO, The Wireless Infrastructure Association; Former Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
Hon. Mignon Clyburn, Principal, MLC Strategies, LLC; Former Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
Hon. Nathan Simington, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
Moderator: Hon. Michael H. Park, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
This year the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. The Court held that the admissions programs of Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court’s ruling elevates a colorblind reading of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the college admissions context, the decision makes unconstitutional certain policies that would favor one applicant over another on the basis of that applicant’s race. College admissions offices across the country will have to alter the policies they’ve used for decades. How will they adapt? Will facially race-neutral policies aiming to achieve a desired racial balance for accepted classes be created as a proxy? Will colleges attempt to sidestep the ruling or find legally permissible means of achieving their objectives? If so, how will the courts respond?
Some observers argue that the decision in SFFA should be expected to affect diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts outside of college admissions. Will public and private employers have to change their hiring practices? Will competitive K-12 schools adjust their admissions policies? What about scholarships? Government contracting? How far-reaching will the Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment ultimately be?
This panel will provide a comprehensive review of SFFA and explore its consequences.
Featuring:
Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale Law School
Hon. Gail L. Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law
Prof. Randall L. Kennedy, Michael R. Klein Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Mr. Devon Westhill, President & General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity
Moderator: Hon. Stephen A. Vaden, United States Court of International Trade
Overflow: Cabinet & Senate Rooms
The administrative state - the agencies comprising the Executive Branch of the U.S. federal government - has exploded in size and reach since 1946 when President Truman signed the Administrative Procedure Act into law. The APA has been amended a bit since then, but has it kept up with current challenges? While the Executive Branch has been growing, the other two branches of government have been changing as well. Congress has increasingly tended to delegate authority to agencies. And courts are changing their views not only of how much leeway agencies have in interpreting and applying statutes, but also of what methodology courts themselves should employ when interpreting statutes, including the APA. This panel will discuss how these changes impact the government and the governed.
Featuring:
Hon. Steven Bradbury, Distinguished Fellow, Executive Vice President’s Office, The Heritage
Prof. Emily Bremer, Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Ronald M. Levin, William R. Orthwein Distinguished Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis School of Law
Mr. Andrew Tutt, Senior Associate, Arnold & Porter
Moderator: Hon. Steven J. Menashi, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Overflow: Chinese Room
Featuring:
Hon. Lina M. Khan, Chair, Federal Trade Commission
Prof. Todd J. Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia, Law School, George Mason University
No one maintains that the Court has always and forever been originalist in its orientation. By any definition of "originalism," there is a vast body of case law that does not conform to it.
How do and should modern originalists - and here one might specifically include lower-court judges who consider themselves originalist - handle this case law? Do non-originalist precedents count for nothing, no matter the expectations built upon them? If they count, how much do they count? Given the interconnectedness of the Constitution's provisions and structure, does it make sense to be "originalist" in some respects and some contexts but not others? Does originalism itself provide means to answer, or even address, these questions or does one necessarily have to step outside originalism to establish its relationship to precedent?
Featuring:
Prof. Tara Leigh Grove, Vinson & Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas at Austin School of Law
Prof. Randy Kozel, Fritz Duda Family Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Gary Lawson, William Fairfield Warren Distinguished Professor, Boston University School of Law
Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
Moderator: Hon. William H. Pryor Jr., United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Overflow: Chinese Room
The Supreme Court’s decisions in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis and in Groff v. DeJoy posed issues about religious freedom in the workplace and religiously motivated speech in the marketplace. This panel will consider the cases and their implications for religious freedom, especially how future cases might apply the tests articulated by the Court for “substantial costs” to a business for making an accommodation in Groff, and for what counts as expressive messages protected against the application of state anti-discrimination laws under 303 Creative. The panel will also consider the broader question of if there is value in accommodating religion in the workplace despite conflicts with employer preferences, and likewise, if there is a value in accommodating businesses (especially small businesses, where this typically arises) in light of broader societal preferences (such as non-discrimination law). Observers indicate that Title VII represents statutory values and 303 Creative raises Free Exercise constitutional values, but both cases pose questions about making room for faith in public life.
Featuring:
Prof. William Eskridge, Alexander M. Bickel Professor of Public Law, Yale Law School
Ms. Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
Mr. Aaron Streett, Chairman, Supreme Court and Constitutional Law Practice, Baker Botts LLP
Mr. Adam Unikowsky, Partner, Jenner & Block LLP
Moderator: Hon. S. Kyle Duncan, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Overflow: Cabinet & Senate Rooms
In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has emphasized the federalist nature of our national Constitution and the importance of preserving state sovereignty. This trend is evident in several of the Court's decisions – Dobbs most notable among them – that have recognized and reinforced the authority of individual states in matters of health, safety, and morals. As a result of this return to federalism, some of the nation’s most interesting and groundbreaking legal work is being done at the state level. In particular, state constitutional and statutory provisions that used to be subsumed by federal law or judicial precedent – restrictions on abortion, requirements for post-conviction review, grants for religious schooling, and so on – now matter in their own right. On this panel, several state supreme court justices will discuss what the ascendance of federalism means for their states and state courts, as well as how this shift will impact the teaching and practice of law across the nation.
Featuring:
Hon. Rebecca Bradley, Wisconsin Supreme Court
Hon. David N. Wecht, Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Hon. Evan A. Young, Supreme Court of Texas
Moderator: Hon. Carlos T. Bea, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Stare Decisis, a Latin term meaning “let it stand,” is a key element of how American law is interpreted, applied, and adjudicated. When applied, it leads courts to stand by decided cases, to uphold precedents, and/or to maintain former adjudications. How exactly that principle should be applied, however, is a topic of some debate. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court held that a proper application of stare decisis required an assessment of the strength of the grounds on which the prior precedent was based. That articulation has led some to question: what are the implications of applying that conception of stare decisis to the Court’s constitutional criminal jurisprudence under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments? What might be its effect on those rights and remedies?
Featuring:
Hon. John F. Bash, III, Partner, Quinn Emanuel
Mr. Michael Caruso, Federal Public Defender, Southern District of Florida
Prof. Meghan J. Ryan, Co-Director, Tsai Center for Law, Science and Innovation, Altshuler Distinguished Teaching Professor, and Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law
Prof. John Stinneford, Edward Rood Eminent Scholar Chair, Professor of Law, & Senior Fellow, Hamilton Center for Classical and Civic Education, Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Moderator: Hon. Amul Thapar, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Overflow: Chinese Room
Article III of the Constitution vests the “judicial Power” in “one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Our founding document recognizes that the Supreme Court stands apart from the rest of the federal judiciary. Yet, Congress has long regulated several aspects of the high court, including its appellate jurisdiction, rules for establishing a quorum, and standards for recusal. Some critics argue that Congress should go further to regulate ethics on the Supreme Court. Some proposals would require the Justices to adopt an ethics code. Other proposals would impose one on the Justices. This panel will explore originalist perspectives on ethics and the Supreme Court, in particular considering these questions: When it comes to establishing or even enforcing ethical standards for Supreme Court justices, is there a role under the Constitution for Congress? Is it true that Congress has the power (or even without that explicit power) regulate the high court's quorum and recusal standards? And, as a matter of prudence, should Congress take these steps? In Federalist No. 78, Hamilton described the judiciary as the “least dangerous branch.” While the Executive holds the sword” and the Legislature “commands the purse,” the courts have “merely judgment.” But can the courts faithfully exercise that judgment when threatened by the sword and pinched by the purse?
Featuring:
Mr. David Lat, Founder, Original Jurisdiction
Hon. Jay Mitchell, Associate Justice, Alabama Supreme Court
Mrs. Carrie C. Severino, President, Judicial Crisis Network
Moderator: Hon. David R. Stras, United States Court of Appeals. Eighth Circuit
Although a creature of statute, American antitrust law functions in practice as a field of common law. Courts have had the preeminent role in shaping the contours of its application, imposing the “rule of reason” and defining concepts like competition and the use of economic evidence. While antitrust precedents are closely examined by practitioners and academics alike, less attention is paid to whether the developments in antitrust law over the last century are consistent with the text of the antitrust laws. This panel will discuss the meaning of the antitrust texts, how or whether current law is consistent with the plain meaning of the statutes, and what that means for antitrust policy going forward.
Featuring:
Prof. Daniel A. Crane, Richard W. Pogue Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Mr. Ashley Keller, Partner, Keller Postman
Ms. Doha Mekki, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice
Mr. Bilal Sayyed, Senior Competition Counsel, TechFreedom
Moderator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Overflow: Cabinet & Senate Rooms
The United States adopted its modern environmental statutes in the 1970s. Among other innovations, Congress incorporated citizen suit provisions into the Clean Air, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act. These created causes of action allowing individuals and interested entities to sue to enforce the environmental laws. At the same time, courts took an increasingly expansive view of the private citizen standing to challenge agency actions through the Administrative Procedures Act.
For many years, public interest groups seeking more environmental regulation and government control took the headlines. Lately, public interest groups opposed to expanding government regulation and interested in defending the rights of property holders have achieved numerous litigation successes from district courts up to the Supreme Court. These include limitations on the enforcement reach of the Clean Water Act.
This panel will examine the impact the public interest litigation has had on environmental, natural resources, and property law. It will review its place in our system and consistency with an originalist Constitution, examine some of the notable accomplishments by public interest organizations in the past several years, and discuss upcoming environmental and other administrative law cases now being pursued by public interest groups that may significantly impact environmental and administrative law going forward.
Featuring:
Mr. David D. Doniger, Senior Strategic Director and Attorney, Climate and Clean Energy Program, National Resources Defense Council
Ms. Stephanie A. Maloney, Chief of Staff & Associate Chief Counsel, United States Chamber Litigation Center
Prof. Robert V. Percival, Robert F. Stanton Professor of Law and Director, Environmental Law Program, Francis King Carey School of Law, University of Maryland
Mr. Damien M. Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Moderator: Hon. Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida
Overflow: Chinese Room
Over the last two decades, states have played an important and increasing role in federal policymaking through state-led litigation. Unsurprisingly, a state’s Article III standing is often a hotly contested question—with increasing attention from the Supreme Court and what some might argue are scattershot results. Are states subject to traditional standing analysis, as the Court said in Biden v. Nebraska (2023)? Do they get “special solicitude,” as the Court observed in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007)? Or are there concrete injuries that the Court simply will not remedy, as in United States v. Texas (2023)? Is there a common thread to the Court’s standing analysis and—more importantly—what does the original public meaning of Article III have to say about state-led litigation?
Featuring:
Mr. Kyle George, Principal, Kyle George Law Group; Former First Assistant Attorney General, State of Nevada
Mr. Eric Hamilton, Solicitor General, Nebraska Department of Justice
Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Moderator: Hon. Jennifer Walker Elrod, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Overflow: Cabinet & Senate Rooms
Featuring:
Ms. Erin E. Murphy, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLC
Mr. Patrick Strawbridge, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC
Hon. Seth P. Waxman, Partner, WilmerHale; Former United States Solicitor General
Moderator: Hon. Timothy M. Tymkovich, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
In recent years federal executive branch agencies have enacted a “whole of government” approach to hot-button topics like environmental, social, governance (ESG) and cryptocurrency regulation. This theory of policy administration combines the efforts of multiple executive branch agencies with different expertise and authorities toward achieving a singular objective.
Some of the agencies marshaled to address cryptocurrency regulation include the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), and the banking regulators. Jurisdiction is often complicated by the nature of a particular asset, administration changes, and agency leaders’ personalities and priorities.
How does current cryptocurrency regulatory policy align with the statutory authority and original purpose of these agencies? Are the agencies fulfilling legislative mandates to protect investors and promote safety and soundness? Or are they stretching their authority to achieve a policy outcome in the absence of legislative authorization?
This panel will examine the issue of cryptocurrency regulation and statutory authority of executive agencies.
Featuring:
Mr. Brian P. Brooks, Partner, O’Melveny & Myers; Former Acting Comptroller of the Currency
Prof. Chris Brummer, Agnes Williams Sesquicentennial Professor of Financial Technology, Georgetown Law
Ms. Caitlin Long, Founder & CEO, Custodia Bank
Prof. Christopher L. Peterson, John J. Flynn Endowed Professor of Law, University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law
Moderator: Hon. Patrick J. Bumatay, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Trying to sort out what originalism means in practice requires integrating insights from all levels of the legal system, from academicians (both legal and historical), lawyers (from private practice, public interest, business, and government), and the bench (both trial and appellate and both state and federal). In this Roundtable, participants representing many of those elements of the legal culture offer insights on the current state of originalism in legal practice. Is there an identifiable "legal culture" to which originalism can be applied? If so, what should lawyers be doing that they are not doing? What should academics be doing that they are not doing? What should judges be doing that they are not doing?
Featuring
Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLC
Hon. Britt Grant, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Hon. James C. Ho, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Prof. Bernadette Meyler, Carl and Sheila Spaeth Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
Hon. Jason Miyares, Attorney General, Commonwealth of Virginia
Hon. Elizabeth Wydra, President, Constitutional Accountability Center
Moderator: Hon. Joan Larsen, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Overflow: Chinese Room
In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in New York Times v. Sullivan treating public figures to a different, more onerous standard when they were the victims of defamator falsehoods than in traditional libel cases. Recently, Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch have expressed skepticism about the constitutional infirmity of this decision. Our panelists will provide their perspectives on this decision and whether the Court should reconsider it.
Featuring:
Joe Cohn, Legislative and Policy Director, FIRE
Prof. Carson Holloway, Professor of Political Science and Department Chair, University of Nebraska Omaha
Jered Ede, Clare Locke
Carol Jean LoCicero, Managing Partner, Thomas & LoCicero, PL
Moderator: Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
Featuring:
Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, Meese Center, The Heritage Foundation
Henry Whitaker, Solicitor General, Florida
Moderator, Hon. Raag Singhal, Judge, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Featuring:
Hon. John B. Nalbandian, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
We’ve grown accustomed to learning about government actions only because an enterprising person or group brought them to light using the Freedom of Information Act. Enacted in 1967 after a decade of debate and Congressional hearings, and most recently amended in 2016, FOIA was intended to correct what some viewed as the Administrative Procedure Act’s tendency toward nondisclosure.
This panel will discuss the law, how FOIA requests are used by reporters, researchers, academics, interest groups, trial lawyers and others to obtain information from the government, how the government protects information it considers covered by FOIA exemptions, how courts review government denials of FOIA requests, and some of the more newsworthy disclosures obtained using FOIA.
The First Amendment forbids public officials from censoring disfavored speech and speakers. But what happens if public officials enlist private parties to do the censorship? In recent years, public officials and agencies have pressed social-media platforms to silence dissenting views on public health and other “misinformation,” insurers and financial institutions to drop clients engaged in unpopular or controversial advocacy, and health-care providers to dismiss attorneys challenging government policy. Further, there’s no way to know how many private decisions to silence speech and speakers have been influenced or coerced by government actors.
Is this phenomenon inevitable in an age of unprecedented opportunity to reach large audiences? Should there be greater transparency when public officials wield their power to influence the exercise of First Amendment rights? What’s the line between encouragement and coercion, and is that the right line to separate constitutional from unconstitutional censorship? What are the prospects that agencies will police themselves and refrain from wielding their power and influence to suppress dissension and debate? Should Congress or the President address third-party censorship and, if so, how exactly? Our panelists will address these questions and more.
The Supreme Court continues to accept for review cases that challenge agency authority on separation of powers grounds, and its decisions may fundamentally reshape the modern administrative state. This term, it heard challenges to the jurisdiction of federal courts to hear challenges to agency proceedings (Axon v. FTC; SEC v. Cochran), and to the Biden administration’s authority to forgive student loan debt (U.S. Department of Education v. Brown; Biden v. Nebraska). Next term, it will hear a constitutional challenge to the funding structure of an independent regulatory agency (CFPB et. al. v. Com. Fin. Services Assn.). And pending in the certiorari queue is a case that raises a triumvirate of issues about the SEC’s administrative proceedings: whether they violate the Seventh Amendment, the non-delegation doctrine, and/or the President’s removal power (SEC v. Jarkesy).
This panel will discuss the constitutional questions raised by these cases, the potential effect of the Court’s decisions on agency structure and practices, the rebalancing of power between the three branches, and the future of the administrative state.
Antitrust law has made recent headlines for a host of reasons, ranging from Chairwoman Lina Kahn’s approach to running the Federal Trade Commission to the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division’s high-profile cases against tech giants such as Google. In this lunch session, former FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz, a Democrat, will join former FTC Commissioner Noah Joshua Phillips, a Republican, and moderator Judge Neomi Rao to discuss recent developments in the antitrust world and debate what might come next, including for the future of independent executive branch agencies in general.
At the end of an administration, the President and Vice President are required to relinquish control over certain documents, pursuant to the Presidential Records Act. Recently, it has come to light that former officials of both parties have brought certain classified documents to their private residences and other non-governmental property.
This panel will explore the legal, ethical, national security, and policy issues that confront executive-branch lawyers as they assist Presidents and Vice Presidents to comply with the law.
This panel will evaluate efforts in the Biden administration, building upon executive actions dating back to the Clinton administration, to refocus federal agencies in a “whole of government” manner on “environmental justice” (EJ). The Civil Rights Act and various executive orders are cited as the primary legal support for these initiatives. On this basis, enforcement priorities are being adjusted across all federal agencies. Agency budgets for EJ programs are being increased and new EJ offices opened.
The panel will explore the myriad legal, regulatory, and policy issues that arise in this context. It will offer a primer on administration EJ actions, and evaluate the use of disparate impacts under current law as well as related issues.
Earlier this month, the White House released much-anticipated changes to federal regulatory practices, including a new Executive Order 14094 on “Modernize Regulatory Review,” draft revisions to Circular A-4 governing regulatory impact analysis, and draft guidance on meetings with entities outside of the executive branch. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has the lead for implementing these changes, which comprise the most significant regulatory policy initiatives of the Biden administration. In this opening session, OIRA experts, including several former OIRA administrators will review these developments.
Panelists will offer their diverse perspectives on the current state of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the issues it is facing, its potential docket, and emerging legal controversies that may affect the court's future work. They will explore issues such as the role of the court in shaping public policy, the importance of judicial independence, and challenges that the court will face as it adapts to a rapidly changing legal landscape.
Featuring:
Jeffrey A. Mandell, Partner, Stafford Rosenbaum LLP
Ryan J. Walsh, Partner, Eimer Stahl LLP
Prof. Robert Yablon, Associate Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Moderator: Hon. Shelley A. Grogan, Judge, District II, Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Although many lawyers spend their careers in front of judges, the process by which a judge is elected or appointed can sometimes seem shrouded in mystery. What makes for a good judge? How are they chosen? Are there opportunities Wisconsin lawyers aspiring to the state or federal bench should pursue, or pitfalls they should avoid? A panel of Wisconsin-based judges from a variety of courts joins us to discuss the path to the judiciary in Wisconsin, moderated by Milwaukee Chapter President Matthew Fernholz.
Featuring:
Hon. Michael J. Aprahamian, Judge, Waukesha County Circuit Court
Hon. Rebecca Grassl Bradley, Justice, Wisconsin Supreme Court
Hon. William C. Griesbach, Senior District Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin
Moderator: Matthew M. Fernholz, Partner, Cramer, Multhauf & Hammes, LLP & President, Milwaukee Lawyers Chapter
Join us for a Texas-sized BBQ banquet featuring Austin BBQ. Dress in your Texas best! Attire is dressy, but cowboy boots and hats are welcome!
*This event requires the purchase of a separate ticket.
Judicial Review has been criticized throughout American history as undemocratic, creating what has been known in the modern era as the counter-majoritarian difficulty. Is the Court in fact counter-majoritarian? To what degree? If so, is it a difficulty? What theories of constitutional interpretation best reconcile judicial review with democracy—originalism or living constitutionalism or something else?
Featuring:
Moderator: Hon. James Ho, The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Prof. Tara Leigh Grove, Vinson & Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas School of Law
Prof. Lawrence Sager, Alice Jane Drysdale Sheffield Regents Chair, University of Texas School of Law
Prof. Keith Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University
The United States is constitutionally not one, but fifty-one, democracies. How can they all fit together? The oldest issue in our republic is the relation between the federal and state governments: where does the democratic decision-making power of one leave off and the other begin? The question remains relevant today on such issues as the proper locus of decisions about abortion. But the relation of the states to one another is now also pressing as states deploy their authority to influence the democratic decision making of other states, on issues as disparate as gun and climate policy. Are the proper boundaries between our different democracies best policed by the judiciary or by democratic politics?
Featuring:
Moderator: Hon. Andrew Oldham, The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School
Prof. Jud Campbell, Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law
Prof. Michael S. Greve, Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School
Many aspects of the United States governing structure have been criticized as inconsistent with democracy or at least with majority rule. Elections for the House of Representatives and state legislatures are subject to gerrymandering. The Senate represents large and small states equally and thus unequally weights the voters across the nation. The Electoral College, too, provides electoral advantages to some states over others. And the institutions themselves sometimes depart from majority rule, most notably in the United States Senate with its filibuster. Can these arrangements be justified, or should they be reformed?
Featuring:
Moderator: Hon. Patrick J. Bumatay, The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Prof. Sanford V. Levinson, W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair in Law, University of Texas School of Law
Prof. Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law, Capital University Law School
Prof. Stephanie Barclay, Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Religious Liberty Initiative, Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Lori A. Ringhand, J. Alton Hosch Professor of Law & Josiah Meigs Distinguished Teaching Professor, University of Georgia School of Law
Democracy begins with elections. But the process for voting in our elections has been increasingly a matter of political contestation. This panel will consider these process issues, including the Voting Rights Act, campaign finance reform, early and mail in- balloting, and eligibility to vote, including that of felons and aliens. The panel will also consider the question of how the decision-making over these issues should be divided, between the courts and democratic legislatures as well as between the states and the federal government.
Featuring:
Moderator: Hon. Timothy M. Tymkovich, The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Audrey Perry Martin, Partner, Gober Group
Lee E. Goodman, Partner, Wiley
Prof. Derek T. Muller, Ben V. Willie Professorship in Excellence, University of Iowa College of Law
Prof. Richard Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law
There has been much discussion about threats to democracy over the past year. But conceptions of democracy differ. What does democracy entail in our system? Is the U.S. a democracy, a republic, a democratic republic? What does democracy require and what genuinely threatens it? How do we address such threats?
Featuring:
Moderator: Hon. Edith H. Jones, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Prof. J. Joel Alicea, Co-Director, the Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition, and Assistant Professor of Law, The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law
Prof. Bruce E. Cain, Charles Louis Ducommun Professor in the School of Humanities & Sciences, Director of the Bill Lane Center for the American West, Senior Fellow at the Woods Institute at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, Professor at the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability, Stanford University
Prof. Daniel Lowenstein, Professor of Law Emeritus, UCLA Law
Prof. Stephen I. Vladeck, Charles Alan Wright Chair In Federal Courts, The University of Texas School of Law
George Soros has contended that “there is no connection between the election of reform-minded prosecutors and local crime rates.” When considering some of the largest metropolitan cities on the west coast, such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle, do the violent crime and homicide statistics support this claim? Progressive prosecutors have introduced a range of policies, such as eliminating cash bail, decriminalizing misdemeanor drug possessions, refraining from trying minors as adults, and shifting emphasis on police misdeeds rather than criminal offenses. Do the efforts to reverse tough-on-crime policies have a direct correlation to the rising crime rates in big cities? What is the proper role of a prosecutor? Should prosecutors be practicing more restraint? Does bail reform affect recidivism rates? The panelists will discuss these questions and share their insights on these questions.
Featuring:
Mr. Cully Stimson, Deputy Director, Edwin Meese III Center, Manager, National Security Law Program, and Senior Legal Fellow, Senior Advisor to the President The Heritage Foundation
Mr. McGregor W. Scott, Partner, King & Spalding LLP, Former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California Confirmed
Ms. Lauren-Brooke Eisen, Senior Director, Brennan Center for Justice
Moderator: Hon. Danielle J. Forrest, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Many western states are making significant structural changes to their campaign and election laws. Innovations like ranked-choice voting and new campaign financial disclosures rules are taking hold in many states, including California, Washington, Arizona, and Alaska. These changes are having real impact on the ground, as evidenced by the recent primary election in Alaska, where ranked-choice voting resulted in a Democrat being elected to Congress for the first time in five decades.
Other legislative changes across the west address political speech and its funding sources, including Alaska’s recently enacted ban on so-called “dark money;” Arizona’s Proposition 211 measure, which was passed in the recent election; and Oregon’s consideration of introducing a similar measure on the ballot in 2024. In addition to significant policy debates over the merits of these policies, lawyers are challenging their constitutionality based on First Amendment speech and association grounds. The panel will begin by framing the policy debate, followed by a discussion of the current status of various election-related reforms, including litigation pushing state and federal constitutional challenges to these changes.
Featuring:
Mr. Daniel Suhr, Senior Attorney, Liberty Justice Center
Mr. Kory Langhofer, Managing Partner, Statecraft
Prof. Richard Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law
Mr. Scott Kendall, Of Counsel, Cashion Gilmore & Lindemuth
Prof. Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law
Hon. Terry Goddard, Shareholder, Goddard Law PLC, Former Arizona Attorney General
Moderator: Hon. Patrick J. Bumatay, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
The rising cost of housing and the regulatory state are some of the major issues affecting real property law in the western states. This panel will examine three critical areas regarding government regulation of real property law: short-term rentals, rezoning for multi-family homes, and environmental regulations in the building of new homes. For short-term rentals, panelists will walk through the laws and regulations concerning eligibility to obtain short-term rental permits in order to list one’s home on websites such as Airbnb and VRBO. As for rezoning for multi-family homes, the panel will examine the effects that government regulations have on a possible solution to a housing shortage. The panelists will also analyze how federal and state environmental regulations affect the costs of new housing or improvements to existing housing, and what they mean for stakeholders and the overall community.
Featuring:
Mr. Eric Grant, Partner, Hicks Thomas
Ms. Jennifer L. Hernandez, Partner, Holland & Knight
Mr. Chris Carr, Partner, Paul Hastings
Ms. Karrin Taylor Robson, Founder & President, Arizona Strategies
Moderator: Hon. Lawrence VanDyke, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Featuring:
The Honorable Andrew Bailey, Attorney General, State of Missouri
Attorney General Bailey will offer remarks on Missouri v. Biden and the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs returned the abortion question–whether and how to regulate abortion services–to the States. Many states, including Missouri, now have laws on the books that restrict or prohibit abortion. Dobbs doesn’t end the legal wrangling over abortion—it begins a new chapter that will unfold as litigation arises challenging these state laws. What constitutional challenges could Missouri see to its legislation in coming months and years?
Featuring:
Moderator: Barbara A. Smith, Partner and Co-Chair, Appellate and Supreme Court Group, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner
J. Andrew Hirth, Founder, TGH Litigation LLC
Jesus A. Osete, Attorney, Appellate and Supreme Court Group, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP
Our distinguished panel of judges discussed the unique roles of both appellate judges and trial court judges. Topics that were explored include judicial philosophy, the use of originalism in both state and federal courts, the differences in the roles of a trial court judge and an appellate court judge, and the importance of state constitutions in protecting individual liberty. Panelists also discussed their path to the bench.
Featuring:
Moderator: Hon. Duane Benton, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Hon. Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., Senior Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri
Hon. Matthew T. Schelp, Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri
Hon. Cristian M. Stevens, Judge, Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District of Missouri
Hon. John Torbitzky, Judge, Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District of Missouri
This panel explored the concept of whether what has come to be called “inclusive language," including some of the examples referenced in Kelly Frickleton’s recent Kansas City Counselor article, is something that lawyers have an ethical duty to use under Rule 4-8.4 of the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.4 of the Kansas Rules, or perhaps under some other provision. We explored not only the “whether,” but also the “why." We also explored the question of whether the imposition of any penalty on a lawyer for failing to use this language would be constitutional.
Featuring:
Moderator: Karen Donnelly, Partner, Copilevitz Lam & Raney
Ted Frank, Director of Litigation and Senior Attorney, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute
Kelly Frickleton, Associate, Bartimus Frickleton Robertson Rader P.C.
Edward D. Greim, Partner, Graves Garrett LLC
The panel is sponsored by our Civil Rights practice group and will focus on the issues in, and potential outcome of, Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College.
One of the most closely anticipated cases of the coming Supreme Court term involves a challenge to the use of racially preferential undergraduate student admissions practices at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. This panel will examine the issues raised by those cases, the possible outcomes, and their likely impact on the future of higher education and beyond. Will these cases mark the end of race-as-a-factor in holistic admissions practices? If so, will universities comply with the Court’s decision, or will they evade it? And what will be the ramifications in other sectors, such as the workplace? Is a color-blind society possible in our time?
Featuring:
Mr. Michael A. Carvin, Partner, Jones Day
Hon. Gail L. Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law; Member, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; Former Civil Rights Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Prof. Eric Segall, Ashe Family Chair Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law
Moderator: Hon. Kevin C. Newsom, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
The 2022 National Lawyers Convention will take place November 10-12, 2022 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference is "The Current State of the Legal Profession." The conference will conclude with the annual Hon. Robert H. Bork Memorial Lecture, featuring remarks by Judge A. Raymond Randolph.
Featuring:
Hon. A. Raymond Randolph, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
The reach of bar associations, including the ABA, extends further than many realize. From evaluating judges, accrediting law schools, disciplining lawyer speech outside of work, to taking political positions, bar associations play a major role in our profession and in American life. Should bar associations focus just on legal practice? Should they continue to be involved in staking out policy positions? What about the ABA’s role in accrediting law schools? Are there any limits on their regulatory power?
Featuring:
Mr. William Adams, Jr., Managing Director, Accreditation and Legal Education, American Bar Association; Former Dean, Western State College of Law
Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt Law School
Hon. Theodore B. Olson, Partner Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP; Former U.S. Solicitor General
Mr. Daniel Thies, Shareholder, Webber & Thies PC
Moderator: Hon. David R. Stras, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
The 2022 National Lawyers Convention will take place November 10-12, 2022 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference is "The Current State of the Legal Profession." The final day of the conference will feature the fourteenth annual Rosenkranz Debate.
RESOLVED: The U.S. Constitution limits the role of state courts and executives in redistricting under Article I, Section 4, Clause I.
Featuring:
Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Prof. John Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, Berkeley Law, University of California
Moderator: Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Professor of Law, Georgetown Law
The Biden Administration began with executive orders on an environmental policy agenda, directing a “whole of government” approach to climate change and environmental justice. These policies called for all federal agencies to prioritize regulatory action on equity and climate across numerous economic sectors. And they have, pushing out an economy-transforming regulatory agenda as Congress has remained largely deadlocked on most of the Administration’s priorities. More recently, some of the Administration’s allies have been calling on President Biden to exercise “emergency powers” to address climate change.
At the same time, the Supreme Court started and ended its last term by telling the administrative state that it cannot simply act in place of Congress. Relevant here, in West Virginia v. EPA, the Court rejected EPA’s claim that it had statutory authority under the Clean Air Act to devise emissions caps. The Court adopted the “major questions doctrine” to explain that executive branch agencies cannot rely on general statutory authority to justify particularly sweeping actions. And the Court faces similar considerations of agency authority in a pending challenge to the federal assertions of jurisdiction over private property under the Clean Water Act, with a decision expected by the end of the year.
This panel will explore the consequences of West Virginia v. EPA and other recent Supreme Court decisions for these “whole of government” approaches and what these new limits may mean for future challenges to environmental regulations on climate and environmental justice, and other efforts to use emergency powers to achieve regulatory goals not otherwise expressly authorized in statute. A distinguished panel of experts will discuss a range of interesting topics.
Featuring:
Mr. Sean Donahue, Partner, Donahue & Goldberg LLP
Prof. Lisa Heinzerling, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Mr. Derrick Morgan, Executive Vice President, The Heritage Foundation
Ms. Lindsay See, Solicitor General, West Virginia
Moderator: Hon. Lawrence VanDyke, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Under the Constitution, two branches of government are formally involved in the selection of federal judges. The President makes the nomination and Senators provide their advice and consent. Yet, the third branch of government often plays a role in that process: federal judges can influence the selection of other judges. This influence can manifest itself in several ways. First, judges can reach understandings with the executive branch to take senior status if the President nominates a specific person to fill the vacancy. Second, rather than taking senior status at a date certain, judges can condition their status change upon the appointment of their successor. Third, judges who reach such an understanding, and who are not satisfied with the President’s ultimate nomination, can rescind their decision to take senior status. Fourth, in the District of Columbia, one federal judge actually chairs the committee that can nominate judges for the District’s regional courts over the President’s authority. This panel will explore the ethical issues of federal judges choosing other judges.
Featuring:
Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
Mr. David Lat, Founder, Original Jurisdiction; Founder, Above the Law
Mr. Rob Luther III, Of Counsel, Jones Day, Former Associate Counsel to the President
Mr. Michael Fragoso, Republican Leader for Nominations, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Moderator: Hon. Stephen Alexander Vaden, U.S. Court International Trade
In June 2022, the Supreme Court decided the much-anticipated case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, requiring courts to follow the text, history and tradition of the Second Amendment in evaluating the constitutionality of modern-day gun control laws. Our panel will discuss what Bruen means for Second Amendment rights, gun control laws, and the landscape of litigation over them as well how courts have been applying Bruen.
Featuring:
Mr. Stephen Halbrook, Senior Fellow, Independent Institute
Prof. William Merkel, Associate Professor of Law, Charleston School of Law
Prof. Mark Smith, Visiting Fellow in Pharmaceutical Public Policy and Law, Department of Pharmacology, University of Oxford; Presidential Scholar and Senior Fellow in Law and Public Policy, The King’s College; Distinguished Scholar and Senior Fellow of Law and Public Policy, Ave Maria School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Steven J. Menashi, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
ABA Model Rule of Professional Responsibility 1.2(b) states: “A lawyer's representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client's political, economic, social or moral views or activities.” The comment on the rule further explains: “Legal representation should not be denied to people who are unable to afford legal services, or whose cause is controversial or the subject of popular disapproval. By the same token, representing a client does not constitute approval of the client's views or activities.” These principles date back at least to John Adams’ defense of the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre and have long been viewed as essential to the adversarial system.
Increasingly, however, in the minds of some, these principles are better honored in the breach – at least in the case of the powerful. There are all kinds of representation that lawyers simply should refuse to undertake – ranging from the House of Representatives seeking to intervene to defend a previously enacted law, to GITMO detainees, to the Defense of Marriage Act, to tobacco companies, to oil companies, to gun manufacturers, to former President Trump – regardless of the legal merits of the matters at issue. Lawyers who undertake such representations, it is argued, should incur severe reputational and professional consequences, and other clients should punish firms that take on these matters by taking their business elsewhere, even if there is no direct conflict. To these minds such representation sends the wrong message about the role of law in society. At the same time, in the view of many of the proponents of these exceptions, it remains essential that lawyers continue to represent certain kinds of unpopular clients, such as defendants accused of violent crimes, without fear of adverse professional repercussions. To them that is fundamental to the proper role for lawyers in society.
Can these two visions coexist? What is the proper role of the lawyer?
Featuring:
Ms. Lisa Blatt, Partner, Williams & Connolly; Former Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General
Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLC; Former U.S. Solicitor General
Mr. Kannon Shanmugam, Partner, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP; Former Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General
Hon. Seth Waxman, Partner, Wilmer Hale; U.S. Former Solicitor General
Moderator: Hon. S. Kyle Duncan, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
In February, Russia began a full-scale military action against Ukraine. This war in Ukraine constitutes the latest in a series of incidents since the end of the Cold War in which Russia has sought to reassert authority over former Soviet states. In this case, as in incidents past, Russia has offered a familiar series of purported legal justifications pertaining to the right of self-determination of peoples and permitted exceptions to international law’s prohibition on the use of force.
Notwithstanding those arguments, from the outset, many in the international community condemned Russia’s actions as violating fundamental norms of international law. Soon afterward, observers pointed to evidence of war crimes by the Russian military. Now, more than nine months into the conflict, questions remain. What can be said for Russia’s claims, Ukraine’s options, international expectations, and modern conflicts? What effect may this have on traditional legal expectations of the civilized world? Additionally, with the prospect of a costly and protracted war impacting global security and the people of the region for generations to come, what are the best and worst possible outcomes? Our panel of experts will discuss these issues.
Featured:
Mr. Michael Allen, Managing Director and Partner, Beacon Global Strategies
Hon. Marshall S. Billingslea, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute; Former Special Presidential Envoy, U.S. Department of State
Maj. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap Jr., Professor of the Practice of Law, Duke University School of Law; Executive Director, Center on Law, Ethics and National Security, Duke University School of Law; Retired USAF Major General
Prof. Angela Stent, Senior Nonresident Fellow, The Brookings Institution
Moderator: Hon. Chad Readler, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court released a 6-3 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Court overruled Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, holding that the Constitution confers no right to abortion.
The Dobbs decision poses critical questions about the Court’s past and future. Is the decision a misguided action or an overdue correction? How will Dobbs frame judicial and legislative disputes over abortion in years to come? What does Justice Alito’s lead decision, together with Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh’s concurrences, project about the Court’s future rulings? Our panel of experts will discuss these issues and more.
Featuring:
Prof. Mary Anne Case, Arnold I. Shure Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School
Prof. David D. Cole, National Director, American Civil Liberties Union
Prof. Sherif Girgis, Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
Ms. Carrie Campbell Severino, President, JCN
Moderator: Hon. Elizabeth "Lisa" Branch, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
There are no federal speech police, but law enforcement is not the only way that executive officials and agencies take aim at disfavored speech and speakers. In recent months, officials have pressed social-media companies to ban those accused of spreading Covid or election-related “misinformation,” announced a task force to investigate parents speaking out at local school-board meetings, and looked on as financial service providers dropped controversial clients their regulators might find presented “reputational risk.” Meanwhile, agencies increasingly wield broadly-worded anti-discrimination laws to encourage institutions and businesses to police speech by students, faculty, and employees. Is officials’ use of “soft power” over speech a new phenomenon, or is it merely more visible in the age of social media and regulatory oversight? And what role should the First Amendment play when officials stop short of punishing speech?
Featuring:
Prof. Enrique Armijo, Professor of Law, Elon University School of Law
Mr. Mark Chenoweth, President and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Mr. Joe Cohn, Legislative and Policy Director, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
Mr. Michael Ellis, General Counsel, Rumble
Moderator: Hon. Britt C. Grant, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
While many Americans take broadband access for granted, in certain predominantly rural areas broadband access remains limited. In addition to private funding, federal and state efforts have spent billions of dollars to address this problem over the years with varying degrees of effectiveness, and there are billions in funding currently flowing out for more broadband projects as a result of pandemic-era funding bills. Most recently, the Infrastructure bill has provided another $42 billion in funding on top of the existing efforts—but will this close the gap once and for all or will we look back at this as a case of opportunity (and funds) lost? Should the country prioritize speed and low cost or taking the time to get every American connected to fiber? With a range of important viewpoints represented, this panel will discuss the largest federal effort to promote broadband connectivity.
Featuring:
Ms. Shirley Bloomfield, Chief Executive Officer, NTCA–The Rural Broadband Association
Mr. Veneeth Iyengar, Louisiana State Executive Director for Broadband Development and Connectivity, ConnectLA; Chairman of the Board, Innovation Catalyst
Hon. Michael O’Rielly, President, MPORielly Consulting Inc.; Former Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
Moderator: Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC) are the subject of global debate. While proponents see CBDC as a new tool to promote financial stability and inclusion, critics point out that the Federal Reserve would acquire vast new powers to potentially implement a comprehensive government social credit system. In theory, CBDC could be programmed to be used for only designated purposes, on specific items or at particular merchants. To stimulate the economy, CBDC could be programmed to expire in a certain limited time or deposited directly into certain individual’s bank accounts. These concerns about the risks posed by CBDC have been foreshadowed by the actions of American banks and payment processors to refuse to serve certain individuals, non-profit organizations, or merchants. Actions by foreign governments illustrate the potential danger of comprehensive government control over personal financial transactions. China has banned cryptocurrencies and developed its own CBDC, which will enable the Chinese government to monitor and control personal transactions and behavior. In Canada, the government froze the bank accounts and cryptocurrency wallets of anti-vaccine mandate protestors and those who had made donations to support them.
If the U.S. were to adopt a CBDC, how can the privacy and financial freedom of Americans be protected? Furthermore, how can the U.S. avoid some of the troubling trends seen in other countries and the troubling potential expansion of administrative power as it weighs the issue ofCBDCs?
Featuring:
Hon. Randal Quarles, Chairman & Co-Founder, The Cynosure Group; Former Vice Chair, Federal Reserve; Former Chair, Financial Stability Board
Prof. Steven L. Schwarcz, Stanley A. Star Distinguished Professor of Law & Business, Duke University Law School
Prof. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia School of Law; Former Chair, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Taskforce on Federal Consumer Financial Law
Moderator: Hon. Joan Larsen, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Law schools are the gatekeepers of the legal profession and thus wield substantial influence on the law’s future shape. In recent times, law schools have increasingly viewed themselves less as charged with training lawyers to serve their clients’ needs and more as engines of social justice. Is that an appropriate role for law schools? How compatible are the two missions? Does the highly and increasingly ideologically homogeneous character of law school faculties, as shown in many studies, exacerbate the tension between those missions?
Featuring:
Dean Mark Alexander, Arthur J. Kania Dean and Professor of Law, Charles Widger School of Law, Villanova University
Prof. Joshua Kleinfeld, Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
Prof. Paul G. Mahoney, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Dean Dayna Matthew, Dean and Harold H. Greene Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School
Moderator: Hon. Neomi Rao, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
This panel discussion will examine public and private education, with a focus on the relationship—and occasional conflicts—between religious liberty and secular values in that setting. Panel members will discuss the likely impact on religious liberty and parental rights of two landmark Supreme Court rulings from the past Term: Kennedy v. Bremerton (the “praying coach” case) and Carson v. Makin (the Maine tuition assistance case). Other Supreme Court decisions could also be addressed, including Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Troxel v. Granville. Panelists could also discuss the impact on parental rights of recent federal education regulations.
Featuring:
Prof. Nicole Garnett, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
Prof. William P. Marshall, William Rand Kenan Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law; Former Special Assistant Attorney General, Minnesota
Ms. Erin Murphy, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLC
Moderator: Hon. Raymond Kethledge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Supreme Court actions during the 2021-2022 term - opinions, grants and denials of petitions for certiorari, and motions docket orders - captured the attention of the legal community. Emblematic of the trend in judicial analysis was West Virginia v. EPA in which, notwithstanding that every brief cited Chevron for or against deference to the agency’s action, the Court’s opinion never mentioned it. Instead, the Court invoked the major questions doctrine to conclude that the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations had exceeded the authority Congress had granted it in the Clean Air Act. In other decisions as well, the Court applied new degrees of weight to a variety of methodologies, doctrines, and canonical tools in its interpretations of statutes and the authority they grant the agencies assigned to implement them.
This panel will explore what this new trend in judicial analysis means for future challenges to agency actions. Is the SEC’s focus on ESG, for example, within the confines of its statutory mandate? Can ERISA fiduciaries favor ESG concerns over earnings and value considerations? Is DOJ acting within its authority when it requires the target seeking to settle an enforcement action to pay, not a statutorily prescribed fine to the Federal Treasury, but non-parties, unrelated to the enforcement action? Is the Department of Education authorized to forgive student loans? Can the Department of Defense discharge military personnel for refusing a COVID vaccine? These and other questions are likely to be the subject of lively discussion by this panel of experts.
Featuring:
Mr. Ian Gershengorn, Partner, Jenner & Block; Former Acting U.S. Solicitor General
Prof. Jennifer Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law & Co-Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice
Prof. Tom Merrill, Charles Evans Hughes Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; Former Deputy Solicitor General
Mr. Yaakov (Jacob) M. Roth, Partner, Jones Day
Moderator: Hon. Edith H. Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
America’s national conversation about firearms is primarily about mass shootings and gun control. Some experts assert that a deeper conversation, however, should include relevant data, the problems of suicide, street and gang crime, and domestic violence. Others point out that we should examine what isn’t being done by local authorities from an enforcement standpoint, as well as how well existing federal criminal firearms statutes are being investigated and prosecuted. They assert that combating violent crime is a state responsibility, with federal support only supposed to fill in the “interstate gaps.”
This panel will discuss the foregoing considerations and pursue a more nuanced conversation about the problem of gun violence, established enforcement roles, and possible policy solutions.
Featuring:
Mr. Thomas Abt, Chair, Violent Crime Working Group and Senior Fellow, Council on Criminal Justice
Mr. Paul Carrillo, Community Violence Initiative Director, Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Hon. Erica H. MacDonald, Partner, Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath LLP; Former U.S. Attorney, District of Minnesota; Former District Judge, First Judicial District, Minnesota
Rev. Mark V. Scott, Associate Pastor, Azusa Christian Community
Moderator: Hon. Amul Thapar, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
As global crises abound, from pandemics to war, society cries out for myriad new technologies, from healthcare and high tech to manufacturing, energy, environment, and food. This panel will explore how the antitrust and patent systems can best foster competition and innovation in each of these vital areas. What are the key ideas to bear in mind when sculpting these specific legal systems? What are the agencies like the PTO and DoJ Antitrust Division best able to accomplish; and what legal rules help them do their best work? How do the courts fit in? What roles are best played by large business firms compared to small and medium enterprises? This panel will explore the lessons that can be drawn from big changes made over the past century to the patent-antitrust interface such as the 1952 Patent Act and the 2011 America Invents Act with an eye towards how best to use them to shape the legal systems for tomorrow.
Featuring:
Hon. Makan Delrahim, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP; Former Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
Prof. Christine Haight Farley, Professor of Law and Faculty Director, Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, American University Washington College of Law
Hon. Andrei Iancu, Partner, Irell & Manella LLP; Former Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School; Former Commissioner, U.S. International Trade Commission
Moderator: Hon. Ryan T. Holte, U.S. Court of Federal Claims
Executive branch agencies such as the SEC, CFTC, FTC and others have recently used their regulatory powers to advance ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance criteria) policies that some consider beyond their core missions and outside of their legal authority. For example, the SEC has proposed climate change disclosure rules that are prescriptive as to the actions expected of public companies. Likewise, the FTC has asked “non-traditional” questions (e.g., environmental, governance, unionization status) during merger probes, and its draft strategic plans propose using antitrust and consumer protection to advance “racial equity, and all forms of equity.”
Institutional investors are also pushing ESG and corporate America is responding. Many companies have embraced “stakeholder capitalism” and as a result are taking public stands on voting rights, gun control, and other social issues.
Some are concerned about the economic and societal impact of these activities, and pushback is occurring in the form of judicial challenges to regulatory rulemaking, new state laws against divestiture and defunding of energy production and gun sales, and state antitrust investigations of institutional investor groups seeking environmental and social change at public companies.
Panelists will discuss the current state of play of “woke capitalism”, and efforts to address agency actions and those of private sector entities.
Featuring:
Mr. Jonathan Berry, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates; Former Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Labor
Ms. Dalia O. Blass, Head of External Affairs, Blackrock; Former Director, Division of Investment Management, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Mr. Douglas Geho, Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law, U.S. House Judiciary Committee
Hon. Christine S. Wilson, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
Moderator: Hon. Andrew Oldham, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
The Roberts Court is recasting the administrative state according to its view of the separation of powers. It is giving the President more authority to fire his subordinates and creating a hierarchical executive where the President and his principal officers have more authority over appointments and decision making. It is forcing the legislature to speak clearly when it wants to vest agencies with major powers and expressing interest in reinvigorating limits on some delegations of legislative power. It is strengthening the judiciary’s interpretative role, declining to give as much deference to regulatory interpretations by agencies. Is its view coherent and sound? Should the Court square its vision with a modern government that was formed on different principles? If so, how?
Featuring:
Prof. Aditya Bamzai, Martha Lubin Karsh and Bruce A. Karsh Bicentennial Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Hon. Thomas B. Griffith, Special Counsel, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP; Former Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Hon. Sally Katzen, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence; Co-Director of the Legislative and Regulatory Process Clinic, New York University School of Law
Prof. Nicholas R. Parrillo, William K. Townsend Professor of Law and Professor of History, Yale Law School
Moderator: Hon. James C. Ho, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
The National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) is a nonpartisan association founded in 1907 that facilitates interaction among the 56 state and territory attorneys general.” The organization’s website reflects that it, “provides a community for attorneys general and their staff to collaboratively address issues important to their work, as well as training and resources to support attorneys general in protecting the rule of law and the United States Constitution.” In 2021 NAAG received $15 million from the McKinsey opioid settlement and it currently holds more than $280 million in assets.
In recent years some have called into question NAAG’s leadership and programming and have publicly sought greater transparency prior to receiving, holding, and expending certain kinds of funds from state lawsuit litigation. Does NAAG need structural reform to assuage concerns? Are additional safeguards necessary to ensure the proper stewardship of litigation proceeds?
Featuring:
Mr. Oramel H. Skinner III, Executive Director, Alliance For Consumers
Mr. Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General, State of Tennessee
Mr. Chris Toth, Former Executive Director, National Association of Attorneys General
Moderator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Lawyers and judges play an important role in a democratic republic like the United States.
In Democracy in America, Tocqueville praised the character of America’s lawyers as indispensable to protecting the U.S. Constitution, because their taste for formality would help preserve it against popular passions. Similarly, in Federalist 78 Alexander Hamilton defends judicial review by arguing that judges will be bound down by “strict rules and precedents.”
Does the U.S. Constitution presuppose a legal profession of this sort? Have lawyers’ understanding of their job, and more broadly of their role in society, changed significantly? If lawyers’ interests have become different in the modern regulatory state than in the early republic, can the rule of law, and specifically judicial review, function in the long run as Tocqueville and Hamilton hoped?
Featuring:
Prof. Jamal Greene, Dwight Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
Prof. Tara Grove, Vinson & Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas at Austin School of Law
Mr. Ashley Keller, Partner, Keller Lenkner LLC
Prof. John McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University, Pritzker School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Patrick J. Bumatay, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
The 2022 National Lawyers Convention took place Thursday, November 10 through Saturday, November 12 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. Over three days, the Convention featured four Showcase Sessions discussing the Convention Theme of "The Current State of the Legal Profession." Hon. Judge William H. Pryor Jr. gave the opening address.
Featuring:
Hon. William H. Pryor Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
In the last decades, American businesses have faced growing challenges from within and without. For years, many “blue states” have adopted policies to encourage or even impose social and environmental requirements on companies. Those companies faced a choice: either adopt and manage multiple policies in different states, or adopt the most inclusive version in order to maintain internal consistency.
At the same time, some American corporations began explicit efforts to exert influence on political, social, and cultural issues unrelated to their core business. Companies, particularly financial institutions, started issuing proclamations on non-business matters and changing their business to match, declaring that they would no longer deal with XYZ industry, product, or type of energy production.
Faced with growing market threats to critical state industries and natural resources, “red states” began to respond, passing laws to counter corporate and state efforts they view as politicizing business. This new pushback is significant, but it complicates matters for in-house counsel trying to navigate the competing obligations from red and blue states. Join us for a panel of experts to discuss these issues and examine possible ways to move forward.
Featuring:
Mr. Chad Boudreaux, Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer, Huntington Ingalls Industries
Ms. Elisebeth Collins, Former General Counsel, WWE; Former Deputy General Counsel & Chief Compliance Officer, Caterpillar Inc.; Former Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice
Mr. Harold Kim, Chief Legal Officer and Executive Vice President, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Ms. Cheryl Stanton, Chief Legal and Government Affairs Officer, BrightStar Care
Moderator: Hon Theodore W. Ullyot, Partner, Torridon Group
Alexa Gervasi, Executive Director, Georgetown Center for the Constitution
Jennifer Freel, Partner, Jackson Walker
Prerak Shah, Of Counsel, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and former Acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas
Johnny Sutton, Partner, Ashcroft Law Firm
Moderator: Hon. Wes Hendrix, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Ryan Bangert, Senior Counsel and Vice President for Legal Strategy, Alliance Defending Freedom
Arif Panju, Managing Attorney, Institute for Justice
Becky Ricketts, Counsel, Becket Law
Keisha Russell, Counsel, First Liberty Institute
Chance Weldon, Senior Attorney and Director of Litigation for the Center for the American Future, Texas Public Policy Foundation
Moderator: Hon. Drew Tipton, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Hon. William Barr, Former United States Attorney General and Author, One Damn Thing After Another: Memoirs of an Attorney General
Moderator: Will Levi, Partner, Sidley and former Chief of Staff to Attorney General William Barr
CLE credit anticipated.
Featuring:
Rick Glazier, Executive Director, North Carolina Justice Center
Professor Derek Muller, Iowa College of Law
Phil Strach, Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
Moderator: Hon. James C. Dever, Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina
CLE credit anticipated.
Featuring:
Professor John Orth, William Rand Kenan Jr. Professor of Law, UNC School of Law
Hon. Stephen Markman, Former Justice, Michigan Supreme Court
Andrew Tripp, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, University of North Carolina System Office
Ryan Park, Solicitor General, North Carolina
Moderator: Hon. Paul Newby, Chief Justice, North Carolina Supreme Court
Featuring:
Hon. Thom Tillis, United States Senator
Moderator: Hon. Robert T. Numbers, United States Magistrate Judge
Featuring:
Hon. Frank D. Whitney, United States District Court, Western District of North Carolina
Featuring:
Trey Allen, General Counsel, Administrative Office of the Courts
Hon. Richard Dietz, Judge, North Carolina Court of Appeals
Hon. Samuel J. Ervin IV, Justice, North Carolina Supreme Court
Hon. Lucy Inman, Judge, North Carolina Court of Appeals
Moderator: John Hood, President, John William Pope Foundation
On August 13, 1999, the Federalist Society's Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group sponsored a panel at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. The panel considered the question "Did the Law Cause Columbine?".
Featuring:
Introduction: Justice George Nicholson, California Court of Appeal, Third District
Moderator: Troy Eid, Chief Counsel to Gov. Bill Owens (CO)
Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Ann Beeson, Staff Attorney, ACLU
Michael J. Horowitz, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Prof. William F. Kilpatrick, Boston College
James A. Rapp, Editor in Chief, Education Law
This extremely contemporary controversy will be the subject of a special debate. Opponents of the independent prosecutor system charge that it violates the doctrine of separation of powers by removing a purely executive function from responsibility to the executive branch, and that it also violates traditional standards of fairness by politicizing criminal prosecution and by creating incentives to find a crime to fit the suspect rather than a suspect to fit the crime. Defenders of the statute hold that it is unrealistic to expect the executive branch to police itself and that there is both textual and historical support for Congress' constitutional authority to set up such a system.
Attorney General Richard Thornburgh offered a keynote address to conclude the first day of the conference.
Featuring:
Introduction: William Bradford Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice
Richard L. Thornburgh, Attorney General of the United States
On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Vega v. Tekoh. In a 6-3 decision, the Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Court held that a violation of the prophylactic rules described in Miranda v. Arizona does not provide a basis for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Sotomayor joined.
Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.
Featuring:
John Elwood, Partner, Arnold & Porter; head of the firm's Appellate and Supreme Court practice
On June 13 and 15, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Denezpi v. United States and Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas respectively.
Both cases dealt with issues of Native American law. In Denezpi, a 6-3 Court ruled that the double jeopardy clause does not bar successive prosecutions of distinct offenses arising from a single act, in a case where a man was prosecuted in both a federal district court and a Court of Indian Offenses. In Ysleta, the Court ruled 5-4 that the state of Texas could not control gambling activities on the lands of the Ysleta del sur Pueblo Native tribe.
Please join our legal experts to discuss these cases, the legal issues involved, and their implications for the future of Native American law in America.
Featuring:
Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP
Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig
To register, please click the link above
Whether in academia, on Capitol Hill, among federal and state enforcers, or in the plaintiff and defense bars, few topics are debated as hotly as the future of antitrust law. The Biden administration's ambitious competition policies and enforcement goals are evolving against the backdrop of this larger debate – and to strong fanfare in some quarters. Certain academics, practitioners, and politicians view the Biden administration's approach as a renaissance, one that embodies the Neo-Brandeisian revolution and is a much-needed return to the original intent of U.S. antitrust law.Others are more skeptical, and consider the Biden administration's more expansive approach inconsistent with current law or sound policy. These skeptics believe the Biden administration's approach goes beyond legitimate objectives for antitrust policy and enforcement, and that the new efforts of the Biden FTC or DOJ amount to mission creep, or worse.This webinar will feature Elyse Dorsey, Amanda Lewis, David J. Shaw, and Jonathan Wolfson discussing antitrust developments under the Biden administration and offering various evaluations of the administration's approach.
Featuring:
Elyse Dorsey, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Amanda Lewis, Partner, Cuneo Gilbert & Deluca, LLP
David J. Shaw, Partner, Morrison & Foerster
Moderator: Jonathan Wolfson, Chief Legal Officer and Policy Director, Cicero Institute
To register, please click the link above
On June 21, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Carson v. Makin. In a 6-3 opinion, the Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The Court held that Maine's "nonsectarian" requirement for otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments to parents who live in school districts that do not operate a secondary school of their own violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined, and in which Justice Sotomayor joined as to all but Part I-B. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.
Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.
Featuring:
Arif Panju, Managing Attorney, Institute for Justice
Nearly fifty years ago, Alexander Solzhenitsyn released the text of a four-page essay titled Live Not By Lies. The account of his eight-year imprisonment as a political dissident in a Russian gulag had just been published in the West. In retaliation, the Russian government exiled Solzhenitsyn to Zurich. The day before his expulsion from Russia, Solzhenitsyn released the text and eventually made his way to America.
In his essay, Solzhenitsyn argued that the totalitarian regime which had silenced a generation of his fellow Russians existed only because lies were allowed a foothold. Out of an understandable desire to conform—“not to stray from the herd, not to set out on our own, and risk suddenly having to make do without the white bread, the hot water heater, a Moscow residency permit”—individuals had allowed crushing authoritarian violence to take over little by little.
Liberation was still possible, but it had to begin with the individual and a “personal non participation in lies.” In the essay, Solzhenitsyn calls on his fellow Russians to “stand straight as . . . honest m[e]n” so that the "rule [of the lies] hold not through [us].”
Solzhenitsyn’s insight into psychology and human society is evergreen—and well worth revisiting today. Join us for a Fireside Chat to discuss Solzhenitsyn’s famous essay and more.
Featuring:
Professor Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
To register, click the link above.
We recognize the risks of agency overreach when rulemaking seeks to impose ESG considerations on business. But to what extent have private banks and institutional investors also been able to leverage their economic power to shape firm behavior on climate and other ESG questions – outside of the democratic process? And if we worry that the administrative state lacks political accountability for contentious policy choices, should we also be concerned about the role of private economic influence?
Join us for a dinner at the Mayflower Hotel as our panelists discuss these questions and more. Dinner tickets will be available when purchasing conference tickets at a discount to logged in members. Login or Join today!
Featuring:
Christina Parajon Skinner, Assistant Professor of Legal Studies and Business Ethics, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, Univeristy of Virginia School of Law
Matthew Stoller, Director of Research, American Economic Liberties Project
Hon. C. Boyden Gray, Founding Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates
Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Reading Materials:
The New Separation of Ownership and Control: Institutional Investors and ESG - Julia Mahoney
Banks and Climate Governance - Christina Skinner
This event is sold out. We will take walk-ins at the door if room becomes available.
Cryptocurrency. Decentralized finance. Nonfungible tokens. Once only experts on the cutting edge of financial services were familiar with these terms. Now, with the emergence of digital assets within the global financial system, crypto, DeFi, and NFTs are becoming part of the mainstream financial services lexicon.
The rapidly emerging crypto ecosystem faces uncertainty within a regulatory regime designed for very different institutions and securities. In response, on March 9, 2022, President Biden issued an executive order, “Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets,” which ordered agencies to submit policy recommendations based upon multiple principles such as: providing consumer protection, ensuring U.S. financial system stability, mitigating systemic financial risk, responsibly developing digital assets, and examining the creation of a U.S. Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). Supporters of increased financial regulation over cryptocurrency see this as a necessity to provide security essential to ensuring financial stability and consumer protection within the digital asset space. Others view these federal regulatory efforts as a threat to future opportunities for economic innovation.
SEC Commissioner Hester M. Peirce and an expert panel including Jerry Brito, Ryan Selkis, C. Todd Phillips, moderated by J.W. Verret, will address current and future efforts at regulation of cryptocurrency and its implications for innovation, financial stability, and consumer protection.
Schedule:
12:00pm - Lunch
12:30pm - Opening Remarks
Hon. Hester M. Peirce, Commissioner, United States Securities and Exchange Commission
12:45pm - Panel
Ryan Selkis, Co-Founder and CEO, Messari
Todd Phillips, Director, Financial Regulation and Corporate Governance, Center for American Progress
Jerry Brito, Executive Director, Coin Center
Moderator: Prof. J.W. Verret, Associate Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Lunch will be provided. The event is free, but advance registration is required.
This event will be livestreamed on the web page. Registration is not required to watch the livestream.
Cryptocurrency. Decentralized finance. Nonfungible tokens. Once only experts on the cutting edge of financial services were familiar with these terms. Now, with the emergence of digital assets within the global financial system, crypto, DeFi, and NFTs are becoming part of the mainstream financial services lexicon.
The rapidly emerging crypto ecosystem faces uncertainty within a regulatory regime designed for very different institutions and securities. In response, on March 9, 2022, President Biden issued an executive order, “Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets,” which ordered agencies to submit policy recommendations based upon multiple principles such as: providing consumer protection, ensuring U.S. financial system stability, mitigating systemic financial risk, responsibly developing digital assets, and examining the creation of a U.S. Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). Supporters of increased financial regulation over cryptocurrency see this as a necessity to provide security essential to ensuring financial stability and consumer protection within the digital asset space. Others view these federal regulatory efforts as a threat to future opportunities for economic innovation.
At a live Regulatory Transparency Project event, SEC Commissioner Hester M. Peirce addressed current and future efforts at regulation of cryptocurrency and its implications for innovation, financial stability, and consumer protection.
Featuring:
Hon. Hester M. Peirce, Commissioner, United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Introduction: Moderator: Prof. J.W. Verret, Associate Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
On May 5, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a new "Comprehensive Environmental Justice Strategy." One piece of this new strategy was an Interim Final Rule reintroducing the use of Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) in environmental enforcement action settlements.
As defined by the Biden administration, SEPs are "local projects that defendants can agree to undertake as part of an enforcement case settlement to help rectify environmental violations." These projects were outlawed under the Trump DOJ due to concerns that their use expands DOJ discretionary authority beyond its statutory limits. The Biden administration, however, argues that "SEPs help to fulfill the goals of the underlying statutes being enforced and can provide important environmental and public health benefits to communities that have been harmed by environmental violations."
Join us at 12:00 PM ET on June 15 for a virtual discussion on the return of SEPs featuring three DOJ veterans with a range of views on the issue.
Featuring:
Michael Buschbacher, Counsel, Boyden Gray & Associates PLLC
Justin Savage, Global Co-Lead, Environmental Team, Sidley Austin LLP
[Moderator] Annie Donaldson Talley, Partner, Luther Strange and Associates
Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
The “Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act” amended the Federal Arbitration Act to bar mandatory employment arbitration agreements covering sexual harassment and sexual assault claims. This program will feature Prof. Alexander J.S. Colvin and G. Roger King who testified before Congress as the legislation was being considered (see here and here respectively, for their written testimony).
The panel will discuss the new statute, its intended purposes, and its impact more broadly on mandatory employment arbitration. The program will also cover why sexual harassment and assault claims, in particular, have been excluded from mandatory arbitration. Will this exclusion for such claims remain unique under the FAA or will it lead towards a ban on mandatory arbitration for employment claims generally? How does the Act connect to the more general issue of class, collective, and joint action waivers in predispute arbitration, and will the Act impact the mass filing strategy that plaintiff side firms are increasingly using?
Featuring:
Prof. Alexander J.S. Colvin, Kenneth F. Kahn '69 Dean and Martin F. Scheinman Professor of Conflict Resolution, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University
G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association
Moderator: Christopher C. Murray, Shareholder, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart
On January 30-31, 1987, the Federalist Society hosted its first-ever national lawyers convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The conference featured an address by Dr. Thomas Sowell on "Judges and the Law"
Featuring:
Introduction: William Bradford Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice
Dr. Thomas Sowell, Hoover Institute
Deference doctrines utilized by the federal Judiciary when federal agencies act is the subject of substantial debate and attention. Chevron deference, Skidmore deference, and Kisor/Auer deference are recognizable to many. But less attention is paid to how state legislatures and judiciaries calibrate the balance of separated powers on the same score.
In this webinar, Professor Aram Gavoor will lead a balanced discussion and press the governors' General Counsel or Chief Legal Counsel from Florida, Tennessee, and Texas. The program will explore the similarities, differences, and unique features of state judicial deference to administrative agency interpretations of law.
Featuring:
Ryan D. Newman, General Counsel, Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis
Jonathan T. Skrmetti, Chief Legal Counsel , Office of Tennessee Governor Bill Lee
James P. Sullivan, General Counsel , Office of Texas Governor Greg Abbott
Moderator: Aram A. Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University Law School
To register, click the link above
We recognize the risks of agency overreach when rulemaking seeks to impose ESG considerations on business. But to what extent have private banks and institutional investors also been able to leverage their economic power to shape firm behavior on climate and other ESG questions – outside of the democratic process? And if we worry that the administrative state lacks political accountability for contentious policy choices, should we also be concerned about the role of private economic influence?
Join us for a dinner at the Mayflower Hotel as our panelists discuss these questions and more. This registration link above will direct registrants to the Executive Branch Review conference ticket sales page, where dinner tickets will be available at a discount to logged in members. Login or Join today!
Featuring:
Christina Parajon Skinner, Assistant Professor of Legal Studies and Business Ethics, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, Univeristy of Virginia School of Law
Matthew Stoller, Director of Research, American Economic Liberties Project
Hon. C. Boyden Gray, Founding Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates
Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Reading Materials:
The New Separation of Ownership and Control: Institutional Investors and ESG - Julia Mahoney
Banks and Climate Governance - Christina Skinner
Featuring:
Anthony LoCoco, Deputy Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL)
Colin T. Roth, Partner, Stafford Rosenbaum LLP
Ryan J. Walsh, Partner, Eimer Stahl LLP
Moderator: Hon. Shelley A. Grogan, Judge, District II, Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Featuring:
Prof. Christopher W. Schmidt, Professor of Law & Co-Director of ISCOTUS, Chicago-Kent College of Law
Daniel Suhr, Senior Attorney, Liberty Justice Center
Misha Tseytlin, Partner, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP
Moderator: Hon. Maria S. Lazar, Judge-Elect, District II, Wisconsin Court of Appeals
In midst of the pandemic, among the many urgent public demands, Chicago took the time to assess the propriety of monuments to historical figures like Abraham Lincoln. Cities across the country are grappling with the legacy of such figures, many of whom did not live perfect lives. Chicago's effort was part of a larger social movement to remove from sight, or to hold accountable, historical and contemporary figures, including Christopher Columbus, Thomas Jefferson, Dr. Seuss, Woodrow Wilson, J.K. Rowling, and even Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant. Americans are now regularly “cancelled” for actions and statements made many years ago. Is "cancel culture" an important tool of social justice or a new form of intimidation by the powerful? Does canceling someone work to deter bad behavior? How does cancellation and its potential to chill speech interact with the First Amendment?
Speakers:
Prof. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, Emerita, New York Law School & Former President, American Civil Liberties Union
Jonathan D. Urick, Associate Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Litigation Center
Prof. Anders Walker, Lillie Myers Professor of Law; Professor of History, St. Louis University School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., Senior Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Leading the charge for abolition during the Civil War-era, among others, were abolitionists with deeply held religious beliefs. Today, virtually everyone supports religious liberty and virtually everyone opposes discrimination. But how do we handle the hard questions that arise when exercises of religious liberty seem to discriminate unjustly? Or when anti-discrimination laws unjustly constrain religious liberty? How do we promote the common good while respecting conscience in a diverse society? For example, many religious liberty questions have arisen in response to the redefinition of marriage, such as when bakers, florists, and photographers who do not wish to prove same-sex wedding services and charge for discrimination. This conflict extends well beyond the LGBT arena, notably in the abortion debate. What counts as discrimination, when is it unjust, and when should it be unlawful? Should the law give religion and conscience special protection at all, and if so, why? Might the protection of religious liberty for all serve the ever so pressing need to calming fear and polarization in today’s society?
Speakers:
Prof. Thomas C. Berg, James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of Law
Justin Edward Butterfield, Deputy General Counsel, First Liberty Institute
D. John Sauer, Solicitor General, Missouri
Moderator: Hon. James C. Ho, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, dramatically changed constitutional law. How are we to understand these changes? How would an originalist understand these changes? Did the Fourteenth Amendment change our Federalism and, if so, how much? Does the Fourteenth Amendment protect unenumerated rights?
Speakers:
Prof. Evan D. Bernick, Assistant Professor, Northern Illinois University College of Law
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University
Moderator: Hon. Chad A. Readler, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
On October 9, 1996, the Federalist Society's student chapter at Loyola University School of Law in New Orleans, LA hosted its annual James Madison Lecture, featuring former attorney general Edwin Meese III as the keynote speaker.
Featuring:
Moderator: Justice Harry T. Lemmon, Louisiana Supreme Court
Introductory Remarks: Harvey C. Koch, Partner, Koch & Rouse
Introduction: Verne Spears, Member, The Federalist Society
Edwin Meese III, Distinguished Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
Judge Martin Leach-Cross Feldman, United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana
Judge Edith Brown Clement, United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana
Judge Eldon Fallon, United Stats District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana
Prof. Paul Bayer, Louisiana State University Law Center
Across the country, states are looking at how to handle the privacy rights of their citizens regarding "big tech." Illinois, Virginia, California, and Florida have their versions. Ohio is trying to tackle this issue through HB 376. HB 376 is being described as a consumer protection bill, which will protect the selling of data by "big tech" companies and allow recourse for citizens when their data is sold against their direction. Advocates against the bill say that the bill protects "big tech" rather than the people it purports to protect.
Featuring:
Hon. Brian Stewart, State Representative, Ohio
David Straite, Partner, DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC
Carl M. Szabo, Vice President & General Counsel, Net Choice
Moderator: Hon. J. Philip Calabrese, Judge, United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio
Law in the form of regulation is increasingly made, enforced, and adjudicated by administrative agencies, e.g. the OSHA vaccine mandate. Does this growth in administrative law threaten individual liberties or is it a more efficient and expert-driven way to govern?
Featuring:
Clegg Ivey, Director of Engagement, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Prof. William S. Jordan III, C. Blake McDowell, Jr. Professor of Law, University of Akron
Patrick Strawbridge, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC
Moderator: Hon. Alice Batchelder, Senior Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Please join the Evansville Lawyers Chapter for a Zoom webinar with Omar Andino Figueroa, Deputy Solicitor General of Puerto Rico. He will speaking on "The Application of the Constitution to the Territories."
Friday, April 8, 2022
12:00pm Central Time
Featuring:
Hon. William H. Pryor, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Introduction given by:
Hon. Chad A. Readler, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Stablecoins are unique types of digital tokens that have emerged out of the cryptocurrency revolution and have taken center stage in the debate about crypto regulation. Tied to the value of an asset or fiat currency such as the dollar, stablecoins were initially created to ease the trade between different cryptocurrencies and crypto exchanges. Yet they have taken on innovative and beneficial new uses that both increase financial inclusion at home and provide vital assistance to those facing oppression and financial instability, as some argue that the situation in Ukraine demonstrates.
But as stablecoins gain prominence, concerns have arisen over risks they might pose to the financial system. Some, such as Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Pat Toomey, have argued for light-touch regulation for stablecoin issuers that would simply require disclosure of reserves and redemption policies. Others have called for strict bank-like regulation on stablecoins with reserve requirements that specify the amount of assets stablecoin issuers must hold and backstop guarantee programs similar to deposit insurance. The President’s Working Group on Financial Markets of the Biden Administration recently recommended that federal laws should only allow stablecoins to be issued by “insured depository institutions” such as banks and savings associations. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is also sending signals that it considers stablecoins as well as other cryptocurrencies to be “securities,” and will subject them to regulatory enforcement under securities laws, despite, as some argue, the lack of clear authority by Congress.
This webinar explores the potential of stablecoins as a payment instrument, the inefficiencies of the current payment system, and the appropriate level of regulation that allows for beneficial innovation in this sector.
Featuring:
Paul Jossey, Principal Attorney, Jossey PLLC; Adjunct Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute; Opinion Contributor, CoinDesk, National Review and other publications
Timothy Massad, Research Fellow, Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University; Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown Law School; Former Chairman, Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Moderator: John Berlau, Senior Fellow & Director of Finance Policy, Competitive Enterprise Institute; Author, George Washington, Entrepreneur: How Our Founding Father’s Private Business Pursuits Changed America and the World
10:10 - 10:20 Remarks from Chief Justice Candidate Brunner
10:20 - 10:30 Remarks from Chief Justice Candidate Kennedy speaks
10:30 - 11:45 Associate Justice Panel
Featuring:
Hon. Jennifer Brunner, Supreme Court of Ohio
Hon. R. Patrick DeWine, Supreme Court of Ohio
Hon. Patrick Fischer, Supreme Court of Ohio
Hon. Terri Jamison, Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals
Hon. Sharon L. Kennedy, Supreme Court of Ohio
Hon. Marilyn Zayas, Ohio First District Court of Appeals
Moderator: Robert Alt, President & CEO, The Buckeye Institute
Many originalists are well-versed in The Federalist Papers. They rely on these documents to better understand the original meaning of the Constitution. But to understand the original meaning of the Constitution, originalists cannot read The Federalist Papers alone. Rather originalists must look to both sides of the original debates. The Anti-Federalists are half of the story, and, when it comes to the Bill of Rights, they may be almost the whole story. The Symposium will begin with an introduction into the Anti-Federalists—who they were, why they were called “Anti-Federalists,” and why originalists should read their essays today.
Featuring:
Judge Andrew S. Oldham, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Judge Amul R. Thapar, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
In the contemporary debates over the nature of executive power, two ideas are perennially prominent and intractably controversial: the unitary executive theory and nondelegation doctrine. While many prominent lawyers and judges have advocated a unitary model of the executive, it is still controversial whether the Constitution requires that the President sit at the top of the executive pyramid. And while the Court has refused to seriously revitalize the nondelegation doctrine in recent cases, voices on and off the bench persist in calling for limits on the executive’s ability to exercise lawmaking power.
While these debates have modern salience, they actually predate the Constitution. Which provokes the question: what did the Federalists and Anti-Federalists have to say about these topics? In what ways were their debates different from ours, and in what ways are things the same? How do their discussions shed light on our modern arguments? These questions and more will be explored by our learned panelists.
Featuring:
Moderator: Honorable Paul B. Matey, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Prof. Jennifer Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law and Co-Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Anotnin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Prof. Julian Davis Mortenson, James G. Phillipp Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Prof. Saikrishna Prakash, James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law—Albert Clark Tate, Jr., Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Michael Rappaport, Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Professor of Law; Director, Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism, University of San Diego School of Law
One of the principal disagreements between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists surrounded the role of the new Constitution in relation to state authority.
Federalists argued that the Constitution would make the federal Constitution plenary only in certain areas while preserving the role of the states. The Anti-Federalists feared that the federal Constitution would result in a nationalized government where states would play no role and the federal government would overwhelm any semblance of state authority. Panelists will debate what the Federalists meant when they argued for a plenary, but limited federal Constitution, the different views they held, and whether the Federalists or Anti-Federalists were correct.
Featuring:
Moderator: Honorable Trevor N. McFadden, United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Prof. John Mikhail, Carroll Professor of Jurisprudence, Georgetown Law
Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center Stanford Law School
This panel will center discussion on the role of the states in our constitutional order—by focusing on states’ highest courts and their role in promoting individual rights and the development of the law. The roundtable will also explore the relationship between the state and federal courts, both historical and contemporary, as well as some of the pivotal moments that produced our modern balance of power. The speakers will also suggest ways that judges in each level of government, along with legislators and lawyers, might help improve the balance of power between states and the federal government.
The panelists will discuss the relationship between states and their municipalities. The question of localism was central to the Federalists’ and Anti-Federalists’ debates about the role of government. It was especially significant in respect to the competing interests of agrarian and urban citizens that motivated much ideological conflict in the period. Speakers will discuss how Anti-Federalist preferences for localism and Federalist preferences for nationalization helped produce our modern balance of governmental powers and legal culture. The roundtable will debate whether they see a return to localism soon and, if so, what implications this might have for constitutional governance.
Featuring:
Moderator: The Honorable Neomi Rao, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
The Honorable Goodwin H. Liu, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of California
The Honorable Jeffrey S. Sutton, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Prof. Julia D. Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
There is a folk wisdom that connects the American War of Independence’s “no taxation without representation” with today’s skepticism of Washington, DC and centralized power. The Anti-Federalists were a broad coalition, but most Anti-Federalists shared a dislike of a strong centralized government and believed that many small republics would best protect the individual. Some Anti-Federalists argued that without a bill of rights the Constitution would not be able to sufficiently protect the rights of individuals and the states. Even after ratification, some Founders, such as Jefferson, Mason, and Henry, maintained that the Federalists had in fact “betrayed” the “popular Revolutionary Spirit of ’76” and its desire for “general and individual liberty.” However, once the Jefferson-led Democrat-Republicans—primarily made up of and appealing to the old Anti-Federalist coalition—took office they did not seek to abolish, or significantly alter, this new form of governance. Why not? Did the Anti-Federalists plant the seeds, and prefer to nurture the growth of populism in America?
Featuring:
Moderator: The Honorable Lisa Branch, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University
Prof. Michelle Kundmueller, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Old Dominion University
Prof. G. Edward White, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Theories of originalism and living constitutionalism currently vie for approval in the courts. Originalists find that popular sovereignty can only come from ratification and legislation. Living constitutionalists fear binding the living by the votes of the dead. What would Jefferson, Madison, or Hamilton think of this debate? Did the founding era public expect the original public meaning to control interpretive debates? Were the American Founders themselves originalists? In a related question, the panel will also explore the usefulness of The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist essays as interpretive tools for identifying the original public meaning of the Bill of Rights. Just how persuasive are the Anti-Federalist concerns considering their position was ultimately lost and the Constitution was ratified? How much did the “losing” arguments contribute to the original public meaning and what light do the founding era debates shed on the proper tools for constitutional interpretation?
Featuring:
Moderator: The Honorable William H. Pryor, United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit
Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University
Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
Before the National Student Symposium begins, the Federalist Society's Faculty Division will host a panel of young legal scholars, presenting prize winning papers with comments from more senior scholars in Brown 102 at the University of Virginia School of Law. All early arrivals are welcome to sit in and hear some of the exciting scholarship these young legal scholars are working on before the National Student Symposium. For more information, visit https://fedsoc.org/events/2022-young-legal-scholars-panel.
The Federalist Society's Faculty Division hosted a panel of young legal scholars before the National Student Symposium began, presenting prize winning papers with comments from more senior scholars in Brown 102 at the University of Virginia School of Law.
Featuring:
The Irrepressible Myth of Jacobson v. Massachusetts
Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
Commenter Prof. Julia D. Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Election Emergencies: Voting in Times of Pandemic\
Prof. Michael T. Morley, Sheila M. McDevitt Professor, Florida State University College of Law
Commenter Prof. Bertrall Ross, Justice Thurgood Marshall Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Of Statutes and Spirits: Interpretation on the English High Courts, c. 1800-2020
Jonathan Green, Law Clerk to Judge Neomi Rao, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Commenter Prof. Bernadette Meyler, Carl and Sheila Spaeth Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
Reconstructing Reconstruction Era Rights
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University
Commenter Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University
Featuring:
Welcome: Jessica Mann, Symposium Chair, University of Virginia School of Law
Opening Remarks: Dean Risa L. Goluboff, Arnold H. Leon Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Keynote Address: Gov. Glenn Youngkin, 74th Governor of Virginia
In January 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) finalized its SUNSET Rule. Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) requires agencies to have a written plan to review their significant regulations every ten years to determine their impact on small entities (and to determine whether the regulations should be amended or rescinded based on the findings of the review). Because HHS found it was not reviewing all its significant regulations, it issued the SUNSET Rule to better incentivize review. Under the SUNSET Rule, all HHS regulations must be assessed every ten years to determine whether they are significant under the RFA and if they are, the review called for by the RFA must be performed. If the assessment or review of a regulation is not conducted every ten years, the regulation would expire.
Critics of the rule argue that committing HHS to reassessing the economic impacts of many of the department’s existing regulations is a large undertaking and it establishes an extreme penalty for noncompliance. Last fall, HHS issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to rescind the SUNSET Rule, and reports suggest a final repeal may be near. This webinar will discuss the SUNSET rule, the effort to repeal it, and possible future actions in this area.
Featuring:
Jonah Hecht, Attorney, McGonigle; former Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Prof. William Funk, Lewis & Clark Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, Lewis & Clark Law School
Moderator: Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Small Business Legal Center
Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
On April 7-9, 1995, the Federalist Society held its fourteenth annual National Student Symposium at the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, Illinois. The subject of the conference was "Originalism, Democracy, and the Constitution." The penultimate panel explored "The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Featuring:
Moderator: Prof. John C. Harrison, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Akhil R. Amar, Yale Law School
Prof. Earl M. Maltz, Rutgers University School of Law
Prof. Michael W. McConnell, University of Chicago Law School
Prof. Jeffrey Rosen, George Washington University Law School
On April 7-9, 1995, the Federalist Society held its fourteenth annual National Student Symposium at the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, Illinois. The subject of the conference was "Originalism, Democracy, and the Constitution." The fifth panel discussed "Is Originalism Possible? Historical Indeterminacy."
Featuring:
Moderator: Prof. Stephen B. Presser, Northwestern University School of Law
Prof. Suzanna Sherry, University of Minnesota Law School
Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Boston University School of Law
Prof. Gary Lawson, Northwestern University School of Law
Thomas B. McAffee, Southern Illinois University School of Law
The first panel of the Federalist Society's Eighth Annual Florida Chapters Conference featured an impressive group of lawyers and professors to discuss redistricting in Florida since the previous decade. Judge Meredith Sasso of Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal moderated the discussion.
Featuring:
Phillip Gordon, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC
Dr. Michael McDonald, Professor of Political Science, University of Florida
Prof. Michael Morley, Professor of Law, Florida State University College of Law
Moderator: Hon. Meredith Sasso, Florida's 5th District Court of Appeal
Florida Attorney General Ashley Moodey delievered the opening remarks at the Federalist Society's Eighth Annual Florida Chapters Conference. She was introdueced by Richard Martin, the Florida Office of the Attorney General Chief of Staff.
Featuring:
Hon. Ashley Moody, Attorney General of Florida
Forida Governor Ron Desantis and former White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany held a fireside chat at the Federalist Society's Eighth Annual Florida Chapters Conference. Jason Gonzalez of Shutts & Bowen LLP introduced the speakers.
Featuring:
Gov. Ron DeSantis, 46th Governor of Florida
Kayleigh McEnany, Former White House Press Secretary
Former Vice President Michael R. Pence delivered the Keynote Address at the Eighth Annual Florida Chapters Conference on February 4th, 2022. He made remarks regarding COVID-19 mandates at the time and the accomplishments of the previous administration.
Featuring:
Hon. Michael R. Pence, 48th Vice President of the United States
The Minnesota Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society held a Zoom webinar discussing Justice Breyer, his legacy, and his thoughts on his replacement.
The event will begin with speaker remarks and discussion, followed by audience Q&A.
On April 7-9, 1995, the Federalist Society held its fourteenth annual National Student Symposium at the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, Illinois. The subject of the conference was "Originalism, Democracy, and the Constitution." The second day of the conference commenced with a panel asking "Is Originalism Possible? Normative Indeterminacy and the Judicial Role."
Featuring:
Moderator: Edwin Meese III, The Heritage Foundation
Prof. Michael C. Dorf, Rutgers University School of Law
Prof. Richard A. Epstein, University of Chicago Law School
Prof. Michael J. Perry, Northwestern University School of Law
Prof. Steven D. Smith, University of Colorado School of Law
On April 7-9, 1995, the Federalist Society held its fourteenth annual National Student Symposium at the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, Illinois. The subject of the conference was "Originalism, Democracy, and the Constitution." The first day of the conference concluded with a panel titled "What Is Originalism?"
Featuring:
Moderator: Rep. David M. McIntosh, United States House of Representatives (IN-2)
Prof. Richard S. Kay, University of Connecticut School of Law
Prof. Larry Alexander, University of San Diego School of Law
Prof. Paul F. Campos, University of Colorado School of Law
Prof. Frederick Schauer, Harvard University
Come hear the views of in-house lawyers as they discuss their career paths and day to day experience as corporate counsel. When and why did they decide to go in-house? How does it differ from the law firm experience? What are the benefits and challenges of in-house practice?
Featuring:
Kyle Dolan, General Counsel, Priority Sports & Entertainment
Alexandra Harrison Gaiser, Director of Regulatory Affairs, River Financial
Dennis Murashko, Co-Founder and Corporate Counsel, Degree Insurance Co.
Mark Schuman, Vice President and Associate General Counsel, American Equity Investment Life Holding Company
On February 18, 2022, the Evansville Lawyers Chapter hosted a Zoom webinar featuring Professor Josh Blackman of South Texas College of Law Houston. Prof. Blackman spoke on "Abortion, Dobbs, and The Future of the Conservative Legal Movement."
Featuring:
Prof. Josh Blackman, South Texas College of Law Houston
On April 7-9, 1995, the Federalist Society held its fourteenth annual National Student Symposium at the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, Illinois. The subject of the conference was "Originalism, Democracy, and the Constitution." The first panel discussed "Originalism and the Dead Hand."
Featuring:
Moderator: Prof. Daniel D. Polsby, Northwestern University School of Law
Prof. Daniel A. Farber, University of Minnesota Law School
Prof. John O. McGinnis, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Prof. Michael S. Moore, University of Pennsylvania Law School
Prof. Lawrence G. Sager, New York University Law School
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On April 7-9, 1995, the Federalist Society held its fourteenth annual National Student Symposium at the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, Illinois. The subject of the conference was "Originalism, Democracy, and the Constitution." The second panel of the conference covered "Constitutionalism and Originalism."
Featuring:
Moderator: Steve Chapman, Chicago Tribune
Prof. Lilian R. BeVier, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Lino A. Graglia, University of Texas School of Law
Prof. Jonathan R. Macey, Cornell Law School
Prof. Cass R. Sunstein, Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School
***As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On April 7-9, 1995, the Federalist Society held its fourteenth annual National Student Symposium at the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, Illinois. The subject of the conference was "Originalism, Democracy, and the Constitution."
Featuring:
Dean Robert W. Bennett, Northwestern University School of Law
Prof. Steven G. Calabresi, Northwestern University School of Law
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
The 2022 Missouri Chapters Conference took place on January 24, 2022, at the Missouri State Capitol in Jefferson City, MO. The topic of the conference was "Freedom of Thought".
Vivek Ramaswamy, New York Times bestselling author of WOKE, INC., gave the keynote address. He was introduced by Senator Bob Onder.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
The 2022 Missouri Chapters Conference took place on January 24, 2022, at the Missouri State Capitol in Jefferson City, MO. The topic of the conference was "Freedom of Thought".
Public K-12 schools across the country have introduced elements of critical race theory into their curriculums. The Biden Administration has produced a federal rule that would prioritize funding for history and civics programs shaped by CRT. Meanwhile, lawmakers in 16 states have introduced or passed legislation seeking to limit the teaching of critical race theory within public institutions. And parents across the country have pushed back against school boards adopting CRT and filed litigation to that effect. What is critical race theory? And are states and localities within their rights in designing and limiting curricula and what can and cannot be taught in public schools, or do laws that do so potentially violate First Amendment rights or other applicable law?
Featuring:
Reverend Michael Barber, S.J., Professor of Philosophy, Saint Louis University
Josh Hammer, Opinion Editor, Newsweek and Research Fellow, Edmund Burke Foundation
Kimberly Hermann, General Counsel, Southeastern Legal Foundation
Dave Roland, Director of Litigation, Freedom Center of Missouri
Moderator: Mark Bremer, Partner, Shands, Elbert, Gianoulakis & Giljum, LLP and President, St. Louis Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
The 2022 Missouri Chapters Conference took place on January 24, 2022, at the Missouri State Capitol in Jefferson City, MO. The topic of the conference was "Freedom of Thought".
Some social media companies are inviting the government to impose new content moderation and censorship requirements. Others say that in a free market system, consumers should be able to choose social media networks based on those networks’ content moderation policies. Still others suggest that Big Tech could be regulated as a common carrier, barring large platforms from discriminating against messages based on their content. Which is the best approach?
Featuring:
Josh Divine, Chief Counsel to Senator Josh Hawley, United States Senate
Lyrissa Lidsky, Dean and Judge C.A. Leedy Professor of Law, University of Missouri
Amy Peikoff, Chief Policy Officer, Parler
Moderator: Edward Greim, Partner, Graves Garrett LLC and President, Kansas City Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
The 2022 Missouri Chapters Conference took place on January 24, 2022, at the Missouri State Capitol in Jefferson City, MO. The topic of the conference was "Freedom of Thought".
How should we think about "lawyer-shaming"? At the close of the Trump administration, we saw an effort to deter law firms from re-hiring attorneys leaving the Department of Justice and to encourage corporate America to decline to work with firms that had re-hired such attorneys. And efforts have since moved on to targeting firms with clients involved in the fossil fuel industry.
Further, in the past year we have seen a spate of bar complaints filed against both lawyers holding or seeking political office and against lawyers representing or even merely advising political candidates and officeholders.
There has been controversy in years past over attorney pro bono work on behalf of detainees accused of terrorism.
As a matter of legal ethics and as a matter of industry norms, how should we think about such efforts and is there a consistent principle that should govern? Should law firms hire attorneys with a diversity of viewpoints? When are politically motivated bar complaints appropriate and when are they unethical?
Featuring:
Stephen Davis, Partner, True North Law
Charles Hatfield, Partner, Stinson LLP
Gary Myers, Earl F. Nelson Professor of Law and former Law School Dean, University of Missouri - Columbia
Moderator: Jennifer Bukowsky, Executive Director, Show-Me Defenders and President, Jefferson City Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On March 26, 1999, the Federalist Society co-sponsored the Stranahan National Issues Forum with the University of Toledo College of Law. The title of the conference was "Education Reform at the Crossroads: Politics, the Constitution, and the Battle over School Choice." The final panel explored "School Choice in Action."
In recent years, school choice has to moved beyond an abstract topic for free-market theorists and constitutional scholars. Today, school-choice programs — public and private — and similar education-reform policies aimed at increasing choice and competition are up and running the country. Speakers at this panel — leading students, critics, and evaluators of school-coice programs — will discuss candidly the available data and empirical evidence relating to the choice programs, and will also survey and evaluate the different and local programs.
Featuring:
Roberta Holt, Director, Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program
Ann Payne, Founder, Aurora Academy
Prof. John Witte, University of Wisconsin
Brother Bob Smith, President, Messemer High School
Dr. Myron Lieberman, Education Policy Institute
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On March 26, 1999, the Federalist Society co-sponsored the Stranahan National Issues Forum with the University of Toledo College of Law. The title of the conference was "Education Reform at the Crossroads: Politics, the Constitution, and the Battle over School Choice." The penultimate panel covered "School Choice: The Next Civil Rights Crusade?"
School choice is more than an education-reform porposal. To many supporters of vouchers and charter schools, these policy innovations are crucial elements in the effort to vindicate the civil and political ights of low-income parents and members of racial minorities. At the same time, many school choice critics suggest that vouchers will constitute a set-back for public-school integration. Speakers at this panel— civil-rights leaders, school-choice activists, and academics— will discuss these problems, and also explore the connection between school choice and parents' First Amendment freedoms, as well as the historical and consitutional tradition of viewing a well-educated citizenry as the key to democratic and republican government and education as the key to meaningful exercise of civil rights.
Featuring:
Introduction Ted Cruz, Attorney, Cooper, Carvin & Rosenthal
Prof. Joseph Vitteritti, New York University
Jennifer Grossman, Director of Education, Cato
Michael Meyers, President, New York Civil Rights Coalition
Clint Bolick, Cofounder, Institute for Justice
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
The Federalist Society's Student Division &Columbus School of Law Student Chapter present
Feddie Night Festivus:Blackman vs. Everybody!
FeaturingUnprecedented Feats of Jurisprudential Strength
This event will be livestreamed via YouTube
Thursday, December 23, 20218:00 PM ET
Featuring:
Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law
Feddie Night Fights is a series of online events hosted by the Student Division and a rotating Student Chapter each month.
On March 26, 1999, the Federalist Society co-sponsored the Stranahan National Issues Forum with the University of Toledo College of Law. The title of the conference was "Education Reform at the Crossroads: Politics, the Constitution, and the Battle over School Choice," and featured a keynote address by Linda Chavez.
Featuring:
Introductory Remarks: Ted Cruz, Attorney, Cooper, Carvin & Rosenthal
Award: Corey Swanson, Cofounder, Stranahan National Issues Forum
Introduction: Dean Albert Quick, The University of Toledo College of Law
Linda Chavez, President, Center for Equal Opportunity
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". The conference concluded with the annual Hon. Robert H. Bork Memorial Lecture, featuring remarks by Judge Laurence H. Silberman on "The Job of Attorney General—A Historical Perspective."
Judge Laurence H. Silberman will be delivering remarks on "The Job of Attorney General—A Historical Perspective."
Featuring:
Hon. Laurence H. Silberman, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". The final showcase panel explored "Law, Science, and Public Policy."
"Science" as a concept enjoys the trust of the public. Indeed, some make "I trust the Science" a centerpiece for their appeal to the voting public, and this evidently has had some success.
By contrast, others in the scientific community stress that scientific methods explicitly exclude "trust". The noted physicist Richard Feynman remarked that "science begins with the distrust of experts". Instead, process in science relies on an "ethic" of impersonal objectivity, respect for data, self-questioning, a willingness to stand corrected, and open discourse. Its methods involve constructing models for reality that best fit objective assessments of available data, followed by a search for data that might contradict those models. Scientists are therefore (supposed to be) anti-advocates, willing to concede when their models were wrong; the most successful scientists even enjoy conceding, as it means that knowledge has advanced.
However, scientists, being human, are inherently imperfect practitioners of scientific methods. Historians document many examples where scientists have advocated their own (wrong) ideas over others simply because they were their own, obstructed opposing points of view, and otherwise behaved as 'politically' as in any other field of human endeavor. However, the process and its "ethic" has historically allowed models for reality to improve, and those improvements are known by the technology that has emerged based on them. As one example without science, improvements in civilized transport advanced haltingly over millennia. With science, citizens may now buy tickets to suborbital space flight.
Consequently, public policy decision-makers often rely on science (or at least they say they do) when making laws and regulations in many areas, including economics, criminal law, environmental regulations technology and bioethics.
However, the law is in many ways anti-science. Scientists, practicing their methods, commit to seeking out and weighting more heavily data that oppose their theory; they are (supposed to be) anti-advocates. In contrast, clients hire lawyers expressly to be their advocates.
This creates a natural tension when scientists are called upon to advise public policy. Many who call themselves "scientists" are willing to participate as advocates in public policy. This has been shown clearly in fields like anthropogenic climate change, economic stimulus packages and, most recently, in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic.
How should we as lawyers assure that science is used properly in the public space, to make policy conform to reality, and not for political goals?
The panel will address two areas with this as background:
The FDA, CDC, and public health regulation. The COVID pandemic uncovered many problems in the way medical science is used to manage public health crises. with public policy.
Should scientific presentations be paternalistic? Is it ever justified to withhold, distort, or misrepresent science for fear that the truth will do damage by being misunderstood or misused?
Featuring:
Dr. Steven Benner, Distinguished Fellow, The Westheimer Institute at the Foundation for Applied State Room Molecular Evolution
Prof. I. Glenn Cohen, James A. Attwood and Leslie Williams Professor of Law, Deputy Dean, and Faculty Director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics, Harvard Law School
Ms. Christina Sandefur, Executive Vice President, Goldwater Institute
Moderator: Hon. Kenneth Lee, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". The final day of the conference featured the thirteenth annual Rosenkranz Debate.
RESOLVED: Concentrated corporate power is a greater threat to individual freedom than government power
Featuring:
Mr. John Allison, Executive in Residence, Wake Forest University School of Business; Former President and CEO, Cato Institute; Former President and CEO, BB&T
Mr. Ashley Keller, Partner, Keller Lenkner LLC
Moderator: Hon. Douglas H. Ginsburg, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". This panel explored "Second Amendment: Next Steps in the Unfolding Litigation Battle."
The U.S. Supreme Court famously decided many Second Amendment cases in its Heller and McDonald cases. Yet much remains uncertain. In its first significant Second Amendment case in ten years, the Court is poised to decide the extent of citizen rights to carry firearms outside the home. Our panel will discuss the oral argument (scheduled for November 3), the merits, the procedure, as well as possible outcomes.
Featuring:
Mr. Jonathan Lowy, Vice President, Legal & Chief Counsel, Legal, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Prof. Mark W. Smith, Senior Fellow of Law and Public Policy and Presidential Scholar, The King’s College
Mr. David H. Thompson, Managing Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC
Moderator: Hon. Thomas M. Hardiman, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". This panel discussed "Private Power and Eminent Domain."
Since the Founding, the extent to which the public power of eminent domain may be used by, or for the benefit of, private parties, has been a subject of intense debate. Time and time again, the U.S. Supreme Court has considered cases testing the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation." U.S. Const., amend. V. Over 15 years ago, in the landmark case of Kelo v. New London, the Court upheld the exercise of eminent domain to transfer private property from private individuals to other private entities. The decision – controversial from the outset – prompted deeper questions about the extent to which the Constitution allows for eminent domain for "public purposes" even where the action advances the economic interests of private parties over others. But how lasting is this precedent? In a recent dissent from the denial of certiorari in Eychaner v. Chicago, three justices voted to revisit Kelo, two of them expressly calling to overrule it. Since Kelo, the U.S. Supreme Court has continued to review eminent domain and other cases, raising significant property rights concerns – often involving complex questions at the intersection of private and public power.
Most recently, in the 2020-2021 term, the U.S. Supreme Court heard three cases dealing with the intersection of private and public power in the eminent domain context:
Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, where the Court held that a state regulation allowing union organizers to enter private property constituted a taking requiring just compensation;
PennEast Pipeline v. New Jersey, where the Court dealt with the legality of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) delegation of eminent domain powers to a private pipeline company; and
Pakdel v. San Francisco, where the Court continued to reduce procedural hurdles for inverse condemnation claims (expanding upon a prior decision just two years ago in Knick v. Township of Scott).
For this panel, a distinguished lineup of speakers will discuss the intersection between public and private power in the eminent domain context. The panel will focus on eminent domain’s history, the implications of originalism for understanding the extent and use of that power, recent Supreme Court rulings on these topics, and the likely subjects and issues for review in future cases, among other things. As part of this discussion, the panel will illuminate the constitutional, legal, economic, and philosophic principles and considerations that help to inform perspectives on this important topic of public versus private power in the realm of property rights.
Featuring:
Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Former Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice
Prof. Roderick Hills, William T. Comfort, III Professor of Law, New York University School of Law
Mr. Robert J. McNamara, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Mr. Joshua Thompson, Director of Legal Operations, Pacific Legal Foundation
Moderator: Hon. Jennifer Walker Elrod, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?" This panel discussed "ABA Law School Accreditation Standards."
For many years, the U.S. Department of Education has recognized the Council of the American Bar Association Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar as the accrediting organization for law schools. The importance of that function cannot be overstated. For nearly every state, a J.D. degree from an ABA-accredited law school is required to practice law. To become accredited, a law school must comply with the standards contained in the ABA Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools. In May 2021, the Council of the ABA Section proposed a set of accreditation standards that, among other things, would require law schools to "take effective actions that, in their totality, demonstrate progress in (1) Diversifying the students, faculty, and staff; and (2) Creating an inclusive and equitable environment for students, faculty, and staff." An interpretation of that provision stated, "The requirement of a constitutional provision that purports to prohibit consideration of race, color, ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, age, disability, or military status in admissions or employment decisions is not a justification for a school’s non-compliance." The school would have to show "effective actions and progress . . . by means other than those prohibited by the applicable constitutional or statutory provisions." In addition, law schools must "provide training and education to law students on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism: (1) at the start of the program of legal education, and (2) at least once again before graduation." The Council has since withdrawn the proposal for further study, but it may reappear.
Our panel of experts will discuss the degree to which the ABA’s proposed new policy represented a change from its prior practice; if it was a change, how it came about, including any arguments for or against it; whether it is justified and consistent with the accrediting role; and, if it is not, what steps, if any, might be appropriate to take.
Featuring:
Hon. Scott Bales, Former Chief Justice, Arizona Supreme Court
Prof. John McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
Prof. Thomas D. Morgan, Oppenheim Professor Emeritus of Antitrust and Trade Regulation Law, George Washington University Law School
Mr. Daniel R. Thies, Shareholder, Webber & Thies, P.C.
Moderator: Hon. Gregory Katsas, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". The final day of the conference commenced with showcase panel on "Corporate and Academic Management Today."
The life of law school Deans and university administrators have always included responding to various demands from students and faculty. In recent years those demands include attacks on the school for failing to address racist behavior and patterns, sexual harassment and the mistreatment of gays and other minorities. Over the last couple of years those demands have significantly increased in quantity, volume and force. At the same time corporate management, especially across Fortune 500 companies, but by no means limited to them, have experienced similar pressures. Most recently, we're beginning to see pushback on behalf of outspoken students on free speech grounds, accused predators with due process claims, and others on equal protection grounds. How has management handled these pressures both in academia and in the corporate world? How should they? This roundtable includes those who have dealt with these issues—is some cases very recently and in others from a few years ago.
Featuring:
Mr. Richard Bagger, Partner and Executive Director, Christie 55 Solutions LLC
Dean David Schizer, Dean Emeritus & Harvey R. Miller Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
Dr. Lee Burdette Williams, Executive Director, College Autism Network; Former Vice President of Student Affairs and Dean of Students, Wheaton College; Former Dean of Students, University of Connecticut
Prof. Robin Fretwell Wilson, Mildred Van Voorhis Jones Chair in Law, Director, Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois College of Law
Moderator: Hon. Michael Brennan, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?".
On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society believes that it is most fitting to dedicate an annual lecture on limited government and the spirit of freedom to the memory of Barbara Olson. She had a deep commitment to the rule of law and understood well the relationship between respecting limits on government power and the preservation of freedom. And, significantly, Barbara Olson was an individual who never took freedom for granted in her own life, even in her final terrifying moments-her inspiring and energetic human spirit is a testament to what one can achieve in a world that places a premium on human freedom. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals.
Featuring:
Hon. Theodore B. Olson, Partner, Gibson Dunn
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". This panel explored "Originalism: Perspectives from the Bench."
Many would agree that originalism is now a standard when it comes to judicial philosophy. On this panel, a variety of judges will discuss how they 'do' originalism while sitting on a case. Furthermore, they will provide their views on whether and how advocates can best brief and argue cases along originalist lines.
Featuring:
Hon. Edith Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Hon. Kevin Newsom, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Hon. Andrew Oldham, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Hon. Neomi Rao, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
Moderator: Hon. John Nalbandian, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?" This panel covered "China, Global Companies, and Human Rights."
This panel will explore a suite of issues related to global companies that do business in China and the implications for national security, human rights, and the rule of law. Panelists will explore how companies that have supply chains or otherwise are active in China weigh human rights concerns (e.g., in Xinjiang or Hong Kong) against market access, as well as consider the dilemma companies face when they find themselves caught in the crossfire between U.S. and allies' human rights sanctions (e.g., Global Magnitsky) and Chinese retaliatory sanctions. Do American companies feel an obligation, apart from any legal mandates, to act in ways that advance U.S. national security or foreign policy objectives? With senior policymakers intently focused on these and related issues, is the private sector giving them sufficient attention?
Featuring:
Amb. Craig Allen, President, US-China Business Council; Former U.S. Ambassador to Brunei Darussalam
Amb. Kelley Currie, Former U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues
Mr. John S. Jenkins, Jr., Executive Vice President and General Counsel, TE Connectivity
Dr. Kori Schake, Senior Fellow and Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute
Moderator: Hon. Carlos T. Bea, Senior Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". This panel asked "Is Anyone Still Committed to Free Speech?".
The Supreme Court in 1964 spoke of "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." That commitment has seemingly waned of late. Conservatives bemoan a new institutional "cancel culture" that chills heterodox views, with many now questioning limits on government’s ability to regulate the speech and associations of private parties like social-media platforms, corporations, and employers. Meanwhile, progressives complain that speech rights are, as one ACLU attorney put it, "more often a tool of the powerful than the oppressed" and should be subordinated to other values like equity, safety from harmful speech, and "anti-racism." Has something truly changed in recent years, and, if so, does it matter? Is the traditional view of free speech—freedom from government regulation—worth defending?
Featuring:
Mr. Mike Davis, President and Founder, Internet Accountability Project; Former Chief Counsel for Nominations to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley; Founder, The Article III Project
Prof. Stanley Fish, Professor of Law, Florida International University College of Law; Floersheimer Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law, Cardozo Law
Prof. Joel Gora, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School
Ms. Nicole Neily, President and Founder, Parents Defending Education
Moderator: Hon. David R. Stras, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eight Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". This panel covered "Federalism and Broadband Spending: Finding the Right Approach."
The Covid-19 pandemic accelerated the desire for increased—indeed, universal—broadband access. This panel will focus on the infusion of federal and state funding into broadband networks. The panel will explore the ways in which states and private actors can play a role in ubiquitous deployment, the appropriate role of the FCC and other government agencies, including the USDA, NTIA, and DOE, how the FCC’s Universal Service programs can continue to facilitate deployment and adoption, and the terms that should accompany government funding distributed through states and federal agencies.
Featuring:
Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
Hon. Eric Allan Koch, Senator and Chairman, Indiana Senate Utilities Committee, Indiana State Senate
Dr. Roslyn Layton, Senior Vice President, Strand Consult
Moderator: Hon. Steven Menashi, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". This panel discussed "Cancel Culture Comes to Financial Services."
Under the Obama Administration’s Operation Choke Point initiative bank regulators sought to de-bank various legal industries such as payday lenders, firearms dealers, and home-based charities. Today, banks have increasingly acted on their own initiative to effectively operate a new voluntary form of Operation Choke Point. In January 2021, Florida’s Bank United closed Donald Trump’s personal bank account. Other banks have cut off others seemingly because of political views and have been pressured by activists to cut off funding to politically-disfavored industries, religious organizations, and others, effectively a new voluntary form of Operation Choke Point.
Is this voluntary activity the free exercise of business judgment, or is it inappropriate response to external pressure? What kind of unintended consequences might occur where banks use their business to punish based on viewpoint? Could this behavior make banks into utilities subject to more financial regulation or even government actors carrying out government directives? What are the appropriate responses to "cancel culture" or "choke point" tactics in banking? What steps are appropriate either through governmental or private actions?
Featuring:
Prof. Christopher Peterson, John J. Flynn Endowed Professor of Law, University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law
Mr. Paul Watkins, Managing Director, Patomak Global Partners
Prof. Todd J. Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; Senior Fellow, Cato Institute
Moderator: Hon. Eric Murphy, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". This panel explored "Classrooms, Curricula, and the Law."
Competing legal and cultural interests are at play in the push to implement critical race theory and diversity, equity, and inclusion-based curricula at all levels from elementary school through higher education. Some argue that state bans are necessary to combat a divisive, stigmatizing, and arguably unlawful set of educational practices. Others take a libertarian approach, casting classrooms as marketplaces of ideas and criticizing proponents of CRT-bans as opponents of free speech. Still others praise these educational practices for raising greater awareness of American’s historical injustices, arguing that this is a necessary step towards a more equitable and inclusive society. In the tradition of the First Amendment, this convergence of issues leaves much room for a lively debate.
Featuring:
Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Mr. Josh Hammer, Opinion Editor, Newsweek; Research Fellow, Edmund Burke Foundation
Ms. Kimberly Hermann, General Counsel, Southeastern Legal Foundation
Ms. Letitia Todd Kim, Managing Director, Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism
Mr. Greg Lukianoff, President and CEO, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
Moderator: Hon. Kyle Duncan, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?" The second day of the conference commenced with a showcase panel on "Private Control Over Public Discussion."
Online platforms host a growing share of public discussion and debate. As private businesses, they have been free to develop and implement their own content moderation policies, free of First Amendment constraints. But as the amount of speech hosted on a few platforms has grown, the resulting concentration of control over that speech has sparked questions about the power of private companies to stifle lawful expression.
As Justice Clarence Thomas recently noted, the Court soon will need to consider how existing legal doctrines apply to these highly concentrated, privately owned, digital platforms. Part of the solution, he suggests, might lie with common law doctrines like common carrier or public accommodation – doctrines that might permit regulation that limits the right of private platforms to exclude.
But what of the First Amendment interests of the platforms themselves? Do these corporations have a protected expressive interest in declining to carry speech which is lawful but which they find objectionable? How should we think about the digital platform model – are they more like a communications network distributing information, more like publishers that actively curate content and associate themselves with hosted expression, or do they toggle back and forth?
Finally, should the concentration of private power over speech change how we think about public and private threats to free expression? Private businesses are presumptively free to set terms and conditions for the use of their own property. Have digital platforms assumed a degree of control over public discourse, sufficient to alter that presumption? Is some form of regulation appropriate to protect against private threats to liberty? Or is government intrusion into private decision-making still the greater threat?
Featuring:
Prof. Jane Bambauer, Professor of Law, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law
Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Prof. Adam Candeub, Professor of Law & Director, Intellectual Property, Information and Communications Law Program, Michigan State University College of Law
Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Barbara Lagoa, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
On November 11, 2021, The Federalist Society hosted its annual Antonin Scalia Memorial Dinner. This year featured an address by Senator Tom Cotton.
Featuring:
Hon. Tom Cotton, U.S. Senate, Arkansas
Jennifer C. Braceras, Director, Independent Women's Law Center, Independent Women's Forum; Member, Federalist Society Board of Visitors; Former Member, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". This panel discussed "Religious Liberty after Fulton v. City of Philadelphia."
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia was a victory for religious liberty, but it is unclear how broad its implications will be for other cases and what the opinions in Fulton portend for the future of Employment Division v. Smith. The Court’s majority opinion relied on provisions of Philadelphia’s foster care agency contracting process, but the majority also potentially reworked Smith’s understanding of when government regulation is "generally applicable." Meanwhile, several justices indicated a willingness to revisit Smith altogether, though what a post-Smith free exercise jurisprudence would look like remains unclear. This panel will explore these and other questions raised by Fulton and the future of religious free exercise.
Featuring:
Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Prof. Thomas C. Berg, James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of Law
Prof. William Marshall, William Rand Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law
Ms. Lori Windham, Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
Moderator: Hon. Lawrence VanDyke, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". This panel explored "Criminal Justice 2021 and The Rule of Law."
For many who align themselves with fundamental principles of our constitutional system, the progressive agenda seems to be driven not only by an unreasonable cry to defund police, but a broader assault on the fundamental American precept "ordered liberty" through the rule of law. Meanwhile, those who align themselves with another agenda see these principles as a shield for abuses of police authority, particularly abuses aimed at certain communities, driven by perceived lack of accountability on the part of beat cops and administrators alike.
This panel will review the Constitutional underpinnings of "ordered liberty" at the state and federal level. It will discuss and consider the criminal justice system's role in both securing liberty and protecting civil rights, including as carried out by police, prosecutors, defense counsel and judges.
Featuring:
Mr. Lawrence S. Krasner, District Attorney, City of Philadelphia
Prof. Tracey L. Meares, Walton Hale Hamilton Professor of Law; Founding Director, The Justice Collaboratory, Yale Law School
Mr. McGregor W. Scott, Partner, King & Spalding LLP; Former U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of California
Mr. Richard Stanek, Sheriff, Hennepin County, Retired
Moderator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?" This panel covered "Administrative Inquisitions? How Agencies Initiate, Conduct, and Conclude Investigations."
In addition to formal rulemaking and case-by-case adjudication and enforcement, federal agencies have long employed a myriad of mechanisms to influence and punish private behavior. Their civil administrative investigations are unbounded by the procedural constraints of the Administrative Procedure Act, traditional transparency protections, or the redress afforded by timely judicial review. Civil administrative investigations can be not only onerous but also financially catastrophic, especially when the targets are small businesses and individuals. The abuse of agency investigative authority raises significant constitutional and statutory questions. Agencies have compelled information from investigative targets without the warrant the Fourth Amendment would require, and then converted the investigation from civil to criminal. Federal agencies have been imposing draconian conditions to end administrative investigations, like imposing "gag" orders that prohibit the target from disclosing the terms of the settlement, and requiring the target to make payments to agency-designated third parties in lieu of paying the statutorily prescribed fine into the Federal Treasury. These conditions are imposed without affording the investigative target the opportunity to meaningfully challenge the agency’s underlying authority to act or the tactics by which it acts.
This panel will explore the under-researched civil investigative and related activities of federal agencies and engage on their underlying legal authority to so act.
Featuring:
Mr. Tyler S. Clarkson, Associate General Counsel, Synthetic Biology Company; Former Acting General Counsel, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Prof. Aram Gavoor, Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law School
Prof. Richard J. Pierce, Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School
Ms. Susan C. Rodriguez, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP
Moderator: Hon. James C. Ho, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?" This panel explored "Progressive HR in 2021: The Solution of the Problem?"
The average United States workplace has changed in many ways over the past twenty years. The development of modern internet, computers, and smartphones shifted corporate America fully into the 21st century. The changes, however, have not been only technological in nature. New HR practices can now be found in more and more companies, both large and small. In the same way the iPhone modernized how U.S. workers communicate, new progressive HR policies seek to modify several aspects of workplace interaction. Our panel of experts will discuss the school of thought and fundamental reasoning behind these policies, as well whether these changes are helpful or harmful, or something in between.
Featuring:
Hon. Sharon Fast Gustafson, Former General Counsel, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Mr. Larry H. James, Managing Partner, Crabbe Brown & James LLP; Life Member, Sixth Circuit Judicial Conference
Hon. Peter Kirsanow, Partner, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP; Former Member, National Labor Relations Board
Mr. Daniel Villao, Chief Executive Officer, Intelligent Partnerships
Moderator: Hon. Paul B. Matey, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?" This panel discussed "The Antitrust Revolution?"
The past year has seen an unprecedented number of political and legislative suggestions for altering nearly every aspect of U.S. antitrust law. If adopted, these proposals may redefine the American economy and consumer marketplace. Hear from leading legislators, antitrust luminaries and policy makers about the potential upcoming antitrust revolution.
Featuring:
Hon. William Baer, Visiting Fellow in Governance Studies, Brookings Institution; Former Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
Mr. François-Henri Briard, Supreme Court Attorney, Cabinet Briard LLP
Hon. Makan Delrahim, Adjunct Lecturer in Law, University of Pennsylvania; Former Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
Hon. Douglas Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit; Former Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
Ms. Diana Moss, President, American Antitrust Institute
Moderator: Hon. Chad Readler, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?" The panel covered "IP Law and Culture."
A perennial debate about intellectual property and culture is how intellectual property laws enhance or restrict the ability of people to contribute to and build a culture. The Supreme Court has described copyright as "the engine of free expression," but criticisms frequently arise when intellectual property law prevents people from using the work of others to express themselves. In the trademark context, recent Supreme Court decisions struck down the prohibition of federal trademark registration for immoral, scandalous, and disparaging marks as a violation of First Amendment speech rights. Some argue that the Court’s reasoning should further be applied to strike down most federal Trademark Dilution claims, which allow brand owners to sue those who use their trademarks in ways that blur or tarnish the trademark. The debate regarding copyright fair use also continues to rage on, pitting the rights of original creators against the ability of appropriation artists and others to use those original works.
This panel will consider these longstanding controversies in light of recent developments.
Featuring:
Prof. Lisa Ramsey, Professor of Law & Founding Member, Center for Intellectual Property Law and Markets, University of San Diego School of Law
Prof. Robert Spoo, Associate Dean for Faculty Development & Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Tulsa College of Law
Hon. Karyn Temple, Senior Executive Vice President and Global General Counsel, Motion Picture Association; Former Register of Copyrights and Director, U.S. Copyright Office.
Prof. Sandra Aistars, Senior Fellow for Copyright Research and Policy, Senior Scholar at the Center for Intellectual Property x Innovation Policy, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Moderator: Hon. Ryan T. Holte, U.S. Court of Federal Claims
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?" The panel explored "A View From In-House."
The Federalist Society’s In-House Counsel Working Group presents a panel discussion featuring top in-house attorneys at publicly-traded and privately-owned companies, who will shed light on the current state of corporate law and governance, reflect on challenges they face in day-to-day practice, and present an overview of the in-house legal world to newcomers and experienced lawyers alike.
Featuring:
Ms. Katie Biber, Chief Legal Officer, Brex
Hon. Mary Beth Buchanan, President, Americas and Global Chief Legal Officer, Merkle Science
Ms. Jenny Kim, Vice President of Operations and General Counsel, Philanthropy Roundtable
Ms. Carrie Ryerson, General Counsel, Shamrock Foods
Moderator: Hon. Britt C. Grant, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?" The panel discussed "The Separation of Powers and Political Polarization."
Political polarization is a great problem of our time. This panel would consider the separation of powers deformation that is a factor in polarization. Executive branch administrative decisions tend to be more extreme than legislative solutions, particularly when, as is usually the case, the houses of Congress and the President are divided among the parties. Thus, Congress’s delegation of policy decisions to the executive branch results in extreme regulations that can shift radically between administrations, creating government by whiplash. The panel would consider whether institutional restorations, like the curbing of delegation and Chevron, might help in restoring a constitution of compromise.
Featuring:
Prof. Neal E. Devins, Sandra Day O’Connor Professor of Law & Professor of Government, William & Mary Law School
Prof. Victoria Nourse, Ralph V. Whitworth Professor in Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Hon. Ajit Pai, Nonresident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Former Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
Prof. Michael Rappaport, Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Professor of Law & Director for the Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism, University of San Diego School of Law
Moderator: Hon. William H. Pryor Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". This panel discussed "Federal Consent Decrees: Good Governance, an Expansion of Federal Power, or Both?"
In a 1987 article entitled Why Hold Elections?, Professor Michael McConnell noted a trend that had been emerging since the 1970s: the use of consent decrees to settle federal lawsuits against state and local governments. These decrees are entered as judgements enforceable by contempt, but without full litigation. Nonetheless, these decrees often contain hundreds of requirements that dictate the policies, budgets, and personnel of local government agencies for years or even decades. Professor McConnell thus warned: "To the extent that consent decrees insulate today's policy decisions from review and modification by tomorrow's political processes, they violate the democratic structure of government. They should be repudiated before they become a common part of the legal landscape."
In 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memo noting that consent decrees "raise sensitive federalism concerns" and announcing a new set of policies governing (and limiting) DOJ’s use of consent decrees.
In April 2021, Attorney General Garland repudiated the Sessions memo, stating that the "Department will return to the traditional process that allows the heads of litigating components to approve most settlement agreements, consent decrees, and the use of monitors in cases involving state and local governmental entities."
This panel will explore the important topic of federal court consent decrees to settle claims against state and local governments. Panelists will explore the history of such decrees and the arguments for and against their use. Panelists will also discuss the dueling approaches to DOJ’s use of such decrees, as outlined in the Sessions and Garland memos.
Featuring:
Mr. Andrew McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National Review Institute; Contributing Editor, National Review
Mr. Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP; Former Acting Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
Prof. Robert Percival, Robert F. Stanton Professor of Law; Director of the Environmental Law Program, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law
Mr. Benjamin S. Wolf, Former Legal Director and Institutional Reform Project Director, ACLU of Illinois
Moderator: Hon. Elizabeth “Lisa” Branch, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
What role should publicly traded corporations play in democratic politics?
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?" The first showcase panel discussed "Social Activism and Corporate Leadership."
Corporate resources are increasingly being used to advance social justice policy goals. This corporate engagement includes advocacy for what’s presented as the “corporate perspective” on divisive social questions. It also includes the use of economic leverage to influence public opinion, affect government policy, and induce private agreements to policy choices that have not been adopted through the political process.
To some, this is a positive development: it is all to the good for corporations to advance a just cause. Their public leadership and their market power can help bring the country and the world along. To others, this is an abuse and confusion of power. The goals of the “social justice” and “woke” movements are among the most hotly contested questions of American politics and culture, and they should be resolved through democratic processes without corporations putting a thumb on the scale.
We will explore these questions both as matters of principle and matters of law.
As a matter of principle, should corporations have unfettered discretion to influence any sphere of American life? Is such discretion good for the democratic process, and is it good for individual liberty? Is the libertarian perspective -- that private actors should be largely able to do what they want, and if they overstep, market competition will fill the gap – adequate to this dynamic? Is there any limiting principle to corporations using economic power to influence politics?
As a matter of law, are corporations permitted to use whatever levers are available to them to influence matters of politics? Is corporate leadership permitted to do so in publicly traded companies? Should corporate endorsement or support of a policy position or candidate be considered a reportable lobbying expense or campaign contribution and, if so, how should it be valued? What existing legal frameworks might apply to these questions? How does Citizens United fit into this picture?
Featuring:
Prof. Margaret Blair, Professor of Law Emerita & Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise Emerita, Vanderbilt University Law School; Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
Prof. Jonathan Macey, Sam Harris Professor of Corporate Law, Corporate Finance, and Securities Law, Yale Law School
Prof. Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Luigi Zingales, Robert C. McCormack Distinguished Service Professor of Entrepreneurship and Finance and George G. Rinder Faculty Fellow, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Moderator: Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". The opening address was given by Judge Amul Thapar.
Featuring:
Hon. Amul R. Thapar, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
On March 26, 1999, the Federalist Society co-sponsored the Stranahan National Issues Forum with the University of Toledo College of Law. The title of the conference was "Education Reform at the Crossroads: Politics, the Constitution, and the Battle over School Choice." The second panel covered "School Choice in the Courts."
The United States Supreme Court recently declined to review the Wisconsin Supreme Court's holding that Milwaukee's school-voucher program does not violate the First Amendment's Religion Clause, and the Arizona Supreme Court upheld tax credits. Other recent federal-court decisions have embraced many of the constitutional arguments advanced by school choice proponents. In the months to come, other courts in Ohio, Maine, and Vermont, are likely to address this same issue. However, given the twists and turns of the Supreme Courts's Religion Clause jurisprudence, only the Supreme Court will be able to resolve the constitutional questions surrounding vouchers. At this panel, leading constitutional scholars and litigators will discuss various aspects of the problem of school choice programs' constitutionality.
Featuring:
Leonard Leo, The Federalist Society
Richard W. Garnett, Attorney, Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin
Jeffrey Sutton, Of Counsel, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue
Steven R. Shapiro, National Legal DIrector, American Civil Liberties Union
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On March 26, 1999, the Federalist Society co-sponsored the Stranahan National Issues Forum with the University of Toledo College of Law. The title of the conference was "Education Reform at the Crossroads: Politics, the Constitution, and the Battle over School Choice." The first panel discussed "The History and Politics of School Choice."
School choice is a "hot" political topic, one that cuts across current party lines and ideological boundaries. School choice efforts have succeeded in some States, yet failed in others. What are the "politics of school choice?" How can and do voucher proponents and opponents frame their case to appeal to the public? What arguments "work?" Is there room for consensus and compromise? Speakers at this panel will be experienced observers of the political scene and students of public opinion who will place the rhetorical and political struggles over school choice in perspective.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Mr. Andrew Coulson, Senior Research Associate, Social Philosophy Policy Center
Mr. Dal Lawrence, Former President, Toledo Federation of Teachers
Mr. Richard Leonardi, President, Buckeye Institute
Councilwoman Fannie Lewis, Cleveland City Council
Moderator Mr. Douglas Haynes, Vice President of Education Policy, John Locke Foundation
Featuring:
Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Featuring:
Brian Barnes, Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC
Antonio García-Martínez, Author, Chaos Monkeys, and ex-Advisor, Twitter
Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor, Stanford Law School, and Co-Chair, Oversight Board
Chris Pavlovski, Founder and CEO, Rumble.com
Moderator: Olivia Jackson, General Counsel, Oversight Board
Introduction: Jonathan Breit, Stanford Law School ’22
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Featuring:
A. Douglas Melamed, Professor, Stanford Law School, and ex-General Counsel, Intel
Aaron Schur, Deputy General Counsel, Yelp
Hal Singer, Managing Director, Econ One
Dina Srinivasan, Author, The Antitrust Case Against Facebook
Alan Sykes, Professor, Stanford Law School
Moderator: Ted Ullyot, Former General Counsel, Facebook
Introduction: Austin Peters, Stanford Law School '22
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Featuring:
Paul Grewal, Chief Legal Officer, Coinbase
Interviewer: Katie Biber, Chief Legal Officer, Brex
Introduction: Theodore Furchtgott, Stanford Law School '22
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Featuring:
Melissa Holyoak, Solicitor General, State of Utah
Clayton Kozinski, Counsel, Lehotsky Keller LLP
Aaron Royston, Managing Partner, venBio Partners
Hoan Ton-That, Co-Founder and CEO, Clearview AI
Moderator: Gabe Ledeen, Managing Counsel, Privacy and Product, Cruise
Introduction: Daniel Bojorquez, Stanford Law School '23
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Convocation
Eugene B. Meyer, President and CEO, The Federalist Society
A Conversation on Regulation as Opportunity
Salen Churi, General Partner, Trust Ventures
Miles Jennings, General Counsel, a16z Crypto
Moderator: Ann McDonald, Stanford Law School '23
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
A sharply divided Congress is facing significant challenges in order to raise revenue and meet President Biden’s priorities. While no one pretends to have a crystal ball, some changes are likely coming this fall and winter. Depending upon what compromises can be reached, ideas for reform range from changing step-up-in-basis rules and pass through regulations to significant changes in corporate taxation. Meanwhile in Brussels, a movement is growing among national leaders to establish global minimum corporate taxes and other significant changes to the global tax system. What is a practitioner to make of all this? What do we need to prepare for?
Listen to our our panel of experts dissect and explain some of the most impactful potential tax reforms of 2021.
The Evansville Lawyers Chapter is honored to host Dave Hoppe, President, Hoppe Strategies, for a discussion entitled "How to Fix the Budget Mess."
Featuring:
David Hoppe, President, Hoppe Strategies
Introduction: Seth Zirkle, Evansville Lawyers Chapter President
Featuring:
Todd J. Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Moderator: Chad Davis, President, Polk County Lawyers Chapters
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Featuring:
Hon. Daniel Cameron, Attorney General, Commonwealth of Kentucky
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
This panel discussed the upcoming Supreme Court term, which began on October 4, 2021. The Court's docket already includes major cases involving abortion, civil rights, criminal law, free expression and religious liberty, copyright, immigration, national security, the Second Amendment, and matters of constitutional structure. The full list of cases granted thus far for the upcoming term can be viewed on SCOTUSblog. The panel discussed broader questions about the direction of the Court.
Featuring:
Sarah Keeton Campbell, Associate Solicitor General and Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Tennessee Attorney General's Office
John P. Elwood, Partner, Arnold & Porter
Matthew Kuhn, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Office of the Kentucky Attorney General
Moderator: Hon. John K. Bush, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Featuring:
Hon. Allison Joy Ball, State Treasurer, Commonwealth of Kentucky
Kevin Gallagher, Counsel, Wilmer Hale
Hon. Robin L. Webb, Kentucky State Senator
Moderator: Hon. John B. Nalbandian, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Featuring:
Jesse Barrett, Partner, SouthBank Legal: LaDue | Curran | Kuehn
Russell Coleman, Partner, Frost Brown Todd and Former United States Attorney for the Western District of Kentucky
Elaine Leonhard, Supervisory Assistant United States Attorney, Eastern District of Kentucky
Hon. Danny Reeves, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Moderator: Hon. Amul Thapar, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Featuring:
Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On February 28-29, 1992, the Federalist Society held its eleventh annual National Student Symposium at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin, Texas. The subject of the conference was "The Legacy of the Federalist Papers." The last panel covered "The Anti-Federalists After 200 Years: Pundits or Prophets?".
3:45 p.m.Panel IV: The Anti-Federalists after 200 Years: Pundits or Prophets?
Prof. Akhil R. Amar, Yale Law School
Hon. Charles J. Cooper, Partner, Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge; and former Assistant U.S. Attorney General
Prof. Lino A. Graglia, University of Texas School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Edwin Meese III, 75th Attorney General; and Distinguished Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Schools across the country have introduced elements of critical race theory into their curriculums. The Biden Administration has produced a federal rule that would prioritize funding for history and civics programs shaped by CRT. Meanwhile, lawmakers in 16 states have introduced or passed legislation this year seeking to limit the teaching of critical race theory within public institutions. And parents across the country have pushed back against school boards adopting CRT and filed litigation to that effect. What is critical race theory? Is the Biden Administration able to encourage its teaching through funding? Are states and localities within their rights in designing and limiting curricula and what can and cannot be taught in public schools or do laws that do so potentially violate First Amendment rights or other applicable law?
Featuring:
Prof. Christopher Brooks, Professor of History, East Stroudsburg University
Joe Cohn, Legislative and Policy Director, FIRE
Taylor Meehan, Counsel, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC
Moderator: Alison Somin, Legal Fellow, Center for the Separation of Powers at the Pacific Legal Foundation
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in over a year of virtual public schooling in some parts of the country, which caused a surge of interest in school choice options as parents sought in-person instruction for their children. About 500,000 students nationally left traditional public schools during the pandemic to move into private schools, charters, and full-time home-schooling. State legislatures across the country thus responded by considering legislation to increase the number of charter schools, offer additional scholarship and tax credit programs, and create education savings account options to increase choice in education.
This panel surveyed proposed education reforms to expand school choice and discussed the responses of unions, school boards, and parents to these proposals. Panelists considered changes the Biden Administration may make in education special emphasis on any proposed reforms in Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey.
Featuring:
Robert S. Eitel, President, Defense of Freedom Institute
Benjamin A. Field, Attorney, Institute for Justice
Moderator: Judge Joshua Wolson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Featuring:
Prof. Robert P. George, Princeton University
Introduction: Lisa Ezell, Vice President & Director, Lawyers Chapters, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Despite the fact that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits racial discrimination by schools that receive federal funding, racial preferences are being applied in admissions at many colleges and universities for the purpose of enhancing diversity. More recently, in light of this renewed emphasis on and interest in student diversity, the application of racial preferences in student admissions in higher education is having a trickle-down effect in admissions at prestigious magnet, charter and private secondary schools as well, many of which are discarding merit and test-based admissions policies in the name of diversity. However, the United States Supreme Court is currently considering whether to hear a case relating to Harvard University’s affirmative action policies which require the consideration of race in student admissions.
This panel discussed the effects of racial preferences in higher education and also considered whether the Supreme Court will review the legal challenge to Harvard University’s admission policies, analyzed the merits of various legal arguments in the Harvard case, and predicted how the conservative leaning Supreme Court may potentially rule.
Featuring:
Cory Liu, Partner, Ashcroft Law Firm, and former assistant general counsel to Texas Governor Greg Abbott
Theodore Shaw, Julius L. Chambers Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Civil Rights, UNC School of Law
Patrick Strawbridge, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC, and adjunct professor for the Supreme Court Clinic at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University
Moderator: Judge Paul Matey, United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On February 28-29, 1992, the Federalist Society held its eleventh annual National Student Symposium at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin, Texas. The subject of the conference was "The Legacy of the Federalist Papers." The second day of the symposium featured a lunchtime debate on "The Federalist and the Contemporary Debate on Term Limits."
2:30 p.m.Debate: The Federalist and the Contemporary Debate on Term Limits
Hon. William Kristol, Chief of Staff, Office of the Vice President
Prof. Nelson Polsby, Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California at Berkeley
Moderator: Hon. Will Garwood, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On February 28-29, 1992, the Federalist Society held its eleventh annual National Student Symposium at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin, Texas. The subject of the conference was "The Legacy of the Federalist Papers." The third panel covered "Liberty and Constitutional Architecture."
11:15 a.m.Panel III: Liberty and Constitutional Architecture
Prof. John S. Baker, Jr., Louisiana State University Law Center
Prof. Douglas Laycock, University of Texas School of Law
Prof. Geoffrey P. Miller, University of Chicago Law School
Moderator: Hon. James L. Buckley, U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Hear from a panel of experts who will discuss key legal and regulatory issues surrounding digital assets in 2021 and beyond.
Featuring:
Jeff Carter, Managing Partner, West Loop Ventures
Daniel J. Davis, Partner, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
James Koutoulas, Chief Executive Officer, Typhon Capital Management, LLC
Matt Lisle, Director-Legal, Galaxy Digital
John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
Moderator: Patrick Daugherty, Partner, Foley & Lardner LLP
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On February 28-29, 1992, the Federalist Society held its eleventh annual National Student Symposium at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin, Texas. The subject of the conference was "The Legacy of the Federalist Papers." The second day of the symposium began with a panel titled "To Govern and Be Governed: The Federalist's Vision of Representative Democracy."
9:15 a.m.Panel II: To Govern and Be Governed: The Federalist's Vision of Representative Democracy
Dean Jesse H. Choper, University of California at Berkeley School of Law
Hon. Frank H. Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
David Epstein, U.S. Department of Defense and Author, The Political Theory of The Federalist
Prof. Jonathan R. Macey, Cornell Law School
Moderator: Hon. James L. Ryan, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
The Federalist Society's Little Rock Lawyers Chapter recently hosted a virtual discussion on the upcoming Supreme Court term.
Featuring:
Scott Keller, Former Solicitor General of Texas
On September 29, 2021, former United States Representative Bob Barr joined the Federalist Society's Southern California Student Chapter to discuss the two-party system.
Featuring:
Hon. Bob Barr, President and CEO, Liberty Strategies LLC
On September 29, 2021, the Federalist Society's Jacksonville Lawyers Chapter hosted a virtual discussion giving insight into the upcoming Supreme Court term.
Featuring:
Henry Whitaker, Solicitor General, Florida
Joseph R. Palmore, Partner, Morrison & Foerster
Sarah Harris, Partner, Williams & Connolly LLP
Moderator: Bryan Gowdy, Creed & Gowdy, P.A.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On September 17-18, 2021, The Federalist Society's Texas chapters sponsored the seventh annual Texas Chapters Conference at the George W. Bush Presidential Center in Dallas, Texas. This panel covered "Big Tech and the Future of Section 230."
Featuring:
Brian W. Barnes, Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC
Jeff Kosseff, Assistant Professor of Cybersecurity Law, The United States Naval Academy
Kate Tummarello, Executive Director, Engine
Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA School of Law
Moderator: Judge Brantley Starr, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On September 17-18, 2021, The Federalist Society's Texas chapters sponsored the seventh annual Texas Chapters Conference at the George W. Bush Presidential Center in Dallas, Texas. The conference opened with a roundtable titled "Advice for Young Lawyers Roundtable," featuring a distinguished panel of United States District Court judges who discussed their career paths and current roles on the bench.
Featuring:
Judge Sean D. Jordan, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
Judge Jeremy Kernodle, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
Judge Charles R. Eskridge, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas
Judge Wes Hendrix, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas
Moderator: Carter Burwell, former Chief Counsel, Senator John Corryn
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On September 17-18, 2021, The Federalist Society's Texas chapters sponsored the seventh annual Texas Chapters Conference at the George W. Bush Presidential Center in Dallas, Texas. The conference featured the fourth annual Gregory S. Coleman Memorial Lecture, with former Attorney General John Ashcroft as the keynote speaker.
On November 23, 2010, the Lone Star State lost one of its brightest appellate stars: Gregory S. Coleman, the first Solicitor General of the State of Texas, founding partner of Yetter Coleman LLP, distinguished Supreme Court advocate, honors graduate of Texas A&M University (B.S., M.B.A.) and the University of Texas Law School (J.D.), and former law clerk to Fifth Circuit Judge Edith Jones and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
In Memoriam:
At the age of 47 and at the height of his professional and personal life, Mr. Coleman died in an airplane crash that also claimed the lives of his mother-in-law Charlene Miller and brother-in-law James Black. Tragically, Mr. Coleman was traveling from Texas to Florida to attend a Thanksgiving celebration with the people who mattered most to him and were at the center of his life, love, and devotion: his wife Stephanie and his three sons Chase, Austin, and Reid.
On September 8, 2018, the Texas Chapters of the Federalist Society inaugurated the Gregory S. Coleman Memorial Lecture Series to honor the life, memory, and legacy of Texas’s first Solicitor General. Justice Clarence Thomas served as the first Lecturer in this series. Each year, the Federalist Society will remember Gregory S. Coleman at its annual Texas Chapters Conference by selecting and presenting a lecturer who exemplifies his commitment to the Constitution, the rule of law, and public service.
Featuring:
John Ashcroft, Chairman, The Ashcroft Law Firm, LLC; former Attorney General, Department of Justice
Moderator: Luis A. Reyes, Partner, The Ashcroft Law Firm, LLC
Introduction: Austin R. Nimocks, Partner, The Ashcroft Law Firm, LLC
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On February 28-29, 1992, the Federalist Society held its eleventh annual National Student Symposium at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin Texas. The subject of the conference was "The Legacy of the Federalist Papers." The symposium commenced with a panel on "Philosophical Foundations of 'The Federalist': The Nature of Law and the Nature of Man."
6:30 p.m.Introduction and Opening Remarks
Prof. Douglas Laycock, Associate Dean, University of Texas
7:00 p.m.Panel I: Philosophical Foundations of The Federalist: The Nature of Law and the Nature of Man
Prof. Richard A. Epstein, University of Chicago Law School
Prof. Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard Law School
Prof. Harold Bruff, University of Texas Law School
Moderator: Hon. Thomas R. Phillips, Supreme Court of Texas
On September 15, 2021, The Federalist Society's Practice Groups hosted a conference titled The Antitrust Paradox: Where We've Been and Where We're Going. Senator Mike Lee, who penned the introduction to the republished Antitrust Paradox, spoke on Judge Bork's seminal work and its continued relevance.
Featuring:
Hon. Mike Lee, United States Senator, Utah
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On September 15, 2021, The Federalist Society's Practice Groups hosted a conference titled The Antitrust Paradox: Where We've Been and Where We're Going. This panel covered antitrust law reform proposals and discussed their marketplace implications. These experts and practioners offered their divergent views on where antitrust law is headed and where it should go.
Featuring:
Daren Bakst, Senior Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation
Hon. Maureen Ohlhausen, Partner, Baker Botts LLP; former Acting Chair, Federal Trade Commission
Mark Whitener, Senior Policy Fellow, Georgetown Center for Business & Public Policy; former Global Executive Counsel, General Electric Company
Moderator: Hon. Brent McIntosh, Adjunct Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations; former Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, U.S. Department of the Treasury
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On September 15, 2021, The Federalist Society's Practice Groups hosted a conference titled The Antitrust Paradox: Where We've Been and Where We're Going. This panel of experts reviewed the history of antitrust law, with a special focus on the consumer welfare standard, and offered their diverse perspectives on its origins, purposes, and effectiveness.
Featuring:
Prof. Elyse Dorsey, Visiting Scholar, University of Virginia; Adjunct Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Prof. Michael L. Katz, Sarin Chair Emeritus in Strategy and Leadership, Haas School of Business, University of California at Berkeley; former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Economic Analysis, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
Bilal Sayyed, Senior Adjunct Fellow, TechFreedom; former Director, Office of Policy Planning, Federal Trade Commission
Moderator: Hon. Makan Delrahim, Adjunct Lecturer in Law, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School; former Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On September 15, 2021, The Federalist Society's Practice Groups hosted a conference titled The Antitrust Paradox: Where We've Been and Where We're Going. The opening address featured President of the Bork Foundation Robert Bork, Jr. who discussed his efforts to republish his father's famous work, The Antitrust Paradox, so that lawyers, scholars, and interested citizens could bring Judge Bork's work to bear on their own. Judge Douglas Ginsburg, who served as Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division, moderated the conversation.
Featuring:
Robert Bork, Jr., President, The Bork Foundation; President, Antitrust Education Project
Moderator: Hon. Douglas Ginsburg, Senior Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; former Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On March 1-2, 1991, the Federalist Society's Yale Law School student chapter hosted the annual National Student Symposium in New Haven, Connecticut. The topic of the conference was "The Bill of Rights After 200 Years." The second day of the conference began with a panel asking "How Effective Are Bills of Rights in Protecting Freedom and Civil Liberties?".
Featuring:
Prof. Thomas Merrill, Northwestern Law School
Prof. John Baker, Louisiana State University Law School
Judge Frank Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Prof. Herman Schwartz, American University Washington College of Law
Moderator: Theodore Olson, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On March 1-2, 1991, the Federalist Society's Yale Law School student chapter hosted the annual National Student Symposium in New Haven, Connecticut. The topic of the conference was "The Bill of Rights After 200 Years." The conference's third panel discussed "The Bill of Rights and Governmental Structure."
Featuring:
Prof. Akhil Amar, Yale Law School
Walter Berns, Professor Emeritus, Georgetown University
Prof. Kate Stith, Yale Law School
Prof. John Langbein, Yale Law School
Moderator: Judge Alex Kozinski, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
The terrorist attacks of 9/11 profoundly affected America. This program presented a conversation among former government officials at the vital center of our response. Beginning with recollections of their activities on that day, they presented a retrospective and prospective analysis of the meaning and effect of the attacks on the nation, our national security, and our ongoing struggle against terrorists.
Featuring:
Judge Michael B. Mukasey, Of Counsel, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP; U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y., 1987-2006, and U.S. Attorney General, 2007-2009
Hon. William J. Haynes II, General Counsel of the Department of Defense, 2001-2008
Moderator: Hon. Mary Beth Buchanan, EVP Americas and Global Chief Legal Officer, Merkle Science; and former U.S Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, 2001-2009
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On March 1-2, 1991, the Federalist Society's Yale Law School student chapter hosted the annual National Student Symposium in New Haven, Connecticut. The topic of the conference was "The Bill of Rights After 200 Years." The conference began with introductory remarks and a panel titled "Should the Bill of Rights Fully Protect Fundamental Freedoms?".
Welcome & Introduction:
Introductory Remarks: Prof. Owen M. Fiss, Yale Law School
Introductory Remarks: Judge Ralph K. Winter, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Featuring:
Prof. Bruce Ackerman, Yale Law School
Prof. Richard Epstein, University of Chicago Law School
Prof. Nadine Strossen, President, American Civil Liberties Union
Prof. Robert Ellickson, Yale Law School
Moderator: William Barr, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On September 13-14, 1991, the Federalist Society hosted its fifth annual National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The conference was titled "Individual Responsibility and the Law." The second day of the convention featured a luncheon address by Dr. Peter Huber.
Featuring:
Dr. Peter Huber, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute
Introduction: John P. McConnell, Speechwriter, Vice President Dan Quayle
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On September 13-14, 1991, the Federalist Society hosted its fifth annual National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The conference was titled "Individual Responsibility and the Law." The conference concluded with a panel discussing "Mandatory Pro Bono: Collective Discharge of Duty or Compelled Free Service?".
Featuring:
Alexander Forger, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy
Prof. Jonathan Macey, Cornell Law School
Moderator: Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, United States Court of Appeals, DC Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On September 13-14, 1991, the Federalist Society hosted its fifth annual National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The conference was titled "Individual Responsibility and the Law." The second day of the conference included a panel on "Personal Responsibility in Criminal Law."
Featuring:
Prof. Joseph D. Grano, Wayne State University School of Law
Prof. Norval Morris, University of Chicago Law School
Adam Walinsky, Kronish, Lieb, Weiner and Hellman
Moderator: Lois Haight Herrington, former Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On September 13-14, 1991, the Federalist Society hosted its fifth annual National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The conference was titled "Individual Responsibility and the Law." The first day of the conference concluded with a banquet address by William J. Bennett.
Featuring:
William J. Bennett, Hudson Institute
Introduction: David McIntosh, National Co-Chairman, The Federalist Society
Opening Remarks: Peter Keisler, Director, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On September 13-14, 1991, the Federalist Society hosted its fifth annual National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The conference was titled "Individual Responsibility and the Law." The second panel discussed "Family Law and Individual Responsibility."
Featuring:
Prof. Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Department of Women's Studies, Emory University
Prof. Jane E. Larson, Northwestern Law School
Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum
Mr. Karl Zinsmeister, Adjunct Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
Moderator: William Kristol, Chief of Staff to Vice President Dan Quayle
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On July 19, 2021, the Federalist Society's Financial Services and E-Commerce Practice Group sponsored an online conference titled "The CFPB Turns 10: Evaluating America’s Youngest Federal Financial Regulator." The first panel of the conference asked "What is the CFPB's Legacy?".
Ten years after first opening its doors, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau remains one of the most controversial agencies in the federal government. What is it about the agency that continues to inspire partisan passions, and how can the CFPB’s legacy be objectively assessed? This panel will examine the CFPB’s successes and failures over the past decade and evaluate the effect it has had on consumers, industry, and financial markets. The panelists include two former Deputy Directors, each of whom served under both former Director Cordray and former Director Kraninger.
Featuring:
Tom Pahl, Former Deputy Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
David Silberman, Former Acting Deputy Director and Associate Director for Research, Markets, and Rulemaking, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Moderator: Brian Johnson, Partner, Alston & Bird LLP
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On July 19, 2021, the Federalist Society's Financial Services and E-Commerce Practice Group sponsored an online conference titled "The CFPB Turns 10: Evaluating America’s Youngest Federal Financial Regulator." The conference concluded with a panel titled "What Does the CFPB's Future Hold?".
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Seila Law last year struck down statutory conditions on the removal of the CFPB Director from office as a violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers. The Biden Administration used this decision to abruptly change the leadership of the CFPB six months ago. This panel will discuss the priorities and actions of the CFPB under this new leadership, and the expected priorities of the agency under its next confirmed Director. The panel will also discuss what should be the future direction of federal consumer financial law and CFPB policy going forward. Specifically, how should the CFPB or consumer law and policy be reformed to improve consumer welfare and the efficient functioning of consumer finance markets? The panelists include a leading national consumer financial services lawyer and two law professors, both of whom also worked for the CFPB.
Featuring:
Todd Zywicki, Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, Cato Institute
Chris Peterson, John J. Flynn Endowed Professor of Law, University of Utah's S.J. Quinney College of Law
Nanci Weissgold, Partner, Alston & Bird LLP
Moderator: Brian Johnson, Partner, Alston & Bird LLP
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On July 19, 2021, the Federalist Society's Financial Services and E-Regulation Practice Group sponsored an online conference titled "The CFPB Turns 10: Evaluating America's Youngest Federal Financial Regulator." Former Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Director Kathy Kraninger offered the keynote address, reflecting on her tenure at the CFPB.
Featuring:
Hon. Kathy Kraninger, Former Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Moderator: Brian Johnson, Partner, Alston & Bird
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On March 10-11, 1989, the Federalist Society's University of Michigan student chapter hosted the eighth annual National Student Symposium in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The topic of the conference was "Property: The Founding, The Welfare State, and Beyond." The final panel of the conference covered "Ownership of Life."
Featuring:
Prof. Carl E. Schneider, University of Michigan Law School
Prof. Peter H. Schuck, Yale Law School
Walter M. Weber, Staff Attorney, American Center for Law and Justice
Prof. Anita L. Allen, Georgetown University Law Center
Moderator: Prof. Patricia D. White, University of Michigan Law School
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Then-Senator Biden said in 2005 that “American citizens have benefited from the Senate’s check on the excesses of the majority” with “minority protections” through the filibuster. Now, however, President Biden believes the filibuster is being abused and, potentially, impeding democracy. Is Senator Biden or President Biden right? Recent pressure from the press and powerful interest groups on the left seem to agree with President Biden and are urging senators to cast aside their centuries-old tradition of parliamentary procedure in favor of simple majority rule. Should they? What are the consequences if the Senate exercises the nuclear option? Can the Senate still act as our cooling saucer and protect against the “excesses of the majority” without the filibuster?
Featuring:
Senator Jon Kyl, Senior Advisor, Covington & Burling, and former United States Congressman and Senator
Martin Gold, Partner, Capitol Counsel LLC
Moderator: Peter Roskam, Partner, Sidley Austin, and former Congressman, Illinois’ 6th Congressional District
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Bank accounts provide access not only to credit but basic banking and payment services, such as checking and savings accounts. In January 2021, Florida’s Bank United closed Donald Trump’s personal bank account. Other banks have cut off other individuals seemingly because of their political views and have been pressured by activist groups to cut off funding to politically-disfavored industries, such as fossil fuels. These steps follow on the back of the Obama Administration’s Operation Choke Point initiative, under which bank regulators used its supervisory power to de-bank various legal industries such as payday lenders, firearms dealers, home-based charities, and allegedly racist materials. Today, banks have increasingly acted on their own initiative to effectively operate a new voluntary form of Operation Choke Point.
On June 8, 2021, the Federalist Society's Silicon Valley and San Francisco lawyers chapters hosted a discussion on the growing problem of “cancel culture” in the banking industry and what steps should be considered to address it as well as the more general implications for other heavily regulated but crucially important industries beyond banking services.
Featuring:
John Allison, former CEO of BB&T Corp. & former CEO, Cato Institute
Todd Zywicki, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute & George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School
Moderator: Daniel Wheeler, CEO, Sunstone Trust Company
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On March 10-11, 1989, the Federalist Society's University of Michigan student chapter hosted the eighth annual National Student Symposium in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The topic of the conference was "Property: The Founding, The Welfare State, and Beyond." The conference's fourth panel discussed "Intellectual and Informational Property Rights."
Featuring:
Prof. Stephen L. Carter, Yale Law School
Judge Frank H. Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Prof. Edmund W. Kitch, University of Virginia School of Law
Moderator: Dean Lee C. Bollinger, University of Michigan Law School
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On March 10-11, 1989, the Federalist Society's University of Michigan student chapter hosted the eighth annual National Student Symposium in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The topic of the conference was "Property: The Founding, The Welfare State, and Beyond." The second day of the conference continued with a discussion on "Regulation and Property: Allies or Enemies?"
Featuring:
Prof. Robert C. Ellickson, Yale Law School
Prof. James E. Krier, University of Michigan Law School
Gale A. Norton, Pacific Research Institute
Prof. Richard B. Stewart, Harvard Law School
Moderator: Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On March 10-11, 1989, the Federalist Society's University of Michigan student chapter hosted the eighth annual National Student Symposium in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The topic of the conference was "Property: The Founding, The Welfare State, and Beyond." The second day of the conference commenced with a discussion on "Property and the Constitution."
Featuring:
Prof. Akhil Amar, Yale Law School
Charles Fried, Harvard Law School
Prof. Jeremy Rabkin, Cornell University
Prof. Frederick Schauer, University of Michigan Law School
Moderator: Judge Stephen F. Williams, U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On June 9, 2021, The Federalist Society's Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, New Jersey, Delaware, and Philadelphia Lawyers Chapters hosted a debate about various proposals to transform the Supreme Court.
Is it time to pack the Supreme Court? With the appointments of Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, many progressives are demanding structural changes to the nation's highest court. Members of Congress have proposed adding justices, establishing term limits, and even stripping the Court's jurisdiction. President Biden has assembled a commission to make proposals.
Featuring:
Carrie Severino, Chief Counsel and Policy Director, Judicial Crisis Network
Prof. Ryan Doerfler, Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School
Moderator: Louis Capozzi, Law Clerk to the Honorable J. Harvie Wilkinson at U.S. Courts of Appeals
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On March 10-11, 1989, the Federalist Society's University of Michigan student chapter hosted the eighth annual National Student Symposium in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The topic of the conference was "Property: The Founding, The Welfare State, and Beyond." The first day of the conference concluded with a debate on "Liability: The New 'New Property.'"
Featuring:
Peter Huber, The Manhattan Institute
Prof. Joseph A. Page, Georgetown University Law Center
Moderator: Judge Alex Kozinski, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On March 10-11, 1989, the Federalist Society's University of Michigan student chapter hosted the eighth annual National Student Symposium in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The topic of the conference was "Property: The Founding, The Welfare State, and Beyond." The conference opened with a panel on "The Idea of Property."
Welcoming Remarks:
Dean Lee C. Bollinger, University of Michigan Law School
Introduction: David Di Rita, Co-President, The Federalist Society's University of Michigan Chapter
Panel Featuring:
Prof. Richard Epstein, University of Chicago Law School
Prof. William I. Miller, University of Michigan Law School
Prof. Jeffrey Paul, Bowling Green State University
Prof. Carol M. Rose, Northwestern University School of Law
Moderator: Tom Bethell, Columnist, American Spectator
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On May 28, 2021, the Federalist Society's Central Kentucky Lawyers Chapter featured the first installment of a six-part series in which former clerks interview Sixth Circuit judges. The online interview featured Judge Danny Boggs and his former clerk, Prof. Josh Blackman.
Featuring:
Judge Danny J. Boggs, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Prof. Josh Blackman, South Texas College of Law Houston; former clerk for Judge Boggs
Introduction: Carmine G. Iaccarino, Executive Director, Office of Civil & Environmental Law, Kentucky Office of Attorney General; The Federalist Society's Central Kentucky Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On May 19, 2021 the Nashville and Chattanooga Lawyers Chapters co-hosted a discussion on the free exercise clause from Employment Division v. Smith to Fulton v. City of Philadelphia.
Featuring:
Lori Windham, Senior Counsel at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (lead counsel in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Azar, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, and Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran School v. EEOC)
Prof. Richard W. Garnett, Paul J. Schierl/Fort Howard Corporation Professor of Law and Political Science & Director, Program on Church, State & Society, Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Kody Cooper, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science and Public Service, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Moderator: Hon. Katherine A. Crytzer, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee
Introductions: Alan Jackson, Spears, Moore, Rebman & Williams, P.C.; The Federalist Society's Chattanooga Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On March 4-5, 1988, The Federalist Society's University of Virginia student chapter hosted the National Student Symposium in Charlottesville, Virginia. The topic of the conference was "Are There Unenumerated Constitutional Rights? The third panel featured a discussion of "The Modern Role of the Privileges or Immunities Clause."
Featuring:
Michael K. Curtis, Smith, Patterson, Follin, Curtis, Jones and Harkavy
Prof. Lino Graglia, University of Texas School of Law
Prof. Sanford Levinson, University of Texas School of Law
Clarence Thomas, Chairman, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Moderator: Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, III, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
On May 7, 2021, the Federalist Society's Ohio lawyers chapters hosted the 2021 Ohio Chapters Conference in Columbus, OH. The third and final panel covered "Departmentalism: What is the Executive Role in Interpreting Laws?".
Thomas Jefferson ordered U.S. Attorneys not to enforce the Alien & Sedition Act, not based upon a judicial finding that it was unconstitutional (indeed, the courts were split on the question), but based upon his independent determination that it was unconstitutional. What role do state executives and Attorneys General play in interpreting laws? How far do the duties to defend laws and the duties to enforce laws extend?
Featuring:
Hon. Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General
Prof. Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Edward Whelan, President, Ethics and Public Policy Center
Moderator: Judge Chad Readler, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Closing Remarks
Justice R. Patrick DeWine, Ohio Supreme Court
Introduction: Robert Alt, President & CEO, The Buckeye Institute
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On May 7, 2021, the Federalist Society's Ohio lawyers chapters hosted the 2021 Ohio Chapters Conference in Columbus, OH. The conference's penultimate panel was titled "View from the Bench: Newly Confirmed Judges Share Their Perspectives."
Last year, three new district judges were confirmed to Ohio’s two federal district courts. We look forward to hearing their perspectives on their transition to serving in the role of an Article III judge and their advice for practitioners, law students, and others on federal practice and the work of the courts.
Featuring:
Judge J. Philip Calabrese, United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio
Judge James R. Knepp II, United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio
Judge Michael J. Newman, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio
Moderator: Judge Eric E. Murphy, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Introduction: Patrick T. Lewis, President, Cleveland Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On May 7, 2021, the Federalist Society's Ohio lawyers chapters hosted the 2021 Ohio Chapters Conference in Columbus, OH. The keynote address was presented by Judge Janice Rogers Brown.
Featuring:
Judge Janice Rogers Brown, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (ret.)
Introduction: Senior Judge Alice Batchelder, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Introduction: Lisa Ezell, Vice President & Director, Lawyers Chapters, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On May 7, 2021, the Federalist Society's Ohio lawyers chapters hosted the 2021 Ohio Chapters Conference in Columbus, OH. The first panel covered "Interpreting State Constitutions."
How should state constitutions be interpreted? Should terms that mirror those in the U.S. Constitution be interpreted coterminously? This panel explores varying approaches to interpreting state constitutions, as well as the similarities and differences between the interpretation of state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution.
Opening Remarks:
Judge Matthew R. Byrne, Ohio Court of Appeals, Twelfth District
Featuring:
Judge Sharon Kennedy, Ohio Supreme Court
Judge Clint Bolick, Arizona Supreme Court
Larry Obhof, Former President of the Ohio Senate; Partner, Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick LLP
Moderator: Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On April 22, 2021, the Federalist Society's George Mason Student Chapter, the Regulatory Transparency Project, and the Global Antitrust Institute cosponsored an event regarding "(Un)Civil War: The Future of Conservative Antitrust."
Featuring:
Prof. Joshua D. Wright, Executive Director, Global Antitrust Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University
Prof: John Yun, Associate Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University
Introduction: Sydney Dominguez, President, The Federalist Society's George Mason Student Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On January 27, 2000, The Federalist Society hosted a presentation by Prof. Joseph A. Grundfest on "Latest Trends and Emerging Issues in Securities Class Action Litigation" in San Francisco, CA.
Featuring:
Prof. Joseph A. Grundfest, Stanford Law School
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On November 30- December 1, 1990, the Federalist Society hosted its annual National Lawyers Convention at the Hotel InterContinental in New Orleans, Louisiana, titled "Legal Systems in Transition: New Directions for Eastern Europe." The conference's fourth panel explored "The Judiciary and the Role of the Rule of Law."
Featuring:
Prof. Mirjan Damaska, Yale Law School
Dr. Gabor Halmai, University of Budapest and The Constitutional Court of Hungary
Daniel Kroupa, Legislature of the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic
Michael Novak, Senior Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
Moderator: Judge Alvin B. Rubin, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On April 14, 2021, the Federalist Society's Philadelphia Lawyers Chapter hosted Prof. Ilan Wurman to discuss his new book, The Second Founding: Originalism and the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment is now over 150 years old. The Supreme Court has long rejected interpreting that Amendment with its original meaning. But what would an originalist interpretation of the Amendment look like? Would it be unworkable for modern problems? In this talk, Ilan Wurman, an associate professor at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, argues not only that we should reclaim the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, but that doing so would lead to many desirable and surprising results. Professor Wurman argues that the privileges or immunities clause is not, like many originalists claim, a fundamental rights provision, but is instead an antidiscrimination provision. The implications for incorporation, economic liberty, school desegregation, and gay rights may surprise you.
Featuring:
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University
Moderator: Matthew J. Hank, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson P.C.; The Federalist Society's Philadelphia Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
The debate over “Big Tech” and antitrust has intensified. On one side are those who consider certain Big Tech companies monopiles that reduce competition and exploit their users’ data. On the other side are those who believe that competition in the technology market is flourishing, particularly when considering a worldwide market, and that Big Tech empowers its consumers; after all, many users never pay financially for social media use. In addition to these economic considerations, Big Tech has raised a host of social and political concerns over speech, democracy, and power. Is Big Tech suppressing speech? Should it suppress more speech? Does it even matter if private companies “suppress speech”? Does Big Tech have too much control over our elections or none at all? What power does Big Tech wield over our lives, if any? On April 15, 2021, the Federalist Society's Chicago Lawyers Chapter hosted a panel of antitrust experts to discuss these issues and more.
Featuring:
Jessica Melugin, Director, Center for Technology & Innovation, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Asheesh Agarwal, Deputy General Counsel and Internet Policy Counsel, TechFreedom
Dr. Hal Singer, Senior Fellow, George Washington Institute of Public Policy; Adjunct Professor, McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University
Moderator: Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Director, Classical Liberal Institute, NYU School of Law; Law Professor, University of Chicago; Peter and Kirstin Bedford Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution
Introduction: John Adams, President, The Federalist Society's Chicago Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On Friday, April 16, 2021, the Federalist Society's Georgetown Student Chapter hosted a webinar featuring professors Gregg Bloche, Larry Gostin, David Hyman, and Timothy Westmoreland discussing the current state of healthcare policy in the United States.
Featuring:
Prof. David A. Hyman, Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Health Law & Policy, Georgetown Law
Prof. Lawrence O. Gostin, Founding Linda D. & Timothy J. O’Neill Professor of Global Health Law, Georgetown Law
Prof. M. Gregg Bloche, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Health Law, Policy, and Ethics, Georgetown Law
Prof. Timothy M. Westmoreland, Professor from Practice, Georgetown Law
Moderator: Patrick Lyons, Co-President, The Federalist Society's Georgetown Student Chapter
Visit our website – https://RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On April 8, 2021, the Federalist Society's El Paso Lawyers Chapter hosted a debate between Bradley A. Smith and Daniel I. Weiner on H.R. 1 and the future of election law.
Featuring:
Bradley A Smith, Chairman and Founder, Institute for Free Speech
Daniel I. Weiner, Deputy Director, Election Reform Program, Brennan Center for Justice, NYU Law
Moderator: David Vandenberg, Associate Attorney, Rincon Law Group, PC; The Federalist Society’s El Paso Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On November 30- December 1, 1990, the Federalist Society hosted its annual National Lawyers Convention at the Hotel InterContinental in New Orleans, Louisiana, titled "Legal Systems in Transition: New Directions for Eastern Europe." The second day of the conference included a luncheon discussion on "Environmental Issues in Eastern Europe: Learning from the United States' Mistakes."
Featuring:
Fred L. Smith, President, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Prof. E. Donald Elliott, General Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency
Prof. Valentin Katasonov, Russian Institute for Political and Social Studies
Moderator: Allen Weinstein, President, Center for Democracy
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On March 31, 2021, the Federalist Society's New Jersey Lawyers Chapter hosted a debate between Matthew Platkin and Ilan Wurman about the proper use of executive powers during times of crisis.
Featuring:
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University
Matthew Platkin, Partner, Lowenstein Sandler LLP; Former Chief Counsel to New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy
Moderator: Ryan Goodwin, The Federalist Society's New Jersey Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On April 5, 2021, the Harrisburg Lawyers Chapter hosted a debate on the constitutionality of DC statehood.
Featuring:
Zack Smith, Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies
Dr. Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, Professor of Law and Harry T. Ice Faculty Fellow, Indiana University Maurer School of Law
Moderator: Christopher Brooks, The Federalist Society's Harrisburg Lawyers Chapter; Professor of History, East Stroudsburg University
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On November 30- December 1, 1990, the Federalist Society hosted its annual National Lawyers Convention at the Hotel InterContinental in New Orleans, Louisiana, titled "Legal Systems in Transition: New Directions for Eastern Europe." The conference's first panel covered "Property Rights and the New Legal Order."
Featuring:
Pavel Bratinka, Legislature of the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic
Prof. Richard Epstein, University of Chicago Law School
Judge Alex Kozinski, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Prof. Andrzej Rapaczynski, Columbia Law School
Moderator: Edwin Meese III, former Attorney General of the United States
Introduction: Janice Calabresi, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On March 30, 2021, the Federalist Society's DC Young Lawyers Chapter and the Regulatory Transparency Project cosponsored a panel event discussing "Section 230."
The average American can't cite specific provisions of the US Code, but Section 230 is a notable exception. Few statutes have generated as much controversy and debate, and arguably have had as much impact on American political discourse. Has Section 230 become a tool of abuse for tech monopolies, or is it an essential mechanism for defending internet freedom?
Featuring:
Josh Hammer, Counsel, The Internet Accountability Project
Jennifer Huddleston, Director of Technology and Innovation Policy, American Action Forum
Moderator: Thomas Johnson, Former General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission
Introduction: Ben Field, DC Young Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On March 25, 2021, the Federalist Society's Memphis Lawyers Chapter hosted Justice Holly M. Kirby of the Tennessee Supreme Court via webinar to discuss the Tennessee Constitution.
Featuring:
Justice Holly M. Kirby, Tennessee Supreme Court
Moderator: J. Gregory Grisham, Of Counsel, Fisher & Phillips, LLP; The Federalist Society Memphis Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On March 2, 2021, Tim Carney joined the Federalist Society's Jacksonville Lawyers Chapter for a discussion on his latest book, Alienated America: Why Some Places Thrive While Others Collapse. Along with the book, Mr. Carney gave reactions to the 2020 election, and social considerations to watch over the next few years.
Featuring:
Timothy P. Carney, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Moderator: Nicholas Primrose, The Federalist Society's Jacksonville Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On March, 10, 2021, the Federalist Society's Central Kentucky Lawyers Chapter hosted the Attorney General of Kentucky, Daniel Cameron, and the first Solicitor General of Kentucky, Chad Meredith, to discuss their respective offices.
Featuring:
Daniel Cameron, Attorney General of Kentucky
Chad Meredith, Solicitor General of Kentucky
Introduction: Tom Travis, Associate, Wyant, Tarrant and Combs LLP; The Federalist Society's Central Kentucky Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On November 30- December 1, 1990, the Federalist Society hosted its annual National Lawyers Convention at the Hotel InterContinental in New Orleans, Louisiana., titled "Legal Systems in Transition: New Directions for Eastern Europe." The conference opened with a keynote address by Attorney General Richard Thornburgh.
Featuring:
Dr. Allen Weinstein, President, The Center for Democracy
Harvey C. Koch, Koch & Rouse
Paul Hardy, Lieutenant Governor, Louisiana
Richard Thornburgh, Attorney General of the United States
Introduction: David McIntosh, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On March 5, 2021, the Federalist Society's Delaware and Pittsburgh Lawyers Chapters co-hosted a discussion between Todd Zywicki and Walter Olson on anti-discrimination law and its affects on free speech in the workplace.
Featuring:
Walter Olson, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute
Prof. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia School of Law; Senior Fellow, Cato Institute
Introduction: Ryan Costa, Assistant Unit Head, Defensive Litigation Unit, Delaware Department of Justice; The Federalist Society's Delaware Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On March 18, 2021, the Federalist Society's Southwest Florida Lawyers Chapter hosted Prof. Eugene Volokh and Berin Szoka to debate issues surrounding social media, free speech, and Section 230.
Featuring:
Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
Berin Szoka, President, TechFreedom
Moderator: Alex Brockmeyer, Shareholder, Boyle, Leonard & Anderson, P.A.; The Federalist Society's Southwest Florida Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On September 11, 1987, the Federalist Society held a trial-style debate covering the debate surrounding the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. Titled "On Trial: The Bork Nomination," the event was televised on WXXI-TV in Rochester, New York.
Featuring:
Prof. Michael McConnell, University of Chicago Law School
Prof. Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School
Andrew Frey, Mayer, Brown & Platt
Thomas Sowell, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution
Alan Morrison, Public Citizen Litigation Group
Marcia Greenberger, Co-Founder, National Women's Law Center
Moderator: Morton Kondracke, Panelist, The McLaughlin Group
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On March 8, 2021, the Federalist Society's Missouri lawyers chapters held a statewide conference via webinar. The second panel discussed "A Cleaner Missouri? Redistricting: What We Can Expect."
This panel covered timing issues, local community districting, committee members, federal civil rights issues, and partisan gerrymandering as a constitutional consideration.
Featuring:
Marc H. Ellinger, Ellinger and Associates LLC
Charles W. Hatfield, Stinson LLP
State Sen. Cindy O' Laughlin, Missouri State Senate (MO-18)
Moderator: Edward D. Greim, Graves Garrett LLC
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On March 8, 2021, the Federalist Society's Missouri lawyers chapters held a statewide conference via webinar. The conference opened with a panel on "The Future of the Missouri Constitution: Constitutional Convention? Initiative Petition Reform?".
Missourians will vote in 2022 whether or not to have a constitutional convention. But why wait? Pending legislation proposes changes to the initiative petition process.
Introduction12:00 p.m. - 12:10 p.m.
Stephanie Bell, Partner, Ellinger and Associates LLC
The Future of the Missouri Constitution: Constitutional Convention? Initiative Petition Reform?12:10 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.
James R. Layton, Of Counsel, Tueth Keeney Cooper Mohan Jackstadt P.C.
Lowell Pearson, Office Managing Partner, Husch Blackwell LLP
Rep. John Wiemann, Speaker pro tempore, Missouri House of Representatives (MO-103)
Moderator: Judge Stephen R. Clark, United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri
Introduction: Mark Bremer, Partner, Shands, Elbert, Gianoulakis & Giljum, LLP
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On March 8, 2021, the Federalist Society's Missouri lawyers chapters held a statewide conference via webinar. The final panel of the conference was titled "Bail Me Out?".
Co-Chairs Amy Fite and James R. Hobbs of the Missouri Supreme Court Task Force on Criminal Justice, a task force created as bail processes from jurisdictions across the country were being litigated and found unconstitutional, discussed changes to Missouri’s pre-trial release procedures.
Featuring:
Amy Fite, Prosecuting Attorney, Christian County, Missouri
James R. Hobbs, Wyrsch, Hobbs, Mirakian, P.C.
Moderator: Jennifer Bukowsky, Attorney
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On March 7-8, 1986, The Federalist Society hosted its annual National Student Symposium at Stanford Law School. The topic of the conference was "The First Amendment: Constitutional Principles & Public Policy." The conference's final panel covered "The Freedom of Association."
Featuring:
Judge Frank Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Prof. Randy Barnett, Chicago-Kent College of Law
Prof. Grover Rees, III, University of Texas School of Law
Judge Morris S. Arnold, United States District Court, Western District of Arkansas
Moderator: T. Kenneth Cribb, Jr., Presidential Advisor, Domestic Affairs
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On March 1, 2021, the Federalist Society's Little Rock Lawyers Chapter hosted Paul Avelar to discuss occupational licensing.
Featuring:
Paul Avelar, Managing Attorney, Arizona Office, Institute for Justice
Introduction: Chad Pekron, Managing Counsel, Appellate and Strategic Litigation, Walmart; The Federalist Society's Little Rock Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On February 25, 2021, The Federalist Society's Atlanta Lawyers Chapter hosted Hon. Keith Blackwell, Former Justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia, for a retrospective look at the Supreme Court of Georgia.
Featuring:
Hon. Keith Blackwell, Senior Counsel, Alston & Bird LLP; former Justice, Supreme Court of Georgia
Introduction: Josh Belinfante, Robbins Ross Alloy Belinfante Littlefield LLC; The Federalist Society's Atlanta Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On February 19, 2021, the Charleston, Greenville, and Columbia Lawyers Chapters hosted Eugene Volokh and Casey Mattox for a discussion on the First Amendment and Rule 8.4.
Featuring:
Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA Law and a recognized First Amendment expert
Casey Mattox, Vice President of Legal Strategy, Americans for Prosperity and a regular First Amendment litigator
Introduction: Miles Coleman, Partner, Nelson Mullins; The Federalist Society's Columbia Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On March 7-8, 1986, The Federalist Society hosted its annual National Student Symposium at Stanford Law School. The topic of the conference was "The First Amendment: Constitutional Principles & Public Policy." The second day of the conference opened with a panel on "The Freedom of Religion."
Featuring:
Prof. Michael McConnell, University of Chicago Law School
Arthur Spitzer, Legal Director, ACLU of the District of Columbia
Prof. Henry M. Holzer, Brooklyn Law School
Prof. Robert L. Cord, Northeastern University
Moderator: Judge John T. Noonan, Jr., United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Introduction: Mitchell Edwards, President, The Federalist Society's Stanford Student Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On February 8, 2021, the Federalist Society's Puerto Rico Lawyers Chapter and Puerto Rico Student Chapters co-hosted Ilya Shapiro and Prof. William Vazquez Irizarry to discuss COVID-19 lockdowns and restrictions and their impact on individual liberties.
Featuring:
Ilya Shapiro, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
Prof. William Vazquez Irizarry, University of Puerto Rico School of Law
Introduction: John Ross Serrano, Attorney; The Federalist Society's Puerto Rico Lawyers Chapter
Introduction: Omar Andino, Deputy Solicitor General, Puerto Rico Department of Justice; The Federalist Society's Puerto Rico Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On February 4, 2021, Oklahoma State Senator Julie Daniels, the Oklahoma Senate Judiciary Committee Chair, joined the Federalist Society's Oklahoma City and Tulsa Lawyers Chapters to preview the 2021 Oklahoma legislative session.
Featuring:
State Senator Julie Daniels, Judiciary Committee Chair, Oklahoma Senate (OK-29)
Moderator: Mithun Mansinghani, Solicitor General, State of Oklahoma; The Federalist Society's Oklahoma City Lawyers Chapter
Introduction: Adam Doverspike, Shareholder, GableGotwals; President, The Federalist Society's Tulsa Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On March 7-8, 1986, The Federalist Society hosted its annual National Student Symposium at Stanford Law School. The topic of the conference was "The First Amendment: Constitutional Principles & Public Policy." The first day of the conference concluded with a panel on "The Political Process and the First Amendment."
Featuring:
Judge Robert Bork, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
Prof. Lillian Bevier, Stanford Law School
Prof. Geoffrey Stone, University of Chicago Law School
Charles Cooper, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice
Moderator: Dean John Hart Ely, Stanford Law School
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On February 15, 2021, Erin M. Hawley and Jennifer Nou joined the Federalist Society’s Chicago Student Chapter for a discussion on the future of administrative law.
Featuring:
Erin M. Hawley, Senior Legal Fellow, Independent Women’s Law Center
Jennifer Nou, Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School
Introduction: Hallie Saunders, Programming Director, The Federalist Society’s Chicago Student Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On January 19-20, 1990, The Federalist Society hosted a conference at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "The Presidency & Congress: Constitutionally Separated and Shared Powers." The conference concluded with an address by Judge Robert Bork.
Featuring:
Judge Robert H. Bork, American Enterprise Institute
Introduction: Erwin Glikes, The Free Press
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On January 30, 2021, The Federalist Society's Florida lawyers chapters hosted their annual Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's Yacht and Beach Club Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. Ashley Moody, the Attorney General for Florida, offered a keynote address at the conference.
Featuring:
Attorney General Ashley Moody, State of Florida
Introduction: Charbel J. Barakat, Chief Counsel, Florida/Mid-Atlantic Region, D.R. Horton, Inc.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On January 30, 2021, The Federalist Society's Florida lawyers chapters hosted their annual Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's Yacht and Beach Club Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. The topic for the second panel was "SCOTUS after the Barrett Confirmation."
How will the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett affect the Supreme Court's docket? This panel considered her confirmation, discussing how cases involving religious liberties, the Second Amendment, health care, administrative law, immigration, election issues and other pressing hot legal topics could be affected by the new balance on the Court.
Featuring:
Christopher Mills, Constitutional Law Fellow, Becket Fund
Prof. Phillip Munoz, Tocqueville Associate Professor of Religion and Public Life, Department of Political Science, Concurrent Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame
Amy Swearer, Legal Fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation
James Percival, Chief Deputy Solicitor General, Florida
Moderator: Hon. Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, United States District Judge, United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Introduction: Eliot Peace, President, Tampa Bay Federalist Society Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On January 30, 2021, The Federalist Society's Florida lawyers chapters hosted their annual Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's Yacht and Beach Club Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. The first panel of the conference discussed "Covid and Separation of Powers."
The last year has seen the virtually unprecedented use of government powers at the state and local level in order to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. On what legal authority have these government actors premised their actions, and what can we expect from the federal government should conditions become more volatile and perhaps invite a federal response? What is the proper role for a government of limited powers when facing a once-in-a-century emergency?
Featuring:
Joseph Jacquot, Shareholder, Gunster, and former General Counsel to Governor Ron DeSantis
Hon. Simone Marstiller, Secretary, Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
Chad Mizelle, Former Acting General Counsel, United States Department of Homeland Security
Hon. Paul Renner, Member, Florida House of Representatives
Moderator: James Uthmeier, Acting General Counsel to Governor Ron DeSantis
Introduction: Lisa Ezell, Vice President & Director, Lawyers Chapters, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On January 19-20, 1990, The Federalist Society hosted a conference at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "The Presidency & Congress: Constitutionally Separated and Shared Powers." The second day of the conference featured a luncheon address by C. Boyden Gray on "The Neutral Application of Rules to Each of the Three Branches."
Featuring:
C. Boyden Gray, White House Counsel
Introduction: Steven Calabresi, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On January 21, 2021, the Federalist Society's Columbus, Cincinnati, and Cleveland lawyers chapters hosted a virtual conversation with two of Ohio's own, Judge Chad Readler and US Attorney David DeVillers, who shared their extraordinary experiences and expertise.
Featuring:
Hon. Chad A. Readler, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Judge, who previously served as the Principal Deputy and Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division at the United States Department of Justice
Hon. David DeVillers, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio
Moderator: Robert Alt, President and CEO, The Buckeye Institute
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On January 19-20, 1990, The Federalist Society hosted a conference at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "The Presidency & Congress: Constitutionally Separated and Shared Powers." The fourth panel covered "The Appropriation Power and the Necessary and Proper Clause."
Featuring:
William Barr, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
Louis Fisher, Congressional Research Service
Prof. Geoffrey Miller, University of Chicago Law School
Prof. Kate Stith, Yale Law School
Moderator: Edwin Meese III, The Heritage Foundation
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On January 21, 2021, The Federalist Society's Article I Initiative and Columbia Student Chapter co-sponsored a webinar on "Congress and the Administrative State." In this portion of the program, Professor Christopher J. Walker gives a presentation on the proper role of Congress in modern administrative law.
Featuring:
Prof. Christopher J. Walker, John W. Bricker Professor of Law; Director, Washington, DC, Summer Program, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On January 19-20, 1990, The Federalist Society hosted a conference at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "The Presidency & Congress: Constitutionally Separated and Shared Powers." The third panel explored "Congressional Control of the Administration of Government: Hearings, Investigations, Oversight, and Legislative History."
Featuring:
Griffin Bell, King & Spalding
Michael Davidson, Counsel, U.S. Senate
L. Gordon Crovitz, Wall Street Journal
Prof. Peter Strauss, Columbia Law School
Moderator: Judge Stephen Williams, U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On December 17, 2020, the Federalist Society's Greenville, Columbia, and Charleston, South Carolina Lawyers Chapters hosted an online webinar titled "SCOTUS Stops Cuomo's COVID Synagogue Targeting." The event featured Misha Tseytlin, counsel for the synagogue, who discussed his involvement as counsel in COVID-related litigation, including the recently decided Supreme Court case, Roman Catholic Diocese, New York v. Andrew Cuomo.
Featuring:
Misha Tseytlin, Troutman Pepper
Introduction: Daniel Blomberg, Becket Law
Moderator: Miles Coleman, Nelson Mullins
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On January 19-20, 1990, The Federalist Society hosted a conference at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "The Presidency & Congress: Constitutionally Separated and Shared Powers." The second day of the conference began with an address by Senator Charles Robb on fiscal responsibility and political divisions in Congress.
Featuring:
Senator Charles Robb, U.S. Senate (VA)
Introduction: Allen Weinstein, Center for Democracy
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On December 14, 2020, the Little Rock, Nebraska, and Chicago Lawyers Chapters co-hosted Judges Steven Seeger, Lee Rudofsky, and Brian Buescher for a riveting discussion on their career paths leading to becoming judges. The judges shared their advice for aspiring judges and described the work they face in their jobs.
Featuring:
Hon. Lee Rudofsky, Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas
Hon. Brian Buescher, Judge, United States District Court, District of Nebraska
Hon. Steven Seeger, Judge, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Moderator: Chad Pekron, Lead Counsel, Appellate, Walmart; President, The Federalist Society's Little Rock Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
The year 2020 is not our country's final election. After an election dominated by rule changes, court battles, and allegations of fraud, what have we learned? On December 16, 2020, the Federalist Society's Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, New Jersey, and Delaware Lawyers Chapters co-hosted a panel on the 2020 presidential elections, tackling questions about possible election reforms and the future of election law.
Featuring:
Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
Harmeet Dhillon, Founding Partner, Dhillon Law Group Inc.
Jerry Goldfeder, Special Counsel at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP and Adjunct Professor, Fordham University School of Law
Moderator: Prof. Michael Moreland, University Professor of Law and Religion & Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy
Introduction: Louis Capozzi, The Federalist Society's Philadelphia Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On January 19-20, 1990, The Federalist Society hosted a conference at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "The Presidency & Congress: Constitutionally Separated and Shared Powers." The first panel discussed "Agency Autonomy and the Unitary Executive."
Featuring:
Mr. Terry Eastland, National Legal Center for the Public Interest
Prof. E. Donald Elliot, Yale Law School
Judge Laurence Silberman, U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit
Moderator: Judge Stephen Breyer, U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On January 19-20, 1990, The Federalist Society hosted a conference at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "The Presidency & Congress: Constitutionally Separated and Shared Powers." Attorney General Richard Thornburgh opened the conference with an address on the importance of separation of powers.
Featuring:
Hon. Richard Thornburgh, Attorney General of the United States
Introduction: E. Spencer Abraham, Deputy Chief of Staff for Vice President Dan Quayle
Introduction: David McIntosh, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On November 30, 2020, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai joined the Federalist Society's Columbia Law Student Chapter for a wide-ranging discussion on net neutrality, Section 230, and more, in an online Q&A co-sponsored by the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project.
Featuring:
Chairman Ajit Pai, Federal Communications Commission
Moderator: Brad Larson, Regulatory Transparency Project Series Chair, the Federalist Society's Columbia Student Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On November 19, 2020, the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project and the Memphis Lawyers Chapter co-hosted an online event discussing "Civil Liberties and COVID-19 Shelter in Place Orders."
Featuring:
Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Introduction: Greg Grisham, Fisher Phillips
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On November 17, 2020, the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative and the Little Rock Lawyers Chapter cohosted a webinar on Supreme Court nominations and the perils of court-packing.
Featuring:
Dan McLaughlin, Senior Writer, National Review Online
Introduction: Chad Pekron, Walmart
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On April 3-5, 1987, the Federalist Society's Chicago Student Chapter hosted the sixth annual National Student Symposium at the University of Chicago Law School. The symposium's fourth panel discussed "The Role of the Legislative and Executive Branches in Interpreting the Constitution."
Featuring:
Prof. Robert Nagel, University of Colorado Law School
Prof. Burt Neuborne, New York University Law School
John Harrison, Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States
Steven Ross, Counsel for the House of Representatives
Moderator: Prof. Daniel Polsby, Northwestern Law School
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
On November 17, 2020, the Milwaukee Lawyers Chapter hosted an online interview with former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Daniel Kelly.
Appointed to Wisconsin’s high court in 2016 by then-governor Scott Walker, Justice Kelly quickly distinguished himself as one of the Court’s most vocal and consistent advocates for textualism and originalism. Justice Kelly made the most of his four-year tenure on the high court, resolving a host of high-profile cases ranging from gun rights to warrantless home inspections and, perhaps most notably, beating the US Supreme Court to the punch in ending judicial deference to administrative agencies at the state level. Matthew Fernholz, the president of the Federalist Society's Milwaukee Lawyers Chapter, interviewed Justice Kelly about his remarkable time on the court and his plans for the future.
Speaker:
Hon. Daniel Kelly, Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice
Moderator: Matthew Fernholz, Cramer, Multhauf & Hammes, LLP
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On November 12, 2020, The Federalist Society hosted an online showcase discussion for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention with Professors Robert George of Princeton and Cornel West of Harvard. The title of the panel was "Showcase Discussion: A Discussion with Professors Robert George and Cornel West on Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, the Black Lives Matter Movement, and the Cancel Culture."
In the aftermath of George Floyd's killing, the country is re-examining fundamental aspects both of our society and how we talk about changing it. In order to undertake that examination in a spirit of honesty and free inquiry, one view holds that participants need to feel free from the danger, and sometimes, as we have seen, the reality, of punishment or intimidation for taking an unpopular point of view. Those holding this view are concerned that we seem to be entering an era of enforced conformity to a new norm—that America is systemically racist, and that a failure to accept and acknowledge this fact is disqualifying from having a place in academia, in public life, or even in the private sector. They are concerned that the radical changes being called for ignore the pillars of the successful American experiment that ultimately led from slavery to the outlawing of racial segregation, and that these changes will do grave harm both to American society as a whole and to the radical changes’ intended beneficiaries.
On the other hand, some believe that our society is so inherently degraded by racism that a fundamental change is justified from the old ways of how we have felt we can think and speak about these issues. The thought is that the traditional notions of free speech and free thought are themselves devices that support oppression, and inevitably are employed to prop up established practices and ways of thinking that have created, and perpetuate, racial inequity. This view holds that those who have been harmed by racism are only further harmed by a so-called “balanced” discussion of their grievances.
Professors George and West will address whether both society, and the ways in which we can discuss its virtues and its deficiencies, are in need of fundamental change.
Featuring:
Prof. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence; Director, James Madison Program, Pinceton University
Prof. Cornel West, Professor of the Practice of Public Philosophy, Harvard University
Moderator: Mrs. Jennifer C. Braceras, Director, Independent Woman’s Law Center
Introduction: Hon. Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On November 10, 2020, The Federalist Society's Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The panel covered "Freedom of Association in the Legal Profession."
The Code of Judicial Conduct for federal judges and the Code of Judicial Conduct template for state judges, as modified by the States, both recognize the propriety of judges engaging in extrajudicial activities that are consistent with their role as judges, and counsel judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in those activities. The federal and state templates differ, at least in part, because federal and state judges are selected in different ways. Put simply, we do not want our judges to hide in an ivory tower, but we also want them to behave as judges when providing the benefit of their experience. And, while we want judges to interact with the bar and the public, lawyers must be aware on the limitations on such judicial contacts. As a result, the notion of maintaining public confidence in the judiciary will be evaluated and enforced in different ways in each arena.
In January 2020, a draft advisory opinion from the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Codes of Conduct suggesting that federal judges ought not to be members of the Federalist Society or the American Constitution Society, but may be members of the American Bar Association, became public. That draft advisory opinion was based less on the actual activities of those organizations than on a belief that the public participation of judges in those organizations would further contribute to a public perception that judges are not non-partisan actors. The draft opinion was withdrawn, but its effects have lingered as lawyers, judges, law clerks, and law students have had to tiptoe around its implications.
This panel will consider some fundamental questions that swirl around the extrajudicial activities of judges, including those raised by the now withdrawn draft advisory opinion. For example, what are the core values that support the federal and state rules, and how do they differ? To the extent that we focus on public confidence in the judiciary, how should we evaluate it? Is public confidence in the judiciary capable of empirical evaluation or a matter of a priori judgment? Whose judgment matters: That of an average person? A reasonable person? A reasonable lawyer? A regulator applying one of those artificial constructs? What rules apply to a judge’s membership, holding office in, or participation in an organization, or writing and speaking?
Featuring:
Hon. Thomas B. Griffith, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (ret.)
Mr. W. William Hodes, Owner and President, The William Hodes Law Firm
Hon. William H. Pryor Jr., United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On November 13, 2020, The Federalist Society's Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The panel discussed "Emergency Powers and the Rule of Law."
The coronavirus pandemic spotlighted an issue that’s been increasingly relevant the last few years: the extra powers that government gets in emergencies. At the federal level, presidents have been declaring emergencies under the Watergate-era National Emergencies Act—which doesn’t itself grants powers but triggers over a thousand statutes—in a host of circumstances, sometimes controversial (like President Trump’s southern-border declaration in February 2019), others barely noticed (assorted economic sanctions under various presidents). Many of these seem to be permanent; we’re still living under declarations responding to the 1979 Iranian hostage-taking and 2006 Belarusian election fraud. At the state level, the police power to govern for the public health, safety, welfare, and morals has run into legitimacy problems, both as legislatures grumble that they’re not consulted for months on end and as citizens question seemingly arbitrary lines drawn around “essential” services that interfere with both enumerated and unenumerated constitutional rights. How do we reconcile the need for governments at all levels to move quickly with both federalism and the separation of powers?
Featuring:
Dr. John Eastman, Professor of Law, Dave E. Fowler Law School, Chapman University
Mr. Ilya Shapiro, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
Ms. Elizabeth B. Wydra, President, Constitutional Accountability Center
Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law; Co-Faculty Director, Korea Law Center; Director, Public Law & Policy Program, University of California, Berkeley School of Law
Moderator: Hon. James C. Ho, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On November 13, 2020, The Federalist Society's Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The panel covered "Agency Leaders on Cryptocurrency, Blockchain, and the Evolution of a Central Bank Digital Currency."
The pandemic has accelerated the establishment of digital currencies, including central bank digital currencies (CBDC). One of the biggest draws of cryptocurrency and even the blockchain, in general, is its leaning towards decentralization. Even so, CBDCs are now in active pilot programs across the world with the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, the European Central Bank and the People’s Bank of China all exploring the technology.
Proponents of CBDCs argue they will bring multiple advantages for an average consumer, including fast and cheap cross-border transactions, pseudo-anonymity, personal data protection, and international operability. However, Alexander Hamilton might ask if it is tendency of CBDCs to increase public and private credit. “The former gives power to the state, for the protection of its rights and interests; and the latter facilitates and extends the operations of commerce among individuals. Industry is increased, commodities are multiplied, agriculture and manufacturers flourish: and herein consists the true wealth and prosperity of a state."
Featuring:
Mr. Brian P. Brooks, Acting Comptroller of the Currency, Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency, United States Department of the Treasury
Hon. Brent J. McIntosh, Undersecretary for International Affairs, United States Department of the Treasury
Hon. Hester M. Peirce, Commissioner, United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Moderator: Hon. Paul S. Atkins, Chief Executive Officer, Patomak Global Partners, LLC; Former Commissioner, United States Securities and Exchange Commission
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On November 13, 2020, The Federalist Society hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. This special session covered "The Future of the Second Amendment's Right to Keep and Bear Arms: From the Supreme Court to Social Unrest in the Streets."
With contrasting views from the two Presidential candidates, as well as the nomination of Judge Amy Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Second Amendment has once again become one of the foremost topics of discussion in the legal and political world.
Second Amendment issues have arisen in 2020 like never before. The year started with “Second Amendment sanctuaries” in which almost all counties in Virginia, and many in other states, declared that proposed infringements on the right to keep and bear arms would not be enforced. The Virginia governor declared a state of emergency because of a planned protest in Richmond by gun owners, and although 22,000 protesters, many of them legally armed, attended, there was no reported violence. More recently, rioting and civil unrest have raised questions about citizens arming themselves and the use of potentially deadly force.
What constitutional protections, if any, are available to property owners wishing to protect their lives, livelihood, property, and communities? What is the correct constitutional analysis of restrictions on fundamental rights, including the Second Amendment, enacted in the midst of a nationwide pandemic and what role, if any, do traditional “police powers” play in analyzing those restrictions? What are the constitutional implications, if any, of criminal cases capturing headlines concerning the use of firearms by individual Americans such as Mark and Patricia McClosky, and Kyle Rittenhouse? The panel will discuss the Second Amendment implications of these timely issues.
Featuring:
Mr. Deepak Gupta, Founding Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLC
Mr. John Ohlendorf, Associate, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC
Prof. Mark W. Smith, Senior Fellow in Law and Public Policy: Presidential Scholar, The King’s College
Moderator: Hon. Thomas M. Hardiman, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Introduction: Hon. Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On November 12, 2020, The Federalist Society hosted a virtual address by Justice Samuel Alito as a part of the 2020 National Lawyers Convention.
Featuring:
Hon. Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice, United States Supreme Court
Introduction: Hon. Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On November 12, 2020, The Federalist Society hosted a virtual address by Judge Janice Rodgers Brown as part of the 2020 National Lawyers Convention.
Featuring:
Hon. Janice Rogers Brown, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (ret.); Former Associate Judge, California Supreme Court
Introduction: Mrs. Lisa Ezell, Vice President and Director, Lawyers Chapters, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position or particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On November 12, 2020, The Federalist Society hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The topic of the panel was "The Presidency and the Rule of Law."
The U.S. Constitution states that the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” It also requires the President, before taking office, to swear (or affirm) that he or she will “faithfully execute the office of President of the United States.” Many believe that the Constitution, in creating a Presidency with sufficient energy to lead the country, contemplates that the President will have considerable discretion in how to go about this. At the same time, over the years, norms have developed to reinforce the idea that in the United States, executive power is to be exercised pursuant to law, and not as a tool to punish political enemies or to protect friends.
How does the rule of law both constrain and protect the Presidency? What role do norms play? Have the norms surrounding the President’s exercise of executive power eroded, and if so, why? What role have Congress, the media, social media, and other factors played? The panel will discuss these and other matters including possible reforms.
Featuring:
Mr. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, Former White House Counsel
Hon. Jack L. Goldsmith, Professor of Law, Harvard University; Former Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice
Amb. C. Boyden Gray, Founding Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates; Former White House Counsel; Former Ambassador to the European Union
Hon. Theodore B. Olson, Partner, Gibson Dunn; Former United States Solicitor General
Moderator: Hon. Edith H. Jones, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On November 12, 2020, The Federalist Society hosted a virtual address by Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia as a part of the 2020 National Lawyers Convention.
Featuring:
Hon. Eugene Scalia, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor
Introduction: Mr. Eugene Meyer, President and CEO, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On November 12, 2020, the Federalist Society hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The panel covered "Law, Social Justice, Wokeness, and Protests: Where Do We Go From Here?".
Historically, the rule of law and the concept of justice it represents supply two key roots of the American experiment. Some think the ideology underlying many of the recent protests challenges this experiment at its core and that its concept of justice arguably differs from that of our Framers. Indeed for some social justice advocates the concepts of the rule of law, justice, reason and discussion all are suspect at best and tools of oppression at worst. Are the protesters who hold this ideology reform minded or revolutionary? Do the critics of this movement underestimate the powerful currents behind the protests? What are possible or desirable responses to this challenge?
Featuring:
Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Prof. Randall Kennedy, Michael R. Klein Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President and CEO, The Federalist Society (representing Prof. John O. McGinnis)
Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor of Constitutional Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
Prof. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law Emerita, New York Law School; Former President, American Civil Liberties Union
Moderator: Hon. Kenneth K. Lee, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On November 11, 2020, The Federalist Society's Professional Civil rights Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The panel covered "Modern Quandaries of Law Enforcement."
The debates surrounding the doctrine of qualified immunity and cultural impact of law enforcement have seen renewed vigor in past months, as citizens across the country question how reform, if appropriate, is best implemented. While qualified immunity finds its roots in the common law practice of extending protections to state actors performing their legal duty, its American origins are less definitive, which prompted Justice Thomas to comment “qualified immunity doctrine appears to stray from the statutory text” in late June.
Some scholars have suggested modifying policing strategies (i.e. “defund”) or doing away with the doctrine of qualified immunity will protect the rights of individuals against corrupt or prejudiced law enforcement officials, but there is significant pushback from everyday citizens, judges, and Presidents alike. Our panel of policy and legal experts will debate the pros and cons of both topics in this 75-minute virtual presentation.
Featuring:
Mr. Larry H. James, Managing Partner, Crabbe Brown & James LLP
Ms. Heather Mac Donald, Contributing Editor, City Journal, Manhattan Institute
Mr. Robert McNamara, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Mr. Charles “Cully” Stimson, Senior Legal Fellow and Manager, National Security Law Program, The Heritage Foundation
Moderator: Hon. Patrick J. Bumatay, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On November 11, 2020, The Federalist Society's Intellectual Property Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The panel covered "Intellectual Property Rights and the Rule of Law."
The world’s first democratized intellectual-property legal system, initiated by Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 8 of the U.S. Constitution, is intended, per Federalist #43, to: provide uniformity for the protection of IP rights; secure those rights for the individual rather than the state; and incentivize innovation and creative aspirations. Predictability, rooted in uniform application of the rule of law, is essential for property rights and economically sustainable growth. This is especially true in the context of intellectual property and the tremendous investments required for innovation and creative expression. These intended goals can be jeopardized in times of crisis if they are seen as being pitted against health, safety, security, and humanitarian needs that arise during actual or perceived crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
How can private IP rights be achieved and maintained in a manner that genuinely promotes public good without capture issues? Does a crisis necessitate a suspension or weakening of intellectual and/or other property rights –– or is it in times of crisis that rule of law and its attendant stability/predictability are most crucially needed? What we can learn for IP from how the rule of law has been affected by national crises in the past? This panel will discuss IP law in the 21st century and especially in 2020, considering court decisions, public advocacy, and data-driven lessons of history and how they should be applied to ideas for reforms that would weaken IP and rule of law versus those that may construct and restore predictable rights in support of vibrant and productive innovation and creative output.
Featuring:
Prof. Jorge Contreras, Professor of Law, University of Utah School of Law
Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law; Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution
Mr. Phil Johnson, Founder and Principal, Johnson-IP Strategy and Policy Consulting; Former, Senior Vice President and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel, Johnson & Johnson
Hon. Karyn A. Temple, Senior Executive Vice President and Global General Counsel, Motion Picture Association; Former Register of Copyrights, United States Copyright Office
Moderator: Hon. Ryan T. Holte, United States Court of Federal Claims
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On November 11, 2020, The Federalist Society's Professional Labor & Employment Law Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The panel covered "Agency Leaders on Labor Policy."
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, National Labor Relations Board and U.S. Department of Labor can have a significant negative or positive impact on the American economy and on Americans’ liberties. With almost four years behind them, how have these agencies done? Slowed down perhaps by delayed Senate confirmations and personnel changes, they certainly have been active with new regulations, new guidance, and responding to Pandemic challenges. What did they barrel-up and what did they whiff? We will ask senior leaders from the EEOC, NLRB, and DOL for their assessments.
Featuring:
Hon. Sharon Fast Gustafson, General Counsel, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Hon. Peter B. Robb, General Counsel, United States National Labor Relations Board
Hon. Cheryl Stanton, Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, United States Department of Labor
Moderator: Hon. Amul R. Thapar, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On November 11, 2020, The Federalist Society's International & National Security Law Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The panel covered "The Law, China, and the Possible New Cold War."
The rule of law is a cornerstone of American democracy as it is for many other democracies. China has laws and courts, but there is little to no “rule of law” like that practiced in established democracies. What does this mean for China as a powerful global actor? What does it mean for the United States? If the rule of law operated in China as it does in the United States, would there be less tension in the U.S.-China relationship? Our panel of experts will address these themes during its discussion.
Featuring:
Amb. Richard Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Director of Policy Planning, United States Department of State
Prof. Julian Ku, Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Faculty Director, International Programs, Maurice A. Deane School of Law, Hofstra University
Hon. Mike Rogers, Board of Trustees, Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress; Former United States Representative; Former Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Moderator: Hon. Elizabeth “Lisa” Branch, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Introduction: Hon. Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On November 10, 2020, The Federalist Society's Litigation Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The topic of the panel was "Are MDL Judges Too Powerful?".
Nearly half of all federal civil cases are now consolidated in a few handfuls of so-called MDLs (multi-district litigations). Each MDL is overseen by a single federal district judge even though it can comprise tens of thousands of individual cases and involve dozens of different defendants. Some MDLs are so big they can threaten entire industries, including perhaps the biggest of them all, the Opioid MDL pending in the Northern District of Ohio. In theory the individual cases in an MDL can return to their original courts once all pretrial proceedings are completed, but in reality the litigants almost always feel compelled to settle before that happens. In light of the bar on interlocutory appeals, this means that the single MDL judge has vast authority to decide what happens to all these cases, from how much discovery is exchanged, to whether motions to dismiss and summary judgment are granted, to whether experts should be disqualified, to whether a class action should be certified. When it comes to MDLs, have we placed too much power in the hands of one judge? Are more options needed? Even more dramatic structural reforms?
Featuring:
Prof. Elizabeth Chamblee Burch, Fuller E. Callaway Chair of Law, University of Georgia School of Law
Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt University Law School
Mr. Christopher A. Seeger, Partner, Seeger Weiss LLP
Moderator: Hon. Britt C. Grant, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On November 10, 2020, The Federalist Society's Corporations, Securities & Antitrust and Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Groups co-hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The panel discussed "Regulating Social Media."
Federal statutes, like the Communications Decency Act (and its Section 230), as well as more federal common-law disciplines, like antitrust laws, have played a role in the development and evolution of modern technology and online platforms we use every day. What role will or should federal law play in protecting future innovation, growth, and competition in today’s fast-changing online era in which massive data sets are the most precious commodity, the next generation of innovators are often acquired before they turn their first profit, and online ecosystems often have the freedom to make their own rules? In light of recent public policy debates and investigations by federal and state antitrust enforcers, this panel takes stock of where communications and antitrust law stand and where they may go following the 2020 elections.
Featuring:
Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
Mr. Harold Feld, Senior Vice President, Public Knowledge
Ms. Kathleen Ham, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, T-Mobile
Hon. Christine Wilson, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
Moderator: Hon. Duane Benton, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On November 10, 2020, The Federalist Society's Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The panel explored "Rule of Law, or Just Making it Up? First Amendment Tiered Scrutiny."
Different levels of Scrutiny are a staple of First Amendment Jurisprudence. Strict scrutiny for viewpoint-based restrictions, intermediate scrutiny for restrictions on commercial speech, and, over the years, amorphously defined other types of “heightened” scrutiny for restrictions on association, campaign-related speech, public vs. private figure defamation, and purportedly incidental speech restrictions. In recent years, however, various judges and justices have called for revisiting ahistorical or a-textual approaches constitutional analysis, in both the First Amendment and other contexts. And many scholars have long questioned whether tiered scrutiny is just a smoke-screen for ad hoc balancing, allowing judges to impose their own preferred outcomes in any given case.
This panel will explore both the theory and practice of tiered scrutiny in First Amendment analysis. Is there a textual or historical basis for creating such differential levels of scrutiny? Is a more historical or absolutist approach more faithful to the constitutional text? Is it even possible to avoid creating such judicial doctrines at the margins where the application of First Amendment principles to moderns circumstances can be challenging at best? As for the practical application of tiered scrutiny, how does one distinguish between important or compelling interests versus valid but otherwise ordinary interests? How does one determine a less restrictive means of accomplishing a governmental goal, and how much loss of efficiency is too much to ask to preserve some additional amount of speech? Are courts even remotely capable of providing consistent answers to such questions across a range of cases, or is it inevitable that the answer to any such questions will be entirely a function of the judge’s policy preferences?
If our judicial system is meant to be based on the rule of law rather than the rule of judges, does tiered scrutiny advance or hinder that ideal? Does the “rule of law” allow any degree of judicial discretion or judgment and, if so, is there any textual basis for deciding how much judgment is allowed and how much effectively eliminates any “rule” at all.
Featuring:
Prof. Ashutosh Bhagwat, Boochever and Bird Endowed Chair for the Study and Teaching of Freedom and Equality; Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, University of California, Davis School of Law
Prof. Genevieve Lakier, Assistant Professor of Law, Herbert and Marjorie Fried Teaching Scholar, University of Chicago Law School
Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles School of Law
Moderator: Hon. David R. Stras, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Introduction: Hon. Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On November 9, 2020, The Federalist Society's Administration Law & Regulation Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The topic of the panel was "Regulatory Practice and Oversight in 2021 and Beyond."
While we think of “The Administrative State” as the relatively permanent apparatus of government, it has no lawful powers beyond those vested in officials the voters have chosen. “[T]he Constitution presumes that lesser executive officers will assist the President in discharging his duties.” (Seila Law) Those duties are, for the most part, implementing, administering, and enforcing the provisions of the laws Congress has enacted. What, then, are the implications of the 2020 elections for regulatory policy?
From the earliest days of his Administration, President Trump made it a priority to cut back on the regulations he believed were impeding American economic success. Among other things, he instructed agencies to drop two regulations for each one added, and to comply with all procedural requirements in issuing guidance, and the Department of Justice announced it would not defend “subregulatory guidance.” In response to the arrival and spread of the contagious and deadly novel coronavirus, additional regulatory streamlining accelerated the approval of vaccines and other medical technologies, and of federally funded or permitted projects. Where do these initiatives stand? What will a second term/new administration bring? What will the 117th Congress do? Will it give early attention to administrative rules under the Congressional Review Act?
Recent Supreme Court decisions on delegation (Gundy), on deference (Kisor), and on presidential authority (Seila Law) mean that Congressional oversight, and the President’s management, of the administrative state will play out on an evolving landscape of administrative law.
This panel will discuss the likely consequences of the post-election prevailing winds.
Featuring:
Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School Law; President, Cass & Associates
Hon. Sally Katzen, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Resident; Co-Director, Legislative and Regulatory Process Clinic, New York University School of Law
Prof. Adam J. White, Assistant Professor of Law, Director, C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
Moderator: Hon. Ryan D. Nelson, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On November 9, 2020, The Federalist Society's Criminal Law Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The panel covered "Prosecutorial Discretion, Partisanship, and the Rule of Law."
In recent years, politically controversial criminal investigations have occupied an enormous part of our national discussion. The Special Counsel investigation into Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election, the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email practices, and other high-profile investigation have caused many elected officials and other commentators to raise concerns about the influence political partisanship and institutional hubris may be playing in prosecutorial decision-making and the potential effects on the rule of law. Leaders in both the major political parties have accused the other side of abrogating or undermining the rule of law for polar-opposite reasons in the same investigations and cases. This panel will assess this debate and attempt to shed light on the dynamics at play and examine what the rule of law at the federal level means today, including:
the roles and responsibilities of political and career officials in federal law enforcement and the implications for inappropriate partisan influence;
the legal and prudential limits of influence on the Department of Justice by the President and other actors in the Executive Branch;
the lawful and appropriate scope of prosecutorial discretion;
the role that the growth in the breadth and coverage of federal criminal statutes has played in the present circumstances; and
the implications these actions are having on the confidence in and reputation of the Department of Justice and the rule of law.
Featuring:
Mr. Gary G. Grindler, Retired Partner, King & Spalding; Former Acting Deputy Attorney General, United States Department of Justice
Mr. Andrew C. McCarthy, Contributing Editor, National Review; Senior Fellow, National Review Institute: Contributor, Fox News; Former Chief Assistant United States Attorney, Southern District of New York
Hon. Michael B. Mukasey, Of Counsel, Debevoise & Plimpton; Former United States Attorney General; Former Chief Judge, United States District Court, Southern District of New York
Hon. Kenneth L. Wainstein, Partner, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP; Former United States Homeland Security Advisor; Former Assistant Attorney General, National Security, United States Department of Justice; Former United States Attorney, Washington D.C.
Moderator: Hon. John C. Richter, Partner King & Spalding LLP
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On November 9, 2020, The Federalist Society's Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The panel was titled "EPA Turns 50: A Debate on Environmental Progress and Regulatory Overreach."
Since 1970, the United States has made significant progress in protecting the nation’s water, cleaning up our air and land, and safeguarding human health. Harmful air emissions have declined almost 80%, while the U.S. economy has grown by 275% over the same timeframe. Drinking water in America is safer and better than ever in most communities. And through EPA programs like Superfund, contaminated lands are being remediated. Though some challenges persist, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is credited by many as being the primary driver of dramatic environmental progress in the United States over the last half-century. The current EPA Administrator, Andrew Wheeler, recently remarked: “ America is – and will remain— the gold standard for environmental protection.” Nevertheless, EPA has remained at the forefront of public controversy since it was created by executive order by President Nixon in 1970, and it is more true now than ever before. Environmental activists continue to press the agency to regulate further afield of EPA’s statutory mandates while regulated industries perceive systematic regulatory overreach. States, too, have raised concerns about EPA’s adherence to cooperative federalism principles. Some claim EPA has fallen behind on environmental enforcement, while others contend that enforcement declines reflect greater environmental compliance and progress. Marking EPA’s Golden Anniversary, this convention panel will reflect on EPA’s past and present, while also looking ahead to EPA’s future. What can we expect from the EPA over the next 50 years? What role should the agency continue to play in environmental protection and what should be its focus? Are reforms necessary to increase accountability and transparency at EPA? Is EPA ignoring the true costs and benefits of its regulations? Will EPA ever reach an enduring regulatory approach to topics like “Waters of the United States” and climate change? What steps should Congress take to ensure that EPA is right-sized with the resources needed to tackle the environmental challenges of the next 50 years? Should some of EPA’s powers and programs be returned to the States? Moderated by one of the newest judges on the Ninth Circuit, our panel of experts – with current and former EPA leaders from both sides of the aisle – will provide crucial insights into these and other questions.
Featuring:
Ms. Susan Bodine, Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, United States Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Scott Fulton, President, Environmental Law Institute; Former General Counsel, United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Hon. F. Henry “Hank” Habicht, Principal, Global Water 2020; Managing Director, United States Water Partnership; Managing Partner, SAIL Capital Partners
Prof. Lisa Heinzerling, Justice William J. Brennan Jr., Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Moderator: Hon. Lawrence VanDyke, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On November 9, 2020, The Federalist Society's Religious Liberties Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The topic of the panel was "Religious Liberty and the New Court."
Religious liberty and religious free exercise in the modern era often involve the question of when religious exemptions are appropriate or required. A well-trodden debate asks whether the Free Exercise Clause provides relief only from laws that target religion, or whether it also requires courts to grant exemptions from generally applicable laws that happen to burden religion. But much less has been said about how courts should implement either of these two readings. First, how can courts tell if a law is truly general in application? If religious entities must be treated as well as secular analogues, what makes a secular entity "analogous"? Second, if the Free Exercise Clause requires something more than even-handed treatment of religious entities, what more is needed? What sort of test should be used to determine when to grant exemptions from a general law? The first question came up repeatedly in cases challenging the shutdown orders prompted by COVID-19, and is also at issue in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Depending on how the Court decides that case, it may address the second question as well. This panel explores both questions, and features opposing perspectives on religious exemptions as a matter of history, doctrine, and constitutional law.
Featuring:
Prof. Stephanie Barclay, Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Gerard V. Bradley, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles School of Law
Ms. Lori Windham, Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
Moderator: Hon. Neomi Rao, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Introduction: Hon. Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On November 18, 2020, the Regulatory Transparency Project hosted a virtual fireside chat with FTC Commissioner Noah Phillips on the House Judiciary Antitrust Staff Report and its potential ramifications.
The House Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust Subcommittee recently released findings of a 16-month investigation into competition in the digital economy. The 449-page staff report, "Investigation of Competition in the Digital Marketplace: Majority Staff Report and Recommendations", proposes sweeping changes to U.S. antitrust laws and enforcement that could have far-reaching effects throughout the economy.
Featuring:
Svetlana Gans, Vice President & Associate General Counsel, NCTA
Hon. Noah Phillips, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
Koren Wong-Ervin, Partner, Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP
Introduction: Nathan Kaczmarek, Vice President & Director, Regulatory Transparency Project and Article I Initiative, The Federalist Society
Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On November 20, 2020, The Federalist Society's Student Division and the Columbia Student Chapter hosted the third Feddie Night Fight via online webinar. The two contenders engaged in a knockout debate reprising the discussions surrounding Fulton v. City of Philadelphia.
The Feddie Night Fights are a series of online events hosted by Federalist Society student chapters on the last Friday of the month. Join us on December 18 for the next match (scheduled earlier due to the holidays).
Featuring:
Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA School of Law
Jordan Lorence, Alliance Defending Freedom
Moderator: Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Introduction: Cole Campbell, Columbia Law School Student Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On October 29, 2020, the Penn and Temple Student Chapters of the Federalist Society hosted former officemates and leading scholars of presidential power John Yoo and Saikrishna Prakash for a debate on the true extent of presidential power.
In his new book, "Defender in Chief," John Yoo argues that Trump, despite his populism, is more often the defender rather than the opponent of the original Constitution. In "The Living Presidency," however, Sai Prakash counters that Trump, like many modern presidents, has violated the Constitution’s grant of executive power. The debate was moderated by Temple Law's Professor Craig Green.
Featuring:
Prof. John C. Yoo, UC Berkeley School of Law
Prof. Saikrishna B. Prakash, University of Virginia School of Law
Moderator: Prof. Craig Green, Temple University Beasley School of Law
Introduction: Lorenzo Riboni, The Federalist Society's Temple Law Student Chapter
Introduction: Andrea Leelike, The Federalist Society's Penn Law Student Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On April 3-5, 1987, the Federalist Society's Chicago Student Chapter hosted the sixth annual National Student Symposium at the University of Chicago Law School. The final panel of the symposium covered "The Conflict Between Text and Precedent in Constitutional Adjudication."
Featuring:
Judge Frank Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Judge Patrick Higginbotham, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Judge Stephen Reinhardt, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Charles Cooper, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel
Prof. Lea Brilmayer, Yale Law School
Moderator: Michael Kinsley, The New Republic
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
On October 20, 2020, the Federalist Society's Georgetown Law Student Chapter and the Regulatory Transparency Project hosted John C. Yoo and Saikrishna B. Prakash for an online discussion on the extent of executive power.
In his new book, Defender in Chief,"John Yoo argues that Trump – despite his populism – has become more often the defender rather than the opponent of the original Constitution. In The Living Presidency, Sai Prakash counters that Trump, like many modern presidents, has violated the Constitution’s grant of executive power.
Featuring:
Saikrishna B. Prakash, James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law and Paul G. Mahoney Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law; Co-Faculty Director, Korea Law Center; and Director, Public Law & Policy Program, UC Berkeley School of Law
Moderator: Dean Reuter, The Federalist Society
Introduction: Courtney Stone Mirski, The Federalist Society's Georgetown Law Student Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On April 3-5, 1987, the Federalist Society's Chicago Student Chapter hosted the sixth annual National Student Symposium at the University of Chicago Law School. The third panel of the symposium explored "Originalist Theories of Constitutional Interpretation."
Featuring:
Prof. Raoul Berger, Harvard Law School
Dean Robert Bennett, Northwestern Law School
Prof. Michael McConnell, University of Chicago Law School
Prof. Michael Moore, University of Southern California Law School
Moderator: Judge Douglas Ginsburg, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
On October 14-15, the Federalist Society's Kentucky lawyers chapters hosted their annual conference via online webinars. The final panel of the conference involved "A Discussion on Nationwide Injunctions."
Featuring:
Paul E. Salamanca, Wendell H. Ford Professor of Law, Rosenberg College of Law, University of Kentucky
Misha Tseytlin, Partner, Troutman Pepper
Moderator: Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, District Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Introduction: Carmine Iaccarino, Central Kentucky Lawyers Chapter Executive Committee
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On October 14-15, the Federalist Society's Kentucky lawyers chapters hosted their annual conference via online webinars. The topic of the second panel was "COVID-19 and Constitutional Law."
The response to the COVID-19 pandemic has largely been driven by each state’s governor. Governors across the country—including in Kentucky—have issued a series of executive orders in the name of public health to combat the spread of the virus. These executive orders, however, often conflict with ordinary application of both separation of powers and ordinary constitutional liberties, including when and where individuals may exercise their First Amendment rights to worship and assemble, along with substantial economic pressures. Several of these orders have been challenged in state and federal courts. This panel explores the scope of a governor’s unilateral authority in responding to public health emergencies, and how those powers interact with the state and federal constitutions.
Featuring:
Allison Joy Ball, State Treasurer, Kentucky
Victor B. Maddox, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty
Douglas McSwain, Partner, Wyant, Tarrant & Combs, LLP
Moderator: William Thro, General Counsel, University of Kentucky
Introduction: Lesley Bilby, Central Kentucky Lawyers Chapter Executive Committee
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On October 14-15, the Federalist Society's Kentucky lawyers chapters hosted their annual conference via online webinars. The first panel of the conference covered "Issues in Election Law and Election Integrity."
During the 2020 session of the General Assembly, the state’s legislature enacted measures designed to promote election integrity, culminating in SB 2—the state’s voter ID law. That law is currently being litigated, but is otherwise poised to be in effect for the November 2020 general election. Following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, Kentucky shifted the date of its primary election and conducted the primary almost entirely by absentee ballot. This panel will address each of these issues along with expectations for the general election in November, both in terms of election procedures and election law issues likely to emerge.
Featuring:
Jessica Furst Johnson, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky PLLC
Michael Adams, Secretary of State, Kentucky
Dr. Rachel Kleinfeld, Senior Fellow, Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Moderator: Prof. Brian Frye, Professor, UK College of Law
Introduction: Thomas Travis, President, Central Kentucky Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On October 14-15, the Federalist Society's Kentucky lawyers chapters hosted their annual conference via online webinars. The conference opened with an address by Daniel Cameron, the attorney general of Kentucky.
Featuring:
Daniel Cameron, Attorney General, Kentucky
Introduction: Thomas Travis, President, Central Kentucky Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On October 23, 2020, The Federalist Society's Washington DC Lawyers Chapter held a virtual luncheon featuring Michael Barone, Senior Political Analyst at the Washington Examiner. Mr. Barone spoke on the 2020 Elections.
Featuring:
Michael Barone, Washington Examiner
Introduction: Reginald J. Brown, WilmerHale
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On October 7, 2020, the Federalist Society's Madison Lawyers Chapter hosted a webinar panel to discuss the "Wisconsin Supreme Court 2019-2020 Term in Review."
Featuring:
Misha Tseytlin, Troutman Pepper
Ryan Walsh, Eimer Stahl
Lane Ruhland, Husch Blackwell
Moderator: Jessie Augustyn, Legal Counsel, State Senator Scott Fitzgerald (WI-13)
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On October 1, 2020, the Federalist Society's Faculty Division and Practice Groups hosted a virtual panel regarding the upcoming Supreme Court term, which began on October 5, 2020. The Court's docket already includes major cases involving criminal law, free expression and religious liberty, copyright, immigration, and matters of constitutional structure. The panel also discussed broader questions about the direction of the Court.
Featuring:
Orin Kerr, Professor of Law, University of California-Berkeley
Edward Whelan, President, Ethics and Public Policy Center
Elizabeth Papez, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Erin Hawley, Senior Legal Fellow, Independent Women’s Law Center, and Senior Fellow for the Kinder Institute of Constitutional Democracy, University of Missouri
Alan B. Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service Law, The George Washington University Law School
Moderator: Robert Barnes, The Washington Post
Introduction: Lee Liberman Otis, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
The creators of the award-winning documentary, They Say It Can't Be Done, in partnership with the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project, present It Can Be Done Live - a conversation between entrepreneurs, regulatory experts, and noted academics around creative and bipartisan solutions to global challenges to our shared future. The last of four panel events, It Can Be Done Live: The Future of Our Food, took place on October 1st, 2020.
Over the next 30 years, our global population is expected to grow by more than 2 billion people to 9 billion people inhabiting this planet. How will we feed a rapidly growing population with decreased land and water resources and increased attention to animal welfare and the environment? Is that even possible? The panelists will explore the potential of human ingenuity to solve these problems and the conditions necessary to make those solutions a reality. We say it can be done.
The Future of Our Food Panelists:
Sonny Perdue, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture
John Mackey, Co-Founder and CEO, Whole Foods Market
Josh Tetrick, Co-Founder and CEO, Eat JUST, Inc.
Moderator: Anastasia P. Boden, Attorney, Economic Liberty Project, Pacific Legal Foundation
Introduction: Nathan Kaczmarek, Vice President & Director, Regulatory Transparency Project and Article I Initiative, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
About The Film:
They Say It Can't Be Done is a documentary that explores how innovation can solve some of the world’s largest problems. The documentary tracks four companies on the cutting edge of technological solutions that could promote animal welfare, solve hunger, eliminate organ wait lists & reduce atmospheric carbon.
On October 7, 2020, the Federalist Society's Connecticut Lawyers Chapter hosted a webinar panel on "Absentee Balloting in Connecticut."
For the November 3, 2020 election, the state legislature passed Public Act 20-03 July Special Session, allowing, in light of the coronavirus, all voters to vote by absentee ballot if they so choose. Our panelists will discuss the law surrounding absentee balloting, recent political and legal developments with respect thereto, and practical considerations when implementing "no excuse" absentee balloting in Connecticut, including lessons learned from this August's primary election.
Featuring:
Senator Leonard A. Fasano, Republican Minority Leader (34th District) and Partner at Fasano, Ippolito, Lee & Florentine, LLC
Proloy K. Das, Partner, Murtha Cullina LLP - Appellate and Election Litigation
Fred DeCaro III, Republican Registrar of Voters, Greenwich
Moderator: Joshua A. Esses, Co-President, Connecticut Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
The creators of the award-winning documentary, They Say It Can't Be Done, in partnership with the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project, present It Can Be Done Live - a conversation between entrepreneurs, regulatory experts, and noted academics around creative and bipartisan solutions to global challenges to our shared future. The third of four panel events, It Can Be Done Live: The Future of Our Earth, took place on September 24th, 2020.
By 2050, 9 billion humans will share this planet and how we protect it is one of the most important questions of our time. How will we ensure that we can adapt to a changing climate, that we will all have access to clean air and fresh water, and that habitats are protected? While these goals have notable public support, reasonable people differ on the best methods to protect the environment. Are there more effective and less burdensome ways to accomplish these vital goals? The panelists will explore the potential of human ingenuity to solve these problems and the conditions necessary to make those solutions a reality. We say it can be done.
The Future of Our Earth Panelists:
James W. Coleman, Associate Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law
David Doniger, Director, Climate & Clean Air Program, Natural Resources Defense Council
Charles Hernick, Vice President of Policy and Advocacy, Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions
Andrew Wheeler, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Moderator: Susan Dudley, Director, George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center
Introduction: Nathan Kaczmarek, Vice President & Director, Regulatory Transparency Project and Article I Initiative, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
About The Film:
They Say It Can't Be Done is a documentary that explores how innovation can solve some of the world’s largest problems. The documentary tracks four companies on the cutting edge of technological solutions that could promote animal welfare, solve hunger, eliminate organ wait lists & reduce atmospheric carbon.
On April 3-5, 1987, the Federalist Society's Chicago Student Chapter hosted the sixth annual National Student Symposium at the University of Chicago Law School. The second day of the symposium began with a panel on "Jurisprudential Responses to Legal Realism."
Featuring:
Judge Richard Posner, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Hon. Charles Fried, Solicitor General of the United States
Prof. Anthony Kronman, Yale Law School
Moderator: Prof. Paul Bator, University of Chicago Law School
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
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.
Today, Robert Bork’s consumer welfare paradigm faces challenge. Antitrust law is back at a political crossroads, with both sides calling for a politicized approach to address problems such as anti-conservative bias, economic and racial inequality, and a whole host of other issues, while focusing on slogans and labels rather than relevant economic and legal questions. Additionally, some experts argue that the economic consequences of many of the recent proposals would make the American economy and consumers substantially worse off across a wide array of industries. At the same time, today’s antitrust debate underscores some interesting rifts and tension within both political parties, serving as an interesting microcosm of broader political dynamics.
Featuring:
Ashley Baker, Committee for Justice
Prof. Herbert Hovenkamp, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
The creators of the award-winning documentary, They Say It Can't Be Done, in partnership with the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project, present It Can Be Done Live - a conversation between entrepreneurs, regulatory experts, and noted academics around creative and bipartisan solutions to global challenges to our shared future. The second of four panel events, It Can Be Done Live: The Future of Our Health, took place on September 17th, 2020.
We are in the throes of a global pandemic that threatens the lives of millions and the way of life for billions more. Our healthcare systems are stretched to their limits. At the same time, innovations are being developed that could move us from treatments to outright cures. How do we ensure that these advancements are safe and effective, but not needlessly delayed when we need them most? The panelists will explore the potential of human ingenuity to solve these problems and the conditions necessary to make those solutions a reality. We say it can be done.
Featuring:
Julie Allickson, Chief Manufacturing Development Center Officer, Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine
Betsy McCaughey, Chairman, Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths
Joshua Sharfstein, Vice Dean for Public Health Practice and Community Engagement, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University
Dan Troy, Chief Business Officer, Chief Administrative Officer, and General Counsel, Valo
Moderator: Christina Sandefur, Executive Vice President, Goldwater Institute
Introduction: Nathan Kaczmarek, Vice President & Director, Regulatory Transparency Project and Article I Initiative, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
About The Film:
They Say It Can't Be Done is a documentary that explores how innovation can solve some of the world’s largest problems. The documentary tracks four companies on the cutting edge of technological solutions that could promote animal welfare, solve hunger, eliminate organ wait lists & reduce atmospheric carbon.
On September 9-10, 1988, The Federalist Society hosted its second annual National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. on "The Constitution and Federal Criminal Law." The third panel of the convention discussed "Federalism and the Scope of Federal Criminal Law."
Many federal laws, such as the mail fraud statute and the RICO statute, criminalize activity traditionally the subject of state police power. To what extent should this traditional division between federal and state criminal law be maintained, and to what extent should it be adjusted to promote greater efficiency in law enforcement under changing conditions and criminal activity of national impact? What are the enumerated powers that authorize various national criminal statutes, and what subjects might be inherently off limits to federal power?
Featuring:
Prof. G. Robert Blakey, Notre Dame Law School
Joseph diGenova, Bishop, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds
Judge David Sentelle, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
Prof. William Van Alstyne, Duke University School of Law
Moderator: Judge James L. Buckley, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
President Donald Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court on September 26, 2020. On October 2, 2020, The Federalist Society's Wisconsin Lawyers Chapters hosted a panel with three people who know Judge Barrett well: two former law clerks and a former student.
Featuring:
John Adams, Eimer Stahl LLP
Robert S. Driscoll, Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c.
Amanda Rauh-Bieri, Miller Canfield
Moderator: Ryan Walsh, Eimer Stahl LLP
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On September 25, 2020, the Federalist Society's University of Virginia Student Chapter hosted the first Feddie Night Fight via online webinar. The two contenders engaged in a knockout debate reprising the discussions surrounding the ratification of the United States Constitution.
The Feddie Night Fights are a series of online events hosted by Federalist Society student chapters on the last Friday of the month. Join us on October 30 for the next match.
Featuring:
Prof. John Baker, Georgetown Center for the Constitution
Hon. Andrew S. Oldham, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Introduction: Rachel Daley, The University of Virginia Federalist Society Student Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular position on legal or public policy issues. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
On September 9-10, 1988, The Federalist Society hosted its second annual National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. on "The Constitution and Federal Criminal Law." The final panel of the convention explored "Equality vs. Discretion in Sentencing."
The U.S. Sentencing Commission recently issued proposed guidelines for federal judges, aimed at producing more uniform criminal sentences in similar situations by the various federal courts. Will this approach lead to greater fairness and consistency for both society and those being sentenced, or will it lessen the capacity ofjudges to fine-tune the sentence to the unique facts of each individual case?
Featuring:
Hon. Stephen Breyer, U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit
Hon. Ilene Nagel, U.S. Sentencing Commission
Terence MacCarthy, American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Section
Moderator: Hon. Frank Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
The creators of the award-winning documentary, They Say It Can't Be Done, in partnership with the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project, present It Can Be Done Live - a conversation between entrepreneurs, regulatory experts, and noted academics around creative and bipartisan solutions to global challenges to our shared future. The first of four panel events, It Can Be Done Live: The Future of Our Seas took place on September 10th, 2020.
Our oceans are changing rapidly and not for the better. Ocean acidification, rising sea levels, plastic waste, and overfishing are contributing to an unsustainable and unhealthy ecosystem in our seas. Can we find a way to reverse the damage? The panelists will explore the potential of human ingenuity to solve these problems and the conditions necessary to make those solutions a reality. We say it can be done.
Speakers:
Tom Bell, Professor, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman University
Patrick Reasonover, Producer, They Say It Can't Be Done
Scotty Schmidt, Co-Founder & CEO, Primary Ocean Providers
Julie Friedman Steele, CEO & Board Chair, World Future Society
Moderator: Kimberly Hermann, General Counsel, Southeastern Legal Foundation
Introduction: Nathan Kaczmarek, Vice President & Director, Regulatory Transparency Project and Article I Initiative, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
About The Film:
They Say It Can't Be Done is a documentary that explores how innovation can solve some of the world’s largest problems. The documentary tracks four companies on the cutting edge of technological solutions that could promote animal welfare, solve hunger, eliminate organ wait lists & reduce atmospheric carbon.
On September 10, 2020, The Federalist Society's South Carolina, Nebraska, and Houston Lawyers Chapters hosted a panel with three current Attorneys General of Nebraska, Texas, and South Carolina. The esteemed panel discussed challenges their offices have faced, the role of Attorneys General, how this role has changed over the years, and how they expect it to change in the future in their respective states.
Featuring:
Hon. Alan Wilson, Attorney General of South Carolina
Hon. Doug Peterson, Attorney General of Nebraska
Hon. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas
Introduction: Miles Coleman, Partner, Nelson Mullins; President, The Federalist Society's Columbia, SC Lawyers
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On September 1, 2020, the Federalist Society's Wisconsin lawyers chapters hosted their annual conference via an online webinar. The first panel of the conference focused on election law in Wisconsin.
Despite recent Supreme Court decisions addressing key aspects of election law, many questions affecting the vote remain unanswered. What limits does the Constitution put on rules governing maintenance of voter rolls? Following Rucho v. Common Cause, what if anything should policymakers do to address districts drawn through partisan gerrymanders? How secure from hacking are the electronic systems used to count votes? What problems, if any, does "dark money" pose to democratic elections? This panel will address these issues and others related to election integrity with a view to the 2020 presidential election.
Speakers:
Rick Esenberg, Founder, President and General Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty
Lester A. Pines, Senior Partner, Pines Bach
Moderator: Ryan Walsh, Partner, Eimer Stahl LLP
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On September 9-10, 1988, The Federalist Society hosted its second annual National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. on "The Constitution and Federal Criminal Law." The second day of the convention commenced with a debate over whether the death penalty can be administered constitutionally.
Opponents of the death penalty, including several Supreme Court Justices, argue that, under the evolving moral standards of our society and culture, capital punishment is inherently "cruel and unusual" and therefore unconstitutional. Others argue that the framers passed the injunction against cruel and unusual punishment at the same time as language in the Fifth Amendment directly contemplating imposition of the death penalty, and that if the two could constitutionally co-exist then, they can continue to do so unless a specific amendmentis passed to change the Constitution in that regard.
Featuring:
Prof. Walter Berns, Georgetown University
Prof. Walter Dellinger, Duke University School of Law
Moderator: Judge Patrick Higginbotham, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On September 1-3, 2020, the Federalist Society's Wisconsin lawyers chapters hosted their annual conference via an online webinar. The second panel of the conference discussed nationwide injunctions.
What is the proper role of state attorneys general and the courts in litigation in seeking to nullify federal law? Panelists will discuss the difference in approach between Wisconsin during the Obama administration and other state's efforts during the Trump administration with a particular emphasis on the role of state AGs and the role of the courts in issuing nationwide injunctions. Are nationwide injunctions "legally and historically dubious," as Justice Thomas has described them?
Featuring:
Jeffrey Mandel, Partner & Co-chair, Stafford Rosenbaum’s Litigation Practice Group
Michael Morley, Assistant Professor, Florida State University College of Law
Misha Tseyltlin, Partner, Troutman Pepper
Moderator: Hon. Rebecca Bradley, Wisconsin Supreme Court
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
The South Carolina Lawyers Chapter hosted an event on: "Advice and Consent: Mechanics, History, and Developments in Judicial Selection and Confirmation."
Featuring:
Mark Champoux, Partner, Davis, Graham & Stubbs; former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, Office of Legal Policy
Prof. Brian Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School
Michael Fragoso, Chief Counsel for Nominations, Senate Judiciary Committee
Hon. Lindsey Graham , United States Senate, South Carolina
Moderator: Miles Coleman, Partner, Nelson Mullins; President, The Federalist Society's Columbia, SC Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On September 10, 2020, The Federalist Society's Triangle and Cape Fear Lawyers Chapters hosted a Forum for the upcoming North Carolina Supreme Court elections.
Featuring:
Moderator: Donna Martinez - Vice President of Marketing and Communications, John Locke Foundation
Running for Seat 1/Chief Justice:
Chief Justice Cheri Beasley (D) - North Carolina Supreme Court, Incumbent
Justice Paul Newby (R) - North Carolina Supreme Court
Running for Seat 2:
Judge Lucy Inman (D) - North Carolina Court of Appeals
Judge Phil Berger, Jr. (R) - North Carolina Court of Appeals
Running for Seat 4:
Justice Mark Davis (D) - North Carolina Supreme Court, Incumbent
Sen. Tamara Barringer (R) - Candidate, North Carolina Supreme Court
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On October 16-17, 1987, the Federalist Society hosted a symposium in celebration of the bicentennial of the Constitution at the George Mason University School of Law. The symposium was titled "Constitutional Protections of Economic Activity: How They Promote Individual Freedom." The final panel of the symposium discussed "The Public and Private Realms: The Privatization Movement and Other Developments."
Featuring:
Prof. Kenneth S. Abraham, University of Virginia Law School
Prof. Robert C. Ellickson, Stanford Law School
Prof. George L. Priest, Yale Law School
Moderator: Prof. Leonard P. Liggio, Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Created by the Supreme Court in 1967, the legal doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from being sued even if they violate someone’s constitutional rights, as long as they are not violating what the Court calls "clearly established law."
Proponents of qualified immunity argue that it is necessary for police officers to perform their job without the fear of being sued. Critics say that qualified immunity offers too much protection for the police and lessens their accountability.
The Federalist Society's El Paso Lawyers Chapter hosted a Zoom debate on the issue on September 1st, 2020 covering points ranging from the merits of the doctrine as it is applied today to which branch of government—the Judiciary or Congress—should change it, if at all.
Featuring:
Judd Stone, Assistant Solicitor General, Texas
Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice, CATO Institute
Moderator: Anthony Rodregous, President, El Paso Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
What should the nature of religious liberty look like in a pluralistic society? The Supreme Court has taken a renewed interest in adjudicating religious liberty cases. Recent terms have attempted to resolve issues as varied as the Bladensburg Peace Cross, the scope of the ministerial exemption, and the application of public health emergency orders to religious services. Next term, the court has been asked to reconsider its decision in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). Does Smith need refinement?
This event hosted by the Chicago Lawyers Chapter on August 20, 2020 surveyed the recent decisions and discussed the best ways forward to protect religious liberty amidst a bevy of conflicting interests in our diverse society.
Featuring:
Prof. Stephanie H. Barclay, Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Vincent Phillip Muñoz, Tocqueville Associate Professor of Religion & Public Life, University of Notre Dame
Moderator: Prof. Daniel O. Conkle, Robert H. McKinney Professor of Law Emeritus and Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies, Maurer School of Law, Indiana University Bloomington
Introduction: Richard Benson, Chicago Lawyers Chapter
Introduction: Eric Wessen, Chicago Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On October 16-17, 1987, the Federalist Society hosted a symposium in celebration of the bicentennial of the Constitution at the George Mason University School of Law. The symposium was titled "Constitutional Protections of Economic Activity: How They Promote Individual Freedom." The fourth panel covered "Federal Spending and the Deficit: Is a Constitutional Remedy Necessary?"
Featuring:
Prof. Kate Stith-Cabranes, Yale Law School
Prof. William Craig Stubblebine, Claremont McKenna College
Prof. Lawrence Summers, Harvard University
Moderator: Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
The Federalist Society's Jacksonville Lawyers Chapter held a virtual panel on August 12, 2020 to discuss some of the major questions surrounding interpretive approaches. The esteemed panelists each provided their insight on hot topics in interpretation, including originalism, textualism, severability, and stare decisis.
Featuring:
Hon. Amy Barrett, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Hon. Wendy Berger, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida
Hon. Paige Gillman, Florida Circuit Court, Fifteenth Circuit
Moderator: Joe Jacquot, General Counsel to Governor Ron DeSantis
Introduction: Patrick Kilbane, President, The Federalist Society Jacksonville Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On August 18, 2020, the Federalist Society's Milwaukee Lawyers Chapter hosted a virtual event on "Recent Trends in the Roberts Court." Don Daugherty, Senior Counsel at the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, reviewed trends that have emerged in cases decided by the Court over the last four terms, including the ascendance of originalism/textualism and the Chief Justice's minimalistic approach.
Featuring:
Don Daugherty, Senior Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty
Moderator: Matthew Fernholz, President, Milwaukee Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On August 17, 2020, The Federalist Society's Chicago Lawyers Chapter hosted a virtual panel on "The Doctrine of Qualified Immunity." The panel explored the doctrine of qualified immunity that shields government officials from being held personally liable for constitutional violations and its future. Should the Supreme Court declare it unlawful? Should Congress amend it? How will law enforcement react if qualified immunity is changed?
Featuring:
Prof. Christopher J. Walker, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law; Director, Moritz Washington, D.C. Summer Program
Prof. Joanna Schwartz, Vice Dean for Faculty Development and Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
Jay Schweikert, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute
Moderator: Hon. John F. Kness, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On October 16-17, 1987, the Federalist Society hosted a symposium in celebration of the bicentennial of the Constitution at the George Mason University School of Law. The symposium was titled "Constitutional Protections of Economic Activity: How They Promote Individual Freedom." The first panel discussed "Methods of Interpreting the Economic Rights Provisions of the Constitution."
Featuring:
Prof. Gary Lawson, Yale Law School
Mr. Roger Pilon, Department of Justice
Prof. Mario J. Rizzo, New York University
Prof. Mark G. Kelman, Stanford Law School
Moderator: Dean Henry G. Manne, George Mason University School of Law
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
A discussion about freedom of speech, freedom of thought, the Black Lives Matter movement, and the cancel culture with Professors Robert George of Princeton and Cornel West of Harvard:
In the aftermath of George Floyd's killing, the country is re-examining fundamental aspects both of our society and how we talk about changing it. In order to undertake that examination in a spirit of honesty and free inquiry, one view holds that participants need to feel free from the danger, and sometimes, as we have seen, the reality, of punishment or intimidation for taking an unpopular point of view. Those holding this view are concerned that we seem to be entering an era of enforced conformity to a new norm—that America is systemically racist, and that a failure to accept and acknowledge this fact is disqualifying from having a place in academia, in public life, or even in the private sector. They are concerned that the radical changes being called for ignore the pillars of the successful American experiment that ultimately led from slavery to the outlawing of racial segregation, and that these changes will do grave harm both to American society as a whole and to the radical changes’ intended beneficiaries.
On the other hand, some believe that our society is so inherently degraded by racism that a fundamental change is justified from the old ways of how we have felt we can think and speak about these issues. The thought is that the traditional notions of free speech and free thought are themselves devices that support oppression, and inevitably are employed to prop up established practices and ways of thinking that have created, and perpetuate, racial inequity. This view holds that those who have been harmed by racism are only further harmed by a so-called “balanced” discussion of their grievances.
Professors George and West will address whether both society, and the ways in which we can discuss its virtues and its deficiencies, are in need of fundamental change.
Featuring:
Prof. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, Princeton University
Prof. Cornel West, Professor of the Practice of Public Philosophy, Harvard University
Moderator: Mr. Eugene Meyer, President & CEO, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On August 10, 2020, the Federalist Society's Washington, D.C. Lawyers Chapter will present its annual Supreme Court Round Up discussing the the Supreme Court's 2019-2020 Term.
Featuring:
Mr. Miguel Estrada, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
Introduction: Mr. Reginald Brown, Partner, WilmerHale
Opening Remarks: Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On March 4-5, 1988, The Federalist Society's University of Virginia student chapter hosted the National Student Symposium in Charlottesville, Virginia. The topic of the conference was "Are There Unenumerated Constitutional Rights?" The conference's first panel was titled "Do We Have an Unwritten Constitution?"
Featuring:
Prof. Paul Bator, University of Chicago Law School
Prof. Michael Moore, University of Southern California Law Center
Prof. Ronald Rotunda, University of Illinois College of Law
Moderator: Justice Antonin Scalia, United States Supreme Court
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
The Colorado Lawyers Chapter held a virtual review of the 2019-20 Supreme Court term on August 12, 2020. After Beth Williams, assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy, kicked things off with her opening remarks, the panel of legal experts weighed in on some of the biggest cases and trends at the Court.
Featuring:
Opening Remarks: The Honorable Beth Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice
Samantha Harris, Mudrick & Zucker, P.C.
Prof. Alan Chen, University of Denver, Sturm College of Law
Josh Hammer, Newsweek
Moderator: Shoshana Weissmann, R Street Institute
Introduction: Will Trachman, Co-Chair, The Federalist Society Colorado Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On November 6-7, 1987, The Federalist Society held a symposium at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Washington, DC on "Foreign Affairs and The Constitution: The Roles of Congress, The President, and The Courts". The second day of the symposium began with a panel on "The Treaty Power".
Featuring:
Abraham Sofaer, Department of State
Prof. Harold Koh, Yale Law School
Prof. John Nowak, University of Illinois College of Law
Justice Grover Rees III, Chief Justice of the High Court of American Samoa
Moderator: Judge Laurence Silberman, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On November 6-7, 1987, The Federalist Society held a symposium at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Washington, DC on "Foreign Affairs and The Constitution: The Roles of Congress, The President, and The Courts". The second panel explored the relationship between "The First Amendment and National Security".
Featuring:
Floyd Abrams, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel
Prof. Henry Holzer, Brooklyn Law School
Don Oberdorfer, The Washington Post
Richard Willard, Department of Justice
Moderator: Dr. Suzanne Garment, American Enterprise Institute
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
The DC Young Lawyers Chapter hosted Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on July 22, 2020. Sen. Blackburn gave her personal insight into some of the biggest issues currently facing the country.
Speaker:
Hon. Marsha Blackburn, Senator, State of Tennessee & Member, Senate Judiciary Committee
Introduction: Kaytlin Roholt Lane, Jones Day & President, DC Young Lawyers Chapter, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On November 6-7, 1987, The Federalist Society held a symposium at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Washington, DC on "Foreign Affairs and The Constitution: The Roles of Congress, The President, and The Courts". On the first day of the symposium, Caspar Weinberger, the Secretary of Defense, gave an address regarding the War Powers Act.
Featuring:
Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Defense
David McIntosh, Domestic Policy Council
Introduction: Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Center for Strategic & International Studies
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On November 6-7, 1987, The Federalist Society held a symposium at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Washington, DC on "Foreign Affairs and The Constitution: The Roles of Congress, The President, and The Courts". The first panel of the symposium discussed "The President's Powers as Commander-in-Chief vs. Congress' War Power and Appropriations Power".
Featuring:
Rep. Charles Bennett, U.S. Representative, Florida
Prof. Geoffrey P. Miller, University of Chicago Law School
William Bradford Reynolds, Department of Justice
Prof. William Van Alstyne, Duke University School of Law
Moderator: A.B. Culvahouse, Counsel to the President
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On June 4, 2020, the Miami Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society hosted an online event discussing "Clash of the Titans: General Michael Flynn & Judge Emmett Sullivan - Does the DOJ have Unfettered Discretion to Dismiss the Flynn Prosecution?"
Featuring:
David Oscar Markus, Criminal Trial & Appellate Lawyer, Markus/Moss
Prof. Carissa Byrne Hessick, Ransdell Professor of Law and Director of the Prosecutors and Politics Project, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
Moderator: Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice, Cato Institute
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On November 6-7, 1987, The Federalist Society held a symposium at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Washington, DC on "Foreign Affairs and The Constitution: The Roles of Congress, The President, and The Courts". The symposium commenced with an address by Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinksi, former National Security Advisor to President Carter.
Featuring:
Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Center for Strategic and International Studies
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
The Federalist Society's COVID-19 & the Law Conference concluded with a panel on "Civil Liberties and COVID-19". The panel took place via teleconference on Friday, June 12, 2020.
Various governmental and private measures relating to COVID-19 are raising challenging civil liberties questions both in the US and around the world. What are the limits on States and localities’ ability to restrict movement? Should journalists be able to be sued for promoting approaches deemed insufficiently or overly aggressive? Do businesses shut down by government order have any legal recourse? What kind of reason do police need to stop people on the street to enforce stay-at-home orders? What about government redirection of medical resources away from abortions? What about government redirection of goods and production capacity? Rationing of scarce medical resources on the basis of anticipated quality of life? What about churches told not to hold in-person or drive-in services? What about prisoners and detained unlawful entrants at heightened exposure risk? What about landlords forbidden to evict tenants? Nor are the challenges limited to the immediate emergency measures. Potential public health steps intended to facilitate safer reopening also raise thorny problems. Should the government be able to condition going back to work or getting on an airplane on a negative COVID-19 test? Or a positive antibody test? Should a company or an airline? Should privacy laws including HIPAA and others be relaxed to permit more effective isolation of people who test positive, including using cell phone location information to send phone alerts to health officials about people who have tested positive and are not self-isolating? Or their close contacts? Or to help with contact tracing? If not how will this affect the efficacy of stepped up testing efforts? Even if in theory some of this makes sense, does the US really have the enforcement resources and bureaucratic capacity effectively to borrow/emulate some of these techniques that have been used in other countries? This panel will explore these questions.
Featuring:
Prof. Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law; Class of 1963 Research Professor in Honor of Graham C. Lilly and Peter W. Low, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, Emerita, New York Law School; Former President, American Civil Liberties Union, 1991-2008
Prof. Mila Versteeg, Martha Lubin Karsh and Bruce A. Karsh Bicentennial Professor of Law; Director, Human Rights Program; Senior Fellow, Miller Center, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Christopher C. DeMuth, Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
The fifth panel of the Federalist Society's COVID-19 & the Law Conference discussed "Regulation or 'Don't Let a Good Crisis Go to Waste'". The panel took place via teleconference on Friday, June 12, 2020.
During this crisis government has assumed new powers that no one would claim it has except in an emergency. Will government cease exercising all these powers when the emergency passes? Historically government has almost always increased its power during crisis and then kept some of that power afterward. Will people try to invoke COVID-19 powers to address other pressing issues, such as drugs, climate change, crime, terrorism etc, on the ground that these too are very serious problems? On the flip side, there are also regulations that have been lifted. Should they remain lifted in some situations? FDA approvals: tests (restricting to CDC), drugs, devices, PPE? Occupational licensing/Practice of medicine across state lines. Some government contracting rules? What regulatory obstacles are still proving to be an issue? (e.g. food supply questions) Would a new BRAC commission make sense for this purpose? In general, to what extent does it make sense to reason – in either a pro-regulatory or deregulatory fashion -- from crisis situations to general notions of governmental role?
Featuring:
Prof. Sally Katzen, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence; Co-Director of the Legislative and Regulatory Process Clinic, New York University School of Law
Dr. Roger D. Klein, Faculty Fellow, Center for Law, Science & Innovation, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University
Prof. Erika Lietzan, Associate Professor of Law, Center for Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship, University of Missouri School of Law
Prof. Paul G. Mahoney, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Cass Sunstein, Robert Walmsley University Professor, Harvard Law School
Moderator: Prof. Susan E. Dudley, Director, GW Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, The George Washington University
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
The second day of the Federalist Society's COVID-19 & the Law Conference commenced with a panel discussion on "COVID-19 and the 2020 Elections". The panel took place via teleconference on Friday, June 12, 2020.
The onset of the COVID-19 epidemic in the midst of an election year has presented election officials with an array of unprecedented challenges. Some states hurriedly cancelled or delayed primary elections while others forged ahead. It is widely assumed that the remaining primaries and likely the November general election will include a substantial increase in vote-by-mail options, and possibly occur with all mail ballots. Who should make such decisions about timing and means of voting: legislatures? Governors and other executive branch officials? Courts? Elections in the U.S. are conducted by states, but Congress has the authority to regulate the “time, place, and manner” of congressional elections, and the “time” for choosing presidential electors and the day of their votes: Should Congress get involved, and if so, how far does its power under the “time, place, and manner” clause reach?
It has long been accepted that absentee balloting and voting-by-mail have potential for voter fraud not present in in-person voting. And tools that make it easier to vote--such as "ballot harvesting"--also increase opportunities for fraud. What policies should states adopt to ensure that people can vote without endangering their personal or the public health, while assuring that the fraud is minimized and the results retain integrity? Are states ready to handle a substantial increase in mail voting? What steps need to be taken before November to get ready? And what are the pluses or minuses to such changes. Are permanent changes necessary, or should any changes in voting procedures be temporary, for this election only?
Featuring:
Dr. Rachel Kleinfeld, Senior Fellow, Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Prof. Michael T. Morley, Assistant Professor, Florida State University College of Law
Prof. Richard H. Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law
Hon. Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law, Capital University Law School
Moderator: Hon. R. Patrick DeWine, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of Ohio
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
The first day of the Federalist Society's COVID-19 & the Law Conference finished with a panel discussion on "Federal Executive Power and COVID-19". The panel took place via teleconference on Thursday, June 11, 2020.
Has the federal executive branch overreacted or underreacted to the Covid-19 threat? To what extent is the proper federal role legislative rather than executive? Within the executive, what is the appropriate role of the White House and the agencies? Which aspects of the response call for political judgment and which call for technical judgment – and to what extent are the relevant agencies technical rather than political actors? What tools are legally available to the President and the rest of the federal executive branch to respond to COVID-19? How should they be used? What is the proper role of guidelines, like the various CDC guidelines, that are not legally binding as a regulatory matter but likely have liability implications and seem to have had considerable practical impact on decisions by State and private actors?
Featuring:
Hon. C. Boyden Gray, Founding Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates
Prof. Daniel B. Rodriguez, Harold Washington Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
Prof. Lisa Grow Sun, Professor of Law, BYU J. Reuben Clark Law School
Moderator: Prof. Gary Lawson, Philip S. Beck Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Ajit Pai, Chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, gave an address at the Federalist Society's COVID-19 & the Law Conference. The address took place via teleconference on Thursday, June 11, 2020.
Hon. Ajit Pai, Chairman, U.S. Federal Communications Commission
Introduction: Eugene Meyer, President and CEO, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
The Federalist Society's COVID-19 & the Law Conference began with a panel discussion on "Government vs. Private Decisionmaking". The panel took place via teleconference on Thursday, June 11, 2020.
How should societies respond to pandemic crises, and to what extent has the American response tracked ideal models? The key questions are the extent to which public and private actors take responsibility for actions and how those actors coordinate with each other. What considerations should govern the allocation of public/private decision making in confronting COVID-19? What are the risks and benefits of decisions being made by the government (at all of the different levels of government), businesses, and individuals? What, in the response thus far,has worked and what hasn’t? Do government decisions about what to close down and when to reopen them create serious crony capitalism and public choice problems or in such an emergency will politicians rise above those temptations? What, if anything, does COVID-19 tell us about Medicare for All?
Featuring:
Prof. Ian Ayres, William K. Townsend Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Prof. David Hyman, Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Health Law & Policy, Georgetown University
Prof. Jason Johnston, Henry L. and Grace Doherty Charitable Foundation Professor of Law; Armistead M. Dobie Professor of Law; and Director, John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Anup Malani, Lee and Brena Freeman Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School
Moderator: Eugene Meyer, President and CEO, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On November 6-7, 1987, The Federalist Society held a symposium at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Washington, DC on "Foreign Affairs and The Constitution: The Roles of Congress, The President, and The Courts". This panel was titled "The Virtues and Vices of Democracy in Conducting Foreign Policy".
Featuring:
Irving Kristol, The Public Interest
Prof. Gordon Tullock, University of Arizona College of Business and Public Administration
Godfrey Hodgson, Author
Moderator: Charles Krauthammer, The New Republic
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
The Eighth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference was held on April 28, 2020 via an online webinar. The final panel was titled "Restoring the Legislative Power: The Role of Nondelegation Doctrine and Legislative Vetoes"
In Federalist Paper No. 51, James Madison argued that a system of checks and balances between the federal branches of government was vital to the health and safety of our constitutional republic. While discussing how the relationship between these separate branches of government should endure, he specifically highlighted the Legislative branch by saying “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” Many in the realm of Constitutional law and governmental policy have argued the balance of power has shifted from the legislature, rendering it less powerful than the founding fathers intended. Some argue this power has been ceded largely to the Executive branch, arguing for more aggressive use of the legislative veto to keep the Executive branch in check. Others argue that the gradual weakening of the non-delegation doctrine has led to the administrative state usurping much of the power once thought solely in the realm of congressional authority. Proponents of the administrative state and of the Executive branch believe these changes are merely a reflection of modern times, and that Congress still has significant and final authority over federal law.
This elite panel of experts will explore the issue in depth, touching on various aspects of the debate, and presenting a wide variety of viewpoints. The panel subject matter promises both to be enlightening and educational for lawyers and policy makers alike.
Featuring:
Prof. Jack Beermann, Harry Elwood Warren Scholar and Professor of Law, Boston University Law School
Prof. Michael B. Rappaport, Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Professor of Law; Director, Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism, University of San Diego School of Law
Prof. David S. Schoenbrod, Trustee Professor of Law, New York Law School
Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law; Director, Washington, D.C., Summer Program, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
Moderator: Mr. Thomas G. Hungar, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Introduction: Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
The Eighth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference was held on April 28, 2020 via an online webinar. The second panel was titled "Restoring Judicial Power: Righting the Ship of Judicial Review and Deference Doctrines."
One aspect of almost all constitutional systems is judicial deference, which could be loosely defined as the concept that certain matters are best decided by entities other than the judiciary. While nearly all agree that some level of judicial deference is necessary in our current constitutional system, the extent to which the Judiciary should practice deference remains a highly complex and controversial area of constitutional law. During the past several decades, the rise of the administrative state in the federal government has only added fuel to this ongoing legal debate. On one side, many believe that the administrative state is better equipped to deal with particular matters, because members of the administrative state will have more expertise in specific subject matter areas than federal judges. Many of these proponents of deference support Supreme Court cases that carved out the well-known deference doctrines of Chevron and Auer. On the other hand, skeptics of excessive judicial deference criticize much of the Supreme Court’s related jurisprudence. They instead argue that the increasing number of "cases and controversies" decided by regulators, enforcers, and adjudicative bodies within the administrative state, that are neither elected nor directly subject to the political process, has led to a less democratic form of government in America. Proponents of judicial power taking a less deferential approach believe that a strong doctrine of judicial review is a vital way to ensure that we truly have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. That said, is there a way to prevent a less-deferential judiciary from becoming overly ambitious?
This distinguished panel of experts will be discussing and debating this controversial and engaging issue. The panel will provide helpful information to attorneys practicing many fields of law, in particular, attorneys working in administrative, constitutional, and regulatory law.
Featuring:
Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law and President, Cass & Associates, PC
Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor, Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School
Prof. Sally Katzen, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence; Co-Director of the Legislative and Regulatory Process Clinic, New York University School of Law
Dean Alan B. Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service Law; Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law School
Hon. Beth A. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice
Moderator: Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
The Eighth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference was held on April 28, 2020 via an online webinar. The first panel was titled "Restoring the Executive Power: Revisiting Humphrey's Executor, Reviving the Unitary Executive."
In public discourse, the visibility and prominence of the presidency has flourished in recent decades in America. However, while the visibility of the presidency has increased, some worry that the actual power and influence of the presidency gradually has been surrendered to much less visible levers of governmental power. The ever-increasing power of the administrative state and the influence of independent agencies has caused many legal experts and policy makers to question whether the presidency has retained all the powers of the executive branch the founding fathers intended. The President surely exercises some control over significant agency heads, but has Presidential control over the agencies themselves weakened? Is the President’s control over independent agencies too attenuated? Proponents of greater executive power argue that the administrative state has grown so large it can stymie a newly elected president’s agenda, which leads to a less democratic form of government. In light of these concerns, should the Supreme Court revisit Humphrey's Executor, and give the President more control over federal agencies? As a practical matter, if agency power is reduced, what ought to fill the void of policy-making and enforcement?
Our distinguished panel of experts will attempt to answer that question, and will delve into multiple sides of this controversial and complex debate.
Featuring:
Hon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and former White House Counsel
Hon. Steven A. Engel, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice
Mr. Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, and former Acting Associate Attorney General, United States Department of Justice
Moderator: Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On March 4-5, 1988, The Federalist Society's University of Virginia student chapter hosted the National Student Symposium in Charlottesville, Virginia. The topic of the conference was "Are There Unenumerated Constitutional Rights? The final panel of the conference discussed "The Role and Relevance of the Amendment Process".
Featuring:
Prof. Akhil Amar, Yale University Law School
Stephen Markman, U.S. Department of Justice
Prof. Larry G. Simon, University of Southern California Law Center
Moderator: Hon. Frank Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
On March 4, 2020, the Regulatory Transparency Project sponsored a symposium with the University of Pennsylvania Federalist Society student chapter. The second panel of the symposium was titled "Should Social Media Platforms Be Viewpoint Neutral? Should the Government Care?"
Featuring:
Adam Candeub, Michigan State University College of Law
Carrie Goldberg, C. A. Goldberg PLLC
Arthur Milikh, Heritage Foundation
Nadine Strossen, New York Law School
Moderator: Neil Chilson, Charles Koch Institute
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
On March 4, 2020, the Regulatory Transparency Project sponsored a symposium with the University of Pennsylvania Federalist Society student chapter. The first panel of the symposium was titled "Do We Need to Rethink Antitrust for Big Tech?"
Featuring:
Roger Alford, Notre Dame University
Jay Himes, Labaton Sucharow LLP
Salil Mehra, Temple University School of Law
Moderator: Christopher Yoo, University of Pennsylvania Carey School of Law
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
On September 9-10, 1988, The Federalist Society held its annual National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. This Luncheon Address was presented by former Attorney General, Edwin Meese III, on the second day of the conference.
Featuring:
Hon. Edwin Meese III, former Attorney General of the United States
Introduction: Steven Calabresi, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On March 14, 2020, the Federalist Society held its 39th National Student Symposium. The Symposium was originally scheduled to be held at the University of Michigan's Law School but was rescheduled as a digital conference. The 2020 Story Award was presented to Professor Stephen E. Sachs of Duke University School of Law.
Featuring:
Prof. Stephen E. Sachs, Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Learn more about the Joseph Story Award:https://fedsoc.org/joseph-story-award
FedSoc Blog: The 2020 Joseph Story Awardhttps://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/the-2020-joseph-story-award
FedSoc Blog: Remarks from the 2020 Joseph Story Awardhttps://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/remarks-from-the-2020-joseph-story-award
On March 14, 2020, the Federalist Society held its 39th National Student Symposium. The Symposium was originally scheduled to be held at the University of Michigan's Law School but was rescheduled as a digital conference. The fourth panel discussed "Originalism and Interstate Relations"
The Constitution famously says very little about interstate relations. Writing for the Court in Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt, Justice Thomas suggested that the Constitution “reflects implicit alterations to the States’ relationships with each other, confirming that they are no longer fully independent nations.” How much of the law of interstate relations is truly settled by the Constitution? As for the rest, what kind of law governs instead? Is it federal or state, general or international, written or unwritten? And what does it provide?
This panel examines what originalism has to say, if anything, about questions of “horizontal federalism”—such as personal jurisdiction, choice of law, full faith and credit, extraterritorial regulation, state borders, sovereign immunity, and other areas of interstate dispute. How did the Founders understand these questions, either before the Constitution or after? What duties do the fifty states owe one another? And what are the roles of Congress and the courts in determining the answers?
Prof. William P. Baude, Professor of Law and Aaron Director Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law School
Prof. Douglas Laycock, Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Stephen E. Sachs, Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law
Moderator: Hon. David R. Stras, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On March 14, 2020, the Federalist Society held its 39th National Student Symposium. The Symposium was originally scheduled to be held at the University of Michigan's Law School but was rescheduled as a digital conference. The third panel discussed the question "Do Changing Norms Undermine Support for Our System of Government?".
Norms range from having quasi-constitutional force to simply being generally accepted modes of conduct that are more easily broken. Such norms include: The Supreme Court has nine members; Congress invites the President for the State of the Union message; the Senate acts on nominees; children are left alone in political campaigns; and the press ignores old sexual peccadilloes. In the area of congressional action, major new legislation historically required bipartisan support, but this did not occur with the Affordable Care Act. There are now battles over recess appointments for political purposes as opposed to the practical purpose of filling positions when Congress is in recess. Is there generally less self-restraint and more willingness to achieve short-term goals by whatever means with less respect for process? If so, does that pose a serious threat to our Constitution, and what might be done about it?
Prof. David E. Bernstein, University Professor and the Executive Director, Liberty & Law Center, Antonin Scalia Law School
Dean Vikram D. Amar, Dean and Iwan Foundation Professor of Law, University of Illinois College of Law
Prof. Keith E. Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University
Dean Evan H. Caminker, Dean Emeritus and Branch Rickey Collegiate Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Moderator: Hon. Chad A. Readler, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On March 14, 2020, the Federalist Society held its 39th National Student Symposium. The Symposium was originally scheduled to be held at the University of Michigan's Law School but was rescheduled as a digital conference. Hon. Paul D. Clement offered the keynote address.
Featuring:
Hon. Paul D. Clement, Former Solicitor General of the United States; Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Distinguished Lecturer in Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President and CEO, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On March 14, 2020, the Federalist Society held its 39th National Student Symposium. The Symposium was originally scheduled to be held at the University of Michigan's Law School but was rescheduled as a digital conference. The second panel explored "The Proper Role of the Senate".
Much has changed concerning the Senate since the adoption of the Constitution. It is now directly elected. The nature of its power has changed with the passage of the 16th Amendment. And its unique role in confirmations and treaties and the nature of its role protecting smaller states all have undergone much discussion. The Senate has always played a key role in balancing purely democratic power. It has also protected the states and possibly served to defuse otherwise hostile geographical battles. Does or should this role change in our modern democracy? If so, how?
Prof. Lynn A. Baker, Frederick M. Baron Chair in Law and Co-Director of the Center on Lawyers, Civil Justice and the Media, University of Texas at Austin School of Law
Prof. Sanford V. Levinson, W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair in Law, University of Texas at Austin School of Law
Ms. Amanda Neely, General Counsel, Office of Senator Rob Portman
Prof. John Yoo, Emanuel Heller Professor of Law and director of the Korea Law Center, University of California at Berkeley School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Raymond M. Kethledge, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On March 14, 2020, the Federalist Society held its 39th National Student Symposium. The Symposium was originally scheduled to be held at the University of Michigan's Law School but was rescheduled as a digital conference. The first panel covered The Compact Clause.
The Compact Clause has received extra attention recently because of the Electoral College and the proposed state compact concerning the popular vote, but that is far from the only use of the compact clause. There are currently 200 active interstate compacts ranging from the significant to the almost trivial. The environment, metropolitan transportation authorities, and waterways are a few major areas where compacts are frequent. What can compacts properly cover? When are they constitutionally forbidden? When permitted, when do they promote good public policy, and what are the dangers posed by their use?
Prof. Michael S. Greve, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School
Prof. Roderick M. Hills, Jr., William T. Comfort, III Professor of Law, New York University School of Law
Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Moderator: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President and CEO, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On January 30-31, 1987, the Federalist Society hosted its annual National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the convention was "Changing the Law: The Role of Lawyers, Judges, and Legislators". The final panel of the convention was a "Workshop on Problems of Insider Trading and Merger Regulations".
Featuring:
Dean Henry Manne, George Mason University Law School
Joseph Grundfest, Commissioner, Securities Exchange Commission
Hon. Pasco Bowman, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Prof. Saul Levmore, Yale Law School
Moderator: John Bolton, Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Office of Legislative Affairs
Introduction: William Bradford Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General of the United States
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
On January 30-31, 1987, the Federalist Society hosted its annual National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the convention was "Changing the Law: The Role of Lawyers, Judges, and Legislators". The fourth panel occurred on the second day of the convention, discussing "The Open-Ended Clauses of the Constitution: Due Process, Privileges or Immunities, the Guarantee Clause and the Ninth Amendment".
Featuring:
Prof. Lino Graglia, University of Texas Law School
Floyd Abrams, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel
Hon. Alex Kozinski, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Morton Halperin, ACLU
Moderator: Hon. Stephen Williams, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
Introduction: William Bradford Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General of the United States
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
On January 30, 1987, the Federalist Society hosted its annual National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. Attorney General Edwin Meese III delivered the keynote speech.
Master of Ceremonies: T. Kenneth Cribb, Presidential Advisor, Domestic Affairs
Introduction: William Bradford Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General of the United States
Hon. Edwin Meese III, Attorney General of the United States
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On January 31-February 1, 2020, The Federalist Society's Florida lawyers chapters hosted their annual Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's Yacht and Beach Club Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. The luncheon on the second day of the conference featured "A Conversation About the Eleventh Circuit".
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Master of Ceremonies:
Mr. Timothy M. Cerio, Of Counsel, GrayRobinson, P.A.
Panel Discussion:
Hon. Lisa Branch, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Hon. Britt Grant, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Hon. Barbara Lagoa, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Hon. Robert Luck, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Moderator: Hon. Rodolfo Ruiz, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida
On January 31-February 1, 2020, The Federalist Society's Florida lawyers chapters hosted their annual Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's Yacht and Beach Club Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. The second day of the conference included a speech by General Counsel Matthew Leopold on recent developments from the EPA.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Hon. Matthew Z. Leopold, General Counsel, United States Enivonmental Protection Agency
Introduction: Jason Gonzalez, Partner, Shutts & Bowen LLP
On January 31-February 1, 2020, The Federalist Society's Florida lawyers chapters hosted their annual Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's Yacht and Beach Club Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. The final session of the conference covered "The Law and Policy of Marijuana in Florida".
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Prof. Zachary C. Bolitho, Assistant Professor of Law, Campbell University School of Law
Hon. Jeff Kottkamp, 17th Lt. Governor of Florida; President, Jeff Kottkamp, PA
Bertha K. Madras, PhD, Professor of Psychobiology, Harvard Medical School
Daniel R. Russell, Chair of the Medical Cannabis and Hemp Commercialization Group, Dean Mead Law Firm
Moderator: William N. Shepherd, Partner, Holland & Knight
On January 31-February 1, 2020, The Federalist Society's Florida lawyers chapters hosted their annual Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's Yacht and Beach Club Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. The second day of the conference included an address by Holocaust survivor Irving Roth.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Irving Roth, Director, Holocaust Resource Center at the Temple Judea of Manhasset, New York; and Holocaust Survivor
Introduction: Hon. Robert J. Luck, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
On January 31-February 1, 2020, The Federalist Society's Florida lawyers chapters hosted their annual Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's Yacht and Beach Club Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. The second day of the conference began with a session on the topic of "Originalism and Textualism in Practice".
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Sarah Harris, Partner, Williams & Connolly
Joe Jacquot, General Counsel, Governor of Florida
Hon. William H. Pryor, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Hon. Sarah H. Warren, Supreme Court of Georgia
Moderator: Jason Gonzalez, Chairman, Appellate Practice Group, Shutts and Bowen LLP; Managing Partner, Shutts & Bowen LLP, Tallahassee
On January 31-February 1, 2020, The Federalist Society's Florida lawyers chapters hosted their annual Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's Yacht and Beach Club Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. The first session of the conference was titled "Revisiting the Anti-Federalists".
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Prof. John Baker, Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University
Dr. Michelle Kundmueller, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Old Dominion University
Hon. Andrew S. Oldham, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Moderator: Hon. Trevor N. McFadden, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
Introduction: Daniel Nordby, Partner, Shutts & Bowen LLP
On January 31-February 1, 2020, The Federalist Society's Florida lawyers chapters hosted their annual Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's Yacht and Beach Club Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. The conference opened with a discussion and Q&A with former White House Counsel Don McGahn.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Opening Remarks: Lisa Ezell, Vice President & Director, Lawyers Chapters, The Federalist Society
Introduction: Elena Crosby, President, Orlando Lawyers Chapter
Hon. Donald F. McGahn, Partner, Jones Day and former White House Counsel
Jan Crawford, Chief Legal Correspondent, CBS News
On January 25, 2020, the Federalist Society hosted its annual Western Chapters Conference at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA. The conference concluded with a panel on "The Anti-Federalists and the Court."
Just this term, the Anti-Federalists played a major role in the outcome of Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt. Is that a one-off or a sign of more to come? Beyond simply citing the papers as a plea to authority, should courts confronting questions of originalism read the materials underlying Anti-Federalist thought as a way to understand the Constitution?
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Panelists:
Hon. Scott Keller, Partner, Baker Botts & Former Solicitor General of Texas
Erin Murphy, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Ilya Shapiro, Director , Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
Moderator: Hon. Michael Brennan, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Introduction: Christopher Hage, Senior Advisor to the Regional Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency
On January 30th, 1987, The Federalist Society hosted its first annual National Lawyers Convention. The convention opened with a keynote address by Vice President George H.W. Bush.
Featuring:
-Steven G. Calabresi, Co-Chairman, The Federalist Society
-William Bradford Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General and Convention Chairman
-C. Boyden Gray, Legal Counsel to the Vice President
-Hon. George H.W. Bush, Vice President of the United States
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On January 16, 2020, the Federalist Society's New York City Lawyers and Young Lawyers Chapters hosted Hon. Nikki Haley to discuss her new book--With All Due Respect: Defending America with Grit and Grace.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Featuring:
Hon. Nikki R. Haley, Former United States Ambassador to the United Nations; Former Governor of South Carolina; Author, With All Due Respect: Defending America with Grit and Grace
Hon. Mary Beth Buchanan, President, Federalist Society New York City Lawyers Chapter; General Counsel, Kraken Cryptocurrency Exchange; Former United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Introduction: Brooke Cook, President, Federalist Society New York City Young Lawyers Chapter
Thursday, January 16, 2020New York City Federalist Society Dinner
Keynote Speaker:
Hon. Nikki HaleyFormer United States Ambassador to the United NationsFormer Governor of South Carolina Author, With All Due Respect: Defending America with Grit and Grace
On January 3-4, 2020, the Federalist Society hosted its 22nd annual Faculty Conference at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC. The final panel asked "Is Everything Political?"
This panel sought to explore whether the reach of politics is broader now than it once was, whether there is a law-politics distinction, whether politics has become a substitute for religion or related claims on a person’s sense of self, and whether it is possible or desirable for politics to play a smaller role in life.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Christian Burset, Notre Dame Law School
Guy-Uriel Charles, Duke University School of Law
Tara Leigh Grove, William & Mary Marshall-Wythe School of Law
Stephen E. Sachs, Duke University School of Law
Moderator: Joshua Kleinfeld, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
On January 3-4, 2020, the Federalist Society hosted its 22nd annual Faculty Conference at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the third panel was "Originalism and the Fourth Amendment".
This panel explored the extent, if any, to which an originalist methodology can answer the big questions of Fourth Amendment interpretation that courts are grappling with today. If an originalist methodology can answer these questions, what answers does it provide?
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
William Baude, University of Chicago Law School
Jeffrey Bellin, William and Mary Marshall-Wythe Law School
Laura Donohue, Georgetown University Law Center
Moderator: Orin Kerr, UC Berkeley School of Law
On January 3-4, 2020, the Federalist Society hosted its 22nd annual Faculty Conference at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC. The luncheon featured a debate on whether the electoral college should be abrogated.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law School
Stephen Sachs, Duke University School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Neomi Rao, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
On January 3-4, 2020, the Federalist Society hosted its 22nd annual Faculty Conference at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC. The second panel discussed "Governance by Index: Mutual Fund Involvement in Corporate Governance".
Mutual funds, particularly index funds, increasingly find themselves in a position to influence the governance of the companies in which they invest. Accordingly, campaigners of every sort—from hedge fund activists to advocates for environmental and social causes—now lobby mutual funds for voting support. But how should mutual funds wield their power in corporate governance?
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Sean J. Griffith, Fordham University School of Law
Ann M. Lipton, Tulane University Law School
Adriana Z. Robertson, University of Toronto Faculty of Law
Moderator: Jeremy Kidd, Mercer University School of Law
On January 3-4, 2020, the Federalist Society hosted its 22nd annual Faculty Conference at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC. The first panel discussed "Originalism and Stare Decisis".
Sometimes the original meaning of the Constitution conflicts with or points in a different direction from the Supreme Court's precedents. When that happens, what is the role of stare decisis? To what extent is stare decisis consistent with or at odds with originalism? What should an originalist Court do with non-originalist precedent? What exactly does stare decisis commit a court to follow? Do the Supreme Court’s past practices or its duty to follow its precedents differ from inferior courts’ duty to heed Supreme Court decisions?
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Randy E. Barnett, Georgetown University Law Center
Randy J. Kozel, Notre Dame Law School
John O. McGinnis, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
Moderator: Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society
Introduction: Lee Liberman Otis, Senior Vice President & Director, Faculty Division, The Federalist Society
On December 10, 2019, the Regulatory Transparency Project hosted an event at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. The title of the event was "What's Next for Fannie, Freddie, and Housing Finance Reform?"
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) oversees the administration of both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. What's next for the agency? What are the priorities that the agency should be pursuing?
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Mark Calabria, Federal Housing Finance Agency
Edward Pinto, American Enterprise Institute
Peter Wallison, American Enterprise Institute
Moderator: Alex Pollock, US Department of the Treasury
On November 14, 2019, the Federalist Society's Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group hosted a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel discussed "Horizontal Federalism: May States Project Their Sovereignty Beyond Their Borders?".
The Supreme Court's recent decision in Franchise Tax Bd. v. Hyatt (overturning Nevada v. Hall) enforced an originalist understanding, limiting attempts by a state to extend its sovereign powers beyond its borders. Although often overlooked, vertical federalism arose in part as way of controlling the abuses of horizontal federalism under the Articles of Confederation. Some states had arguably been using their powers to infringe on the powers of other states. The Constitution’s strong federal government (yet with a limited number of powers) modified, without eliminating, horizontal federalism. The Constitution adapted from the Articles of Confederation certain horizontal provisions such as privileges and immunities, extradition, and full faith and credit. The two forms of federalism are encased within our current system of separation of powers.
Vertical federalism is evident when different groups of state AGs -- Red state AGs against Obama and now Blue state AGs against Trump-- have challenged federal policies in suits filed in federal courts. Different and more difficult to challenge, however, are attempts by one state or a group of states to make its policies effectively binding on other states. Examples include sanctuary state laws, California’s Internet regulation, cities and states suing oil companies in an attempt to regulate global warming and the National Popular Vote Compact. These developments implicate not only federalism and separation of powers, but the limits of state police powers and the natural right of self-government. Do these actions by some states necessarily come at the expense of other states? Do they violate the fundamental right of citizens to be governed by their own state constitutions and the separation of powers system of the federal Constitution?
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University and Visiting Professor, Center for the Constitution, Georgetown University Law Center
Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Chapman University Fowler School of Law
Prof. Edward L. Rubin, University Professor of Law and Political Science, Vanderbilt Law School
Mr. Ilya Shapiro, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
Moderator: Hon. Michael Brennan, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
On November 16, 2019, the Federalist Society's Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group held a special session for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The session covered "Executive Power vs. Congressional Power".
There are a number of currently unfolding battles, involving important constitutional issues, between Congress and the Executive Branch. At the operational level, they involve the House’s exercise of its oversight, and impeachment powers, pitted against the Administration’s opposition to these efforts. At the more conceptual level, we hear assertions that arguably challenge the Constitution’s core separation of powers architecture, which holds that the three branches of the federal government are co-equal. How much power does the Constitution give to the Executive Branch, and how much to the Legislative Branch, and does the answer depend on whether or not one of these two branches is exercising power against the other?
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Mr. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis
Hon. Edith H. Jones, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Prof. Martin Lederman, Professor from Practice, Georgetown University Law Center
Mr. David B. Rivkin, Jr., Partner, BakerHostetler
Moderator: Hon. A. Raymond Randolph, United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
On November 16, 2019, the Federalist Society's practice groups held a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel discussed "51 Imperfect Solutions for the Ethical Practice of Law.
The practice of law in the United States is not monolithic. Each state establishes its own rules of professional conduct. This form of federalism allows states to serve as "laboratories of democracy," and innovate how the legal profession operates. This panel will focus on four areas in which states disagree. First, the majority of states have rejected ABA Model Rule 8.4(g), which purports to prohibit "harassment" in "conduct related to the practice of law." Second, in the wake of Janus v. AFSCME, states are considering whether to abolish "integrated" bars. Third, some states are engaging in novel experiments to permit non-lawyers to perform some types of legal services. Finally, we are in the earliest stages of understanding how legal analytics—using technology to predict how courts will decide cases—fits within the rubric of the unauthorized practice of law. These topics implicate critical issues like the freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion, antitrust law, and cutting-edge legal technology.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Hon. G. Barry Anderson, Associate Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court
Prof. Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
Mr. Mauricio R. Hernandez, Principal, Hernandez Law Office
Prof. Thomas D. Morgan, Oppenheim Professor Emeritus of Antitrust and Trade Regulation Law, George Washington University Law School
Moderator: Hon. Jennifer Walker Elrod, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Introduction: Mr. John J. Park, Jr., Of Counsel, Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP
On November 15, 2019, the Federalist Society's International & National Security Law Practice Group hosted a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel discussed "Economic Law & Policy as a tool of National Security".
Since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. has shifted from large-scale military interventions to the use of economic levers such as tariffs, sanctions, export/import controls, and renegotiating trade agreements to address national security challenges including great power rivals, rogue nations engaging in nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and immigration. Our panel of experts will discuss the efficacy and sustainability of this approach and whether an economic-oriented national security policy is likely to advance U.S. interests abroad.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Hon. Kristen Silverberg, Former U.S. Ambassador to the European Union
Prof. John Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, UC Berkeley School of Law; Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution; Visiting Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
Hon. Juan C. Zarate, Chairman and Co-Founder, Financial Integrity Network
Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
Introduction: Mr. Matthew R. A. Heiman, Senior Fellow and Associate Director for Global Security, National Security Institute
On November 15, 2019, the Federalist Society's Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group hosted a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel discussed "Freedom of Speech and Private Power".
Should the government protect speech against private power, and not just governmental power? Many states restrict private employers’ ability to fire employees based on their speech. A few protect private college students, private high school students, or speakers at private shopping malls. And of course employment law and public accommodation law routinely ban private discrimination based on religion, including based on religious speech.
Should the federal and state governments provide comparable protection against private discrimination based on political affiliation, including political speech? Should the government require colleges and universities to demonstrate a commitment to free speech to receive government funding? Should banks, insurers, and social media platforms be required to protect free speech? Or should private entities remain largely free (or even become freer) to discriminate based on speech and ideology?
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Prof. Adam Candeub, Professor of Law and Director, Intellectual Property, Information & Communications Law Program, Michigan State University College of Law
Ms. Ann Coulter, Author and Columnist
Prof. Eric Goldman, Professor of Law and Co-Director, High Tech Law Institute, Santa Clara University School of Law
Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Britt C. Grant, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Introduction: Erik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP
On November 15, 2019, the Federalist Society's practice groups hosted a special session for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel discussed "Originalism, Populism, and the Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms".
The Second Amendment has again become a topic of national discussion in recent years. Mass shooting tragedies of this past year captured the attention of the national media and Americans at large. The Supreme Court in this upcoming term, for the first time in almost a decade, will be confronting the Second Amendment head-on in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York. Many will be expecting the Supreme Court to further develop its jurisprudence following the landmark cases of Heller v. District of Columbia, and McDonald v. City of Chicago. This panel will debate these issues and analyze the Second Amendment in this current political climate as well as through the lens of Originalism.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Prof. Renée Lettow Lerner, Donald Phillip Rothschild Research Professor, George Washington University Law School
Mr. Jonathan Lowy, Chief Counsel & Vice President, Legal, Brady
Mr. Mark W. Smith, Founding Partner, Smith Valliere PLLC
Mr. Jonathan Taylor, Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLC
Moderator: Hon. Andrew S. Oldham, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
On November 15, 2019, the Federalist Society's Civil Rights Practice Group hosted a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel covered "Stare Decisis in Civil Rights Cases".
Stare decisis is generally regarded as a stronger force when applied to statutes than it is in constitutional law. The standard rationale is that it is much easier for the legislature to overrule statutory precedents than it is for the people to overrule constitutional precedents. But stare decisis has never been an absolute rule in either context. Has the Supreme Court been excessively reluctant to reconsider high-profile precedents that clearly misinterpreted the original meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and similar statutes?
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Mr. Michael A. Carvin, Partner, Jones Day
Mr. William S. Consovoy, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC and Adjunct Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Prof. William N. Eskridge, Jr., John A. Garver Professor of Jurisprudence, Yale Law School
Prof. Neil Kinkopf, Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law
Prof. Nelson Lund, University Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Moderator: Hon. Diane S. Sykes, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
On November 15, 2019, the Federalist Society's Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group hosted a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel covered "Money and the Constitution".
Money. We all use it, for exchange, for store of value, for identifying prices, and many other purposes and exercises. In the United States, and under our Constitution, what is money, how is it created, what is its value, who gets to decide, and to whom are such decision makers accountable? Is it an instrument of freedom, or a tool of government policy to affect that freedom? These questions, which touch all of us, will be the topic of discussion of our panelists.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Dr. Don Kohn, Robert V. Roosa Chair in International Economics, Senior Fellow, Economic Studies, The Brookings Institute
Mr. Alex J. Pollock, Distinguished Senior Fellow, Finance, Insurance & Trade, R Street
Dr. Paul Sheard, Senior Fellow, Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government, Harvard Kennedy School
Prof. Richard E. Sylla, Professor Emeritus of Economics, New York University Stern School of Business
Moderator: Hon. Paul B. Matey, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Introduction: Hon. Wayne A. Abernathy, Executive VP for Financial Institutions Policy and Regulatory Af, American Bankers Association
On November 14, 2019, the Federalist Society's Religious Liberty Practice Group held a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panelists discussed "The Future of the Establishment Clause in the Roberts Court".
This panel will address the meaning of the American Legion v. American Humanist Association decision regarding the Bladensburg Peace Cross and where the Court is headed next. Has Lemon been completely or at least partially overruled? And if so, what do we anticipate the guiding principle will be going forward in Establishment Clause cases? This question has particular salience in light of the Court’s upcoming case regarding funding for religious schools in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. Finally, to what extent do we think the Court will, or should, interpret the Establishment Clause to place strict limits on government’s ability to protect religious exercise that causes harm to third parties, including dignitary harms? Such a question may be relevant to pending cert petitions, including in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a case dealing with a faith-based adoption agency’s inability to certify same-sex couples for foster care.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Prof. Stephanie H. Barclay, Associate Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University
Mr. Luke Goodrich, Vice President and Senior Counsel, Becket and Adjunct Professor, S. J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah
Prof. Micah J. Schwartzman, Hardy Cross Dillard Professor of Law; Martha Lubin Karsh and Bruce A. Karsh Bicentennial Professor of Law; Director, Karsh Center for Law and Democracy, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. William P. Marshall, William Rand Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Carlos Bea, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Introduction: Mr. William L. Saunders, Professor - Human Rights, Religious Liberty, Bioethics, Catholic University of America
On November 14, 2019, the Federalist Society's Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group hosted a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel discussed "The Wisdom and Legality of Sanctuary Cities".
The issue of sanctuary cities has increasingly been in the news in recent years. The Trump administration has threatened to cut off funds to sanctuary jurisdictions and to transport aliens who enter our borders to those jurisdictions, and also claims that these jurisdictions are endangering their citizens. Sanctuary jurisdictions have challenged (so far successfully) the administration’s ability to cut off funds, and has cited the 10th Amendment, among other arguments, to support their actions. They also argue that being a sanctuary jurisdiction actually helps their law enforcement efforts by encouraging illegal immigrants (who are often victims or witnesses of criminal conduct) to “come out of the shadows” and cooperate with law enforcement officials. A Massachusetts judge and her bailiff were recently indicted for helping assisting an illegal alien escape the clutches of an ICE agent who was waiting to arrest him, and federal authorities are still contemplating charges against Oakland’s mayor for warning illegal aliens that immigration authorities were about to conduct raids looking for them. We could debate the legal and moral questions surrounding sanctuary cities.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Hon. Stephanos Bibas, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Mr. Mark Fleming, Associate Director of Litigation, National Immigrant Justice Center
Mr. Christopher Hajec, Director of Litigation, Immigration Reform Law Institute
Hon. Jefferson B. Sessions III, Former United States Attorney General
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Moderator: Hon. Kurt D. Engelhardt, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Introduction: John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
On November 14, 2019, the Federalist Society's Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group hosted a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The title of the panel was "Nondelegation after Gundy: Are We Waiting for Godot?".
Contrary to the expectations of some, the U.S. Supreme Court’s June decision in Gundy v. United States did not reinvigorate the nondelegation doctrine. Instead, the Court upheld a delegation contained in the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), a 2006 law which appeared to leave it up to the Attorney General of the U.S. to decide how to apply that statute to prior offenders already in custody. However, because Justice Alito’s concurrence in the judgment expressed willingness to reconsider the Court’s approach to the doctrine and Justice Kavanaugh did not sit on this case, the Gundy decision whetted appetites for what may come in the next nondelegation case to reach the Court.
This panel will examine the Court’s decision in Gundy, dissect the various viewpoints that the justices presented, and—especially—explore what those perspectives (and Justice Kavanaugh’s subsequent participation) could mean for the future of the nondelegation doctrine. The panel will address questions such as: Will the Court alter the doctrine? What would a strengthened nondelegation doctrine look like? Is there a judicially administrable way to redefine what counts as an “intelligible principle”? What would an ideal case for the Court’s consideration look like? What will happen to delegations approved under the current version of the doctrine? Will the modern Administrative State look much different under a reinvigorated nondelegation doctrine?
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Hon. Ronald A. Cass, President, Cass & Associates, PC; Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law
Prof. David Schoenbrod, Trustee Professor of Law, New York Law School
Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor; Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law; Associate Director, Corporate Institute, University of Minnesota Law School
Prof. Alan Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean, Public Interest and Public Service Law and Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law School
Moderator: Hon. Ryan D. Nelson, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Introduction: Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor, PLLC
On November 14, 2019, the Federalist Society's Intellectual Property Practice Group hosted a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel discussed "Originalism and Changes in Technology".
Police track criminal suspects using cell phone data and GPS devices attached to their cars. Social media and other electronic publishing platforms allow every-day citizens to function as the “press.” VCRs and DVRs allow unauthorized recording of copyrighted television programs, while micro-antennas and internet video create an opportunity to re-broadcast these programs. Advances in modern software and biotech/medical methods combined with sometimes abusive enforcement of tech patents (many of which were inadequately examined in the late '90s when advancements in internet and computer technology outpaced the USPTO’s ability to perform robust examinations) has led courts to seek solutions by way of new interpretation of Section 101 to create further subject matter restrictions.
How does originalism handle changes in technology? Do adherents consistently apply its principles across areas of law that range from First and Fourth Amendment to intellectual property cases? Do the narrow spaces between originalism and textualism become larger gaps when it comes to addressing new technologies? How do we judge the performance of originalism against other judicial philosophies in cases involving technological change?
This distinguished panel will look at the history of how originalism has dealt with technology and also look toward a future of advanced robotics, driverless cars, and massive personal data collection to decide whether originalism as it stands is the best tool to decide the coming cases in criminal, tort liability, free speech, intellectual property, and other legal areas, or whether even judges with originalist tendencies should start to look toward other philosophies where technological challenges arise.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Mr. Anthony J. Dick, Associate, Jones Day
Prof. John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Director, Classical Liberal Institute and Laurence A. Tisch Professor Emeritus of Law, New York University School of Law; James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Senior Lecturer, University of Chicago; and Peter and Kirstin Bedford Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution
Prof. F. Scott Kieff, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law and Director, Planning and Publications, Center for Law, Economics, & Finance, George Washington University Law School
Moderator: Hon. Ryan T. Holte, United States Court of Federal Claims
Introduction: Prof. Mark F. Schultz, Professor of Law, Southern Illinois University School of Law
Over the last decade, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the primacy of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) by enforcing the terms of arbitration agreements in the employment, consumer and other contexts – including mandatory and class action waivers. The FAA encourages a mechanism for the resolution of disputes that most recognize as quicker and less expensive than courts. Some argue the benefits of arbitration are waning in the #MeToo era, with confidentiality provisions in arbitration agreements. Students at Harvard, Stanford, Yale and other elite laws schools are pressuring Big Law to dump mandatory arbitration, while some large employers have publicly abandoned legally enforceable arbitration agreements. Yet, at least one study shows employees do as well or better in terms of win rate and recoveries in arbitration as opposed to the judiciary. First introduced after the Epic Systems decision, the Restoring Justice for Workers Act (H.R. 2749) would prohibit mandatory arbitration in employment disputes. What is the future of mandatory arbitration? Is ending mandatory arbitration for all employment claims an over-reaction? Will forcing disputes into the judiciary mean fewer disputes will be brought to resolution? What about non-disclosure provisions in arbitration agreements? Will fewer employment agreements require arbitration of employment claims in the future?
Hon. Paul D. Clement, Former United States Solicitor General and Partner, Kirkland & Ellis
Prof. Alexander J. S. Colvin, Kenneth F. Kahn '69 Dean and Martin F. Scheinman Professor of Conflict Resolution, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University
Mr. Deepak Gupta, Founding Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLC
Mr. Andrew J. Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown LLP
Moderator: Hon. Joan Larsen, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Introduction: Ms. Tammy D. McCutchen, Principal, Littler Mendelson PC
On November 14, 2019, the Federalist Society's Corporations, Securities, & Antitrust Practice Group hosted a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel discussed "The Future of Antitrust: New Challenges to the Consumer Welfare Paradigm and Legislative Proposals".
Robert Bork’s consumer welfare paradigm, which has influenced the evolution of antitrust enforcement in the United States and globally over the past 40 years, is under attack. Critics, including members of Congress and Presidential candidates from both parties, assert not only that antitrust has been unable to keep up with developments in the high tech, finance, communications, and pharmaceutical fields, but that competition law should be used as a tool to address a much broader range of concerns, from privacy and employment to income inequality and non-discrimination in political viewpoint. In response to these concerns, DOJ and FTC have laid the groundwork for potential investigations of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google. Calls to break those companies up have also spurred legislative proposals that would significantly change current merger review policy. It is critical to understand the arguments motivating this debate and why they are gaining traction now. Is it time to abandon or change the “consumer welfare” standard or to reconsider longstanding approaches to merger enforcement?
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Hon. Makan Delrahim, Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice
Prof. Gene Kimmelman, Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law School
Hon. Maureen Ohlhausen, Partner, Baker Botts
Dr. Rainer Wessely, Delegation of the European Union to the United States
Moderator: Hon. John B. Nalbandian, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
On November 14, 2019, the Federalist Society's Litigation Practice Group hosted a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The title of the panel was "Is It Time to End Life Tenure for Federal Judges?".
The framers of our Constitution jealously guarded the independence of federal judges, and the principal means they selected for doing so was to confer life tenure upon them. But a great deal has changed since then. At the time of the founding, federal judges were not alone: most state judges enjoyed life tenure as well. But now, federal judges are almost entirely alone—not only in the United States, but in the world—in this respect. In addition, life expectancies are vastly longer today than they were two hundred years ago. Finally, the process for selecting federal judges has arguably become more politicized than ever before—and some point to life tenure as the reason. Recent polls show that over 75% of Americans want to end life tenure.
Is it time to end life tenure? Are there ways to end it that do not require a constitutional amendment? Our panelists will debate these important and timely questions.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Dr. Norman J. Ornstein, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute and Chairman, Campaign Legal Center
Prof. James E. Pfander, Owen L. Coon Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
Ms. Carrie Severino, Chief Counsel and Policy Director, Judicial Crisis Network
Hon. David R. Stras, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Mr. Stuart Taylor, Jr., Journalist and Author
Moderator: Hon. William H. Pryor, Jr., Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
On November 14, 2019, the Federalist Society hosted a showcase panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The title of the panel was "What is Originalism?"
While originalism is on the rise today, its content has become fractal with different views of what are the methods of determining a constitutional provision's meaning. This panel would look at the many types of originalism and consider the extent to which the theoretical differences will result in different outcomes.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Prof. Jack M. Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment, Yale Law School
Mr. Evan D. Bernick, Law Clerk to the Honorable Diane S. Sykes of the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Pritzker School of Law, Northwestern University
Prof. Christina M. Mulligan, Vice Dean for Academic and Student Affairs and Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School
Prof. Stephen E. Sachs, Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law
Ms. Elizabeth B. Wydra, President, Constitutional Accountability Center
Moderator: Hon. Amul Thapar, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
On November 15, 2019, the Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group hosted a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel explored "The Future of Telecommunications Law and Policy".
In an era of unprecedented technological change and relentless innovation, what is the proper role of regulators in competition antitrust and innovation policy? America has achieved global leadership across a wide swath of technology sectors, but at what price? How should we balance global innovation leadership with domestic competition policy, and should our answer depend on the competition and IP policies of other countries?
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Remarks: Mr. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
Mr. Jeffrey H. Blum, Senior Vice President, Public Policy and Government Affairs, DISH Network
Dr. Jeffrey A. Eisenach, Managing Director, NERA Economic Consulting
Ms. Angie Kronenberg, Chief Advocate & General Counsel, INCOMPAS
Ms. Giulia McHenry, Acting Chief, Office of Economics and Analytics, Federal Communications Commission
Moderator: Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Introduction: Bryan N. Tramont, Managing Partner, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP
On November 16, 2019, the Federalist Society hosted the fourth showcase panel of the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel discussed "Originalism and Precedent."
The Supreme Court has decided hundreds of cases, many of which do not seem to square with the original meaning. How much account, if any, should originalism take account of precedent. Are there particular precedent rules that originalism can generate?
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Prof. Tara Leigh Grove, Mills E. Godwin, Jr., Professor of Law and Cabell Research Professor, William & Mary Law School
Prof. Bernadette Meyler, Carl and Sheila Spaeth Professor of Law and Associate Dean, Research and Intellectual Life, Stanford Law School
Prof. Michael Stokes Paulsen, Distinguished University Chair and Professor of Law, University of St. Thomas School of Law
Prof. Lawrence B. Solum, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Moderator: Hon. Neomi Rao, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
On November 16, 2019, the Federalist Society hosted the third showcase panel of the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel explored the question "Does Originalism Protect Unenumerated Rights?".
Does the original meaning of any constitutional provision protect fundamental rights? Substantive Due Process had been a target of originalists, but is it fair to dismiss it as an oxymoron? And even if Due Process does not have a substantive component, does the Privileges or Immunities Clause provide a justification for a fundamental right jurisprudence?
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Prof. Stephanie H. Barclay, Associate Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University
Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law Center
Prof. Jamal Greene, Dwight Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
Prof. Gary S. Lawson, Philip S. Beck Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law
Hon. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School
Moderator: Hon. Kevin C. Newsom, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Introduction: Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society, The Federalist Society
On November 15, 2019, the Federalist Society hosted the second showcase panel of the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the panel was "Why, or Why Not, Be an Originalist?"
There are a variety of arguments for following originalism today, such as justifications rooted in language, positivism, sovereignty, and consequences. This panel would look at many normative positions for and against originalism.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Hon. Amy Coney Barrett, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Prof. Michael C. Dorf, Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law, Cornell Law School
Prof. Saikrishna B. Prakash, James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law and Paul G. Mahoney Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Richard H. Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University Law School
Moderator: Hon. Thomas Hardiman, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
RESOLVED: The Free Exercise Clause guarantees a constitutional right of religious exemption from general laws when such an exemption would not endanger public peace and good order.
On November 16, 2019, the Federalist Society held the twelfth annual Rosenkranz Debate at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The participants discussed whether the Free Exercise Clause guarantees a constitutional right of religious exemption from general laws when such an exemption would not endanger public peace and good order.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Prof. Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law and Director, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School
Moderator: Hon. Stuart Kyle Duncan, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President and CEO, The Federalist Society
On November 15, 2019, the Federalist Society held the 19th Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The lecture featured Attorney General William Barr, who discussed the development of the role of the executive in the federal government.
On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society believes that it is most fitting to dedicate an annual lecture on limited government and the spirit of freedom to the memory of Barbara Olson. She had a deep commitment to the rule of law and understood well the relationship between respecting limits on government power and the preservation of freedom. And, significantly, Barbara Olson was an individual who never took freedom for granted in her own life, even in her final terrifying moments-her inspiring and energetic human spirit is a testament to what one can achieve in a world that places a premium on human freedom. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Hon. William P. Barr
Introduction: Eugene Meyer, President and CEO, The Federalist Society
On November 15, 2019, the Federalist Society's Labor & Employment Practice Group hosted an address by Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. Secretary Scalia discussed his plans as the Secretary of Labor as well as some important constitutional decisions involving labor and employment law.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Hon. Eugene Scalia, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor
Introduction: Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
On November 14, 2019, The Federalist Society opened its 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC with a speech by Governor Ron DeSantis (FL). Governor DeSantis focused his remarks on the Florida Supreme Court and the balance of powers in the federal government.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Hon. Ron DeSantis, Governor, Florida
Introduction: Mr. Leonard A. Leo, Co-Chairman and Executive Vice President, The Federalist Society
On October 28, 2019, the George Washington Student Chapter presented A Conversation with Senator Mike Lee. The Senator reflected on the current state of Congress and the Judiciary.
Featuring:
Hon. Mike Lee, United States Senate, Utah
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On October 24, 2019, The Federalist Society held its annual Third Circuit Chapters Conference. This panel debated the merits of civil juries.
The American civil jury has all but disappeared. Cases are rarely heard by juries, which might be a good thing: juries are expensive, time-consuming, and unpredictable. On the other hand, they are a constitutional right – in the federal constitution and all but two state constitutions – and there may be much value to keeping this right, notwithstanding the costs. Professors Philip Hamburger and Renee Lerner will debate the merits of the American civil jury.
Prof. Renée Lettow Lerner - Donald Phillip Rothschild Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School
Prof. Shanin Specter - Irving Segal Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School
Moderator: Hon. David J. Porter - U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Introduction: Alida Kass, The Federalist Society New Jersey Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On October 24, 2019, The Federalist Society held its annual Third Circuit Chapters Conference. This panel discussed and debated the proper government response to Big Tech.
In recent years, a small number of big tech companies have amassed enormous power and influence in our society. Growing concerns regarding the roles these companies play have led to numerous government investigations and bipartisan calls to crack down on or even break up Big Tech. This panel will discuss these developments and debate the proper government response to Big Tech.
Barry C. Lynn, Executive Director, Open Markets Institute
Taylor Owings, Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice
Prof. Joshua Wright, Professor of Law and Director, Global Antitrust Institute, George Mason University School of Law, and former Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
Moderator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Introduction: Ryan Costa, The Federalist Society Delaware Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On October 24, 2019, The Federalist Society held its annual Third Circuit Chapters Conference. The keynote address here is by Don McGahn, former White House Counsel.
Featuring:
Hon. Don McGahn, Former White House Counsel
Introduction: Matthew J. Hank, President, The Federalist Society Philadelphia Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On October 24, 2019, The Federalist Society held its annual Third Circuit Chapters Conference. This panel focused on the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Kisor v. Wilkie and the increased attention given to deference that is paid by administrative agencies' legal interpretations.
In judicial opinions, such as the Supreme Court’s recent opinion Kisor v. Wilkie, and in academia, there is increased attention to deference that is and should be paid to administrative agencies’ legal interpretations. This panel will address these developments, make some predictions about future developments, and discuss whether those likely developments are good, bad, or neither.
Prof. Emily Bremer - University of Notre Dame Law School
Adam White - Director, Center for the Study of the Administrative State, George Mason University
Prof. David Zaring - The University of Pennsylvania
Moderator: Hon. Paul B. Matey - U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Introduction: Matthew Hank, President, The Federalist Society Philadelphia Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On October 7, 2019, The Federalist Society held a panel on The First Amendment at its annual Kentucky Chapters Conference.
From Twitter blocking to Peace Crosses to religious exemptions and commercial speech, the First Amendment remains perhaps the most hotly and frequently contested aspect of constitutional law. Those disputes are playing out in federal and state courts, and under federal and state constitutions. Notions of judicial restraint have long had less purchase when First Amendment claims are at stake, with courts invalidating laws more frequently and offering less deference to legislatures. And in the Twitter era, courts are arguably less guided by traditional arguments from text, original meaning, and precedent than in other contexts. Our panel will take stock of how these debates are playing out in federal and Kentucky courts, and where we can expect the next battle lines to emerge.
Amy D. Cubbage - Ackerson & Yann, PLLC; ACLU of Kentucky Litigation Review Committee
Jesse Panuccio - Former Acting Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
William E. Thro - General Counsel, University of Kentucky
Jonathan D. Urick - Senior Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center
Moderator: Hon. John Nalbandian - U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On October 7, 2019, The Federalist Society held a panel on Stare Decisis at its annual Kentucky Chapters Conference.
This spring, Justice Breyer wrote, in response to the Supreme Court's decision to overrule Nevada v. Hall, "Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next." But is the Roberts Court actually more aggressive in overruling precedents than previous Courts? How does the Kentucky Supreme Court compare? And when should a Court overrule a precedent? This latter question divides many originalists and textualists, in part because it cuts across ideological lines. Our panel will explore these topics, with a focus on the intersection of originalist principles and the principles of stare decisis.
Cassie Chambers Armstrong - Kaplan Johnson Abate & Bird; Vice Chair, Kentucky Democratic Party
Prof. Michael Morley - Assistant Professor, Florida State University College of Law
John Sheller - Stoll Keenon Ogden
Hon. Laurance VanMeter - Kentucky Supreme Court
Moderator: Hon. Amul Thapar - U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On October 15, 2019, the Federalist Society's International & National Security Law Practice Group hosted a panel at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the panel was "Fair Trade: Reinvigorating American Leadership in the 21st Century".
Many conservative-leaning thinkers and commentators are swift to attack the President’s embrace of tariffs and other tough trade tools. They speak of free trade and exchange, comparative advantage, and market efficiency, but do these critics fundamentally mistake the pre-Trump trade policy status quo for “free trade?” Have unjust trade imbalances and foreign manipulation of trade relationships chipped away at America's economic and security well-being, meaning bold action has been needed to address it?
President Trump argues that though foreign commercial discrimination, regional protectionism, and illegal commercial exploitation have chipped away at our economic and national security, our economy’s sheer size and and strength have largely insulated it from dramatic, sudden effects. But the effects, in the aggregate, over time, have led to a decline in American dominance and self-reliance. The President made a commitment to revivify sectors that have slowly atrophied over the decades, negatively impacting our culture as well as our economy. By engaging vigorously with foreign powers - allies and strategic competitors alike, the President is attempting to send a signal: He wants free trade, but it must also be fair trade. These and other issues will be debated at our event.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Opening Address
Panel Discussion Featuring:
Donald B. Cameron, Jr., Partner, Morris, Manning, & Martin, LLP
Hon. Ronald A. Cass, President, Cass & Associates, PC; Former Commissioner & Vice-Chairman, US International Trade Commission; Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law
Hon. Jeffrey I. Kessler, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce
Moderator: Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
The concept of states serving as important test cases for national governance dates to the founding of the country. In part 2 of our series, this panel will discuss how lessons from how different state legislatures operate today could be incorporated to increase the effectiveness of our federal legislature. The panel will begin with a presentation on a study from the Center for Legislative Strengthening at the National Conference of State Legislatures which examines the structures and procedures that have allowed some state legislatures to avoid partisan gridlock.
Featuring:
Hon. Robert Hurt, Vice President and Director, Center for Law and Government at Liberty University; Former Congressman, Virginia's 5th District
Karl Kurtz, Principal, Legis Matters; Coauthor, Republic on Trial: The Case for Representative Democracy
Introduction: William Hild, III, Deputy Director, Article I Initiative and Deputy Director, Regulatory Transparency Project, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On March 7, 1986, The Federalist Society hosted its annual National Student Symposium at Stanford Law School. Professor Emeritus Milton Friedman delivered opening remarks on economics and free speech.
Featuring:
Brian J. Brille, Symposium Director, Stanford Federalist Society
John Hart Ely, Dean, Stanford Law School
Milton Friedman, Professor Emeritus of Economics, University of Chicago
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On September 9, 1988, President Ronald Reagan delivered this address at the Second Annual National Lawyers Convention.
Featuring:
Steven Calabresi, Co-Chairman, The Federalist Society
T. Kenneth Cribb, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs
Hon. Ronald Reagan, President of The United States
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On September 10, 2019, The Federalist Society hosted a luncheon cosponsored with the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO). CEO released and presented a new study and report entitled “Race and Ethnicity in Undergraduate Admissions at Five Virginia Universities," which examined how admissions programs at five Virginia public universities (University of Virginia, College of William & Mary, Virginia Tech, James Madison University, and George Mason University) preference certain applicants based on race. The results of the study and its implications for the broader academic discussion of racial preferences in college admissions were discussed by the panelists.
Featuring:
Todd Gaziano, Chief of Legal Policy and Strategic Research and Director, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation
Althea Nagai, Research Fellow, Center for Equal Opportunity
Theodore M. Shaw, Julius L. Chambers Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Civil Rights, University of North Carolina School of Law
Hans A. von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
Moderator: Linda Chavez, Chairman, Center for Equal Opportunity
Introduction: Will Hild, Deputy Director, Article I Initiative | Deputy Director, Regulatory Transparency Project, The Federalist Society
Visit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On August 22, 2019, the Federalist Society's Montgomery Lawyers Chapter hosted an event at the Capitol Hill Club in Montgomery, Alabama on "Justice versus Social Justice."
Featuring:
Dr. Jason Jewell, Department Chair and Professor Humanities, Faulkner University
Introduction: Dr. Allen P. Mendenhall, Associate Dean and Executive Director of Blackstone & Burke Center for Law & Liberty, Faulkner University Thomas Goode Jones School of Law and President, Montgomery Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speaker.
On July 29, 2019, The Federalist Society's practice groups cosponsored a panel titled "Citizenship: The Road Ahead" at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC.
After the Supreme Court's decision in Department of Commerce v. New York at the end of the latest term, is there a road forward for addressing citizenship on the US census or otherwise collecting the relevant data? In what ways can executive power be practiced or limited in this subject?
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Prof. John S. Baker, Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University
Hon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
David B. Rivkin Jr., Constitutional Litigator
Moderator: Stuart S. Taylor, Jr., Freelance Journalist and Author
On July 19, 2019, the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative cosponsored a two-part panel with the Constitutional Sources Project at the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, DC. The topic of the first panel was early state constitutions and their influence on the legislative branch.
The concept of states serving as important test cases for national governance dates back to the founding of the country. This panel will discuss how lessons from the state constitutions and legislatures prior to and during the American founding were incorporated into our federal government, and in particular, the powers enumerated to Congress and the structure of the branch itself. The event is the first in a two-part series of Capitol Hill luncheons focusing on the important role the states have played in the past and how they may still serve to offer solutions to the modern Congress. This event is co-sponsored by the Constitutional Sources Project.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Featuring:
Lynn Uzzell, Lecturer, University of Virginia, University of Richmond
John Dinan, Professor of Politics, Wake Forest University
Mark Graber, Regents Professor, University System of Maryland
Moderator: Julie Silverbrook, Executive Director, The Constitutional Sources Project
Introduction: Nathan Kaczmarek, Director, Article I Initiative | Director, Regulatory Transparency Project, The Federalist Society
On June 25, 2019, the Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group presented an event on "Ownership Limits in an Increasingly Competitive Marketplace" at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. The second part of the event featured a panel discussion.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sets limits on the number of broadcast radio stations an entity can own. As required by Congress, the FCC reviews its media ownership rules every four years to determine whether the rules are in the public interest and to repeal or modify any regulation it determines does not meet this criteria. There have been radical changes in the media marketplace since 1996 when the current local radio ownership limits were adopted. And in today’s changing marketplace – where some of the large companies in America, including Google, Amazon, and Facebook, are no longer on the audio marketplace sidelines – important questions have been raised as to whether existing limits need to be modified.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Agenda:
12:15 p.m. - Q&A Session with Commissioner Brendan Carr, Federal Communications Commission
12:45 p.m. - Panel Discussion with:
Jeffrey Warshaw, Founder and CEO, Connoisseur Media
Gordon Borrell, CEO, Borrell Associates, Inc.
Francella Ochillo, Vice President, Policy & General Counsel, National Hispanic Media Coalition
Moderator: Prof. Michelle Connolly, Professor of the Practice of Economics, Duke University
On June 18, 2019, the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative and Regulatory Transparency Project hosted a panel on "Agency Rulemaking: Unnecessary Delegation or Indispensable Assistance?" at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.
In his recent article, “Strategic Institutional Positioning: How We Have Come to Generate Environmental Law Without Congress,” published in the Texas A&M Law Review, Donald Kochan lays out the argument that delegation of authority to agencies serves the interests of both sides of Congress. Those ostensibly elected to oppose further regulation can argue that any proposed rule changes are out of their control. Conversely, representatives elected to increase regulation can blame agency heads for not following the intent of the authorizing statute. However, both sides avoid blame by the electorate.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a system? Should specialized bureaucrats do the lion’s share of rulemaking? Or should elected Senators and Congressman, often without the same level of expertise, write the rules that govern our nation?
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position or particular legal or public policy issues. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato Institute
Prof. Donald Kochan, Professor in Law and the Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law
Prof. Robert Percival, Professor of Law and Director, Environmental Law Program, University of Maryland School of Law
Brianne Gorod, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center
Moderator: Jeff Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell LLP
On June 11, 2019, the Federalist Society's Litigation Practice Group hosted a panel titled "Third Party Litigation Financing: A Distorting or Reinforcing Practice?" at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.
Third party litigation financing (TPLF) is the practice of external financiers investing in lawsuits in exchange for a percentage of any settlement or judgment. TPLF is a global industry with approximately $100 billion available to funders and firms. Proponents argue that the practice makes it possible for marginalized plaintiffs to bring difficult cases that wouldn't otherwise be brought. Critics, however, claim that it harms the legal system, distorting the plaintiff and defendant roles and making lawsuit settlements more difficult and expensive. Are these criticisms fair? Or do the benefits outweigh the objections? Join us on June 11 for an expert panel who will consider these questions and more.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School
Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato Institute
Prof. Erin M. Hawley, Associate Professor at the University of Missouri School of Law, Legal Fellow at the Independent Women's Forum
Hon. Luther Johnson Strange, III, Former Senator, State of Alabama
Moderator: Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
On June 25, 2019, the Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group presented an event on "Ownership Limits in an Increasingly Competitive Marketplace" at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. The first part of the event featured a Q&A session with FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sets limits on the number of broadcast radio stations an entity can own. As required by Congress, the FCC reviews its media ownership rules every four years to determine whether the rules are in the public interest and to repeal or modify any regulation it determines does not meet this criteria. There have been radical changes in the media marketplace since 1996 when the current local radio ownership limits were adopted. And in today’s changing marketplace – where some of the large companies in America, including Google, Amazon, and Facebook, are no longer on the audio marketplace sidelines – important questions have been raised as to whether existing limits need to be modified.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Agenda:
12:15 p.m. - Q&A Session with Commissioner Brendan Carr, Federal Communications Commission
12:45 p.m. - Panel Discussion with:
Jeffrey Warshaw, Founder and CEO, Connoisseur Media
Gordon Borrell, CEO, Borrell Associates, Inc.
Francella Ochillo, Vice President, Policy & General Counsel, National Hispanic Media Coalition
Moderator: Prof. Michelle Connolly, Professor of the Practice of Economics, Duke University
On June 5, 2019, the Federalist Society's Mississippi Gulf Coast Lawyers Chapter hosted a forum for the Mississippi candidates for attorney general at William Carey University in Hattiesburg, Mississippi.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Opening Remarks: Dr. Scott Hummel, William Carey University
Rep. Mark Baker, Mississippi House of Representatives
Andy Taggart, Taggart, Rimes & Graham, PLLC
Moderator: T. Russell Nobile, The Federalist Society's Mississippi Gulf Coast Lawyers Chapter
On June 5, 2019, the Federalist Society's Litigation Practice Group hosted a panel at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. The topic of the panel was "ALI: Unbiased Analyzer or Agenda Driver?"
The American Law Institute is a well-respected, nearly century-old body of jurists and legal practitioners that produces documents called “Restatements,” which have traditionally distilled and clearly restated the opinions of a majority of state courts on difficult questions of common law. But recently, some in the legal community have raised concern that ALI is putting out problematic Restatements that are more aspirational in nature and that run counter to its mission; others claim that ALI is simply interpreting the law. Meanwhile, states are considering and passing laws that would prevent judges from referring to certain ALI Restatements when deciding cases.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Featuring:
John Fund, National Affairs Columnist, National Review and Fox News Analyst
Victor E. Schwartz, Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP
Seth P. Waxman, Partner, WilmerHale and former United States Solicitor General
Edward Whelan, President, Ethics and Public Policy Center
Moderator: Hon. Susan G. Braden (Ret.), Chief Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims
On May 30, 2019, the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative hosted a panel at the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The panel discussed "All the President's Budgets: Who should be setting federal budget priorities?"
The power of the purse is often cited as central to the framers' design for the legislative branch. Each year, however, the modern Congress waits for the executive branch to complete and deliver its annual budget before beginning its own formal budgeting process. Why has this sequence developed? What are the costs and benefits for the executive to prepare extensive budget priorities that, in recent years, are largely ignored once announced?
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Featuring:
Molly Reynolds, Senior Fellow of Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution
Steve Redburn, Professorial Lecturer in Public Policy and Public Administration, George Washington University
Moderator: Anne DeCesaro, Republican Staff Director, Worker and Family Support Subcommittee, Committee on Ways and Means, US House of Representatives
Introduction: Nathan Kaczmarek, Director, Article I Initiative | Director, Regulatory Transparency Project, The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies
On May 23, 2019, the National Security Institute and the Federalist Society co-hosted an event about U.S. strategy in Syria and the Middle East. The second panel was titled "U.S. Policy in Syria: Stay In, Get Out, or Triple Down?"
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Norm Roule, NSI Visiting Fellow, Former Natl. Intelligence Mgr. for Iran Office of the DNI
Dana Stroul, Senior Fellow in The Washington Institute’s Beth and David Geduld Program on Arab Politics
Katherine Zimmerman, Research Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute
Moderator: Jamil N. Jaffer, NSI Founder and Executive Director
On May 23, 2019, the National Security Institute and the Federalist Society co-hosted an event about U.S. strategy in Syria and the Middle East. The first panel was titled "Legal Authorities for the U.S. Role in Syria: Does Congress Need to Weigh In?"
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Jennifer Daskal, Associate Professor of Law at American University Washington College of Law
Maj. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., USAF (Ret.), Professor of the Practice of Law, Executive Director, Center on Law, Ethics and National Security
Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law at the Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Moderator: Matthew R.A. Heiman, NSI Senior Fellow, former lawyer with the National Security Division at the U.S. Department of Justice
The seventh annual Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 8, 2019, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC. The conference closed with a keynote address by Vice President Michael R. Pence.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Hon. Michael R. Pence, Vice President of the United States
Introduction: Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President, The Federalist Society
The seventh annual Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 8, 2019, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC. The seventh and final panel covered "The Trump Administration's Proposed Redefinition of 'Navigable Waters': Too Much, Too Little, or Just Right?"
In December 2018 the Trump Administration released a long awaited proposal to revise the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers regulations that define “navigable waters" under the Clean Water Act. Versions of these regulations have engendered controversy for decades, over whether the Act itself authorizes the agencies to regulate non-navigable wetlands and tributaries. The Obama Administration adopted regulations in 2015 that remain the subject of a number of lawsuits. Upon taking office, President Trump ordered the agencies to reconsider the 2015 regulations. The December 2018 proposal would narrow the coverage of the Act in significant ways, but would continue to regulate categories of non-navigable waters, including some wetlands potentially far afield of flowing streams, and some drainages that carry very little flow over brief periods of time. This panel will provide a high level review of the legal issues and policy trade-offs reflected in the new proposal.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Hon. Jeffrey Clark, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division
Mr. Jon Devine, Director, Federal Water Policy, Water Division, Nature Program, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
Mr. Tony Francois, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Moderator: Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Director, Center for Business Law & Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Introduction: Andrew Varcoe, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates
The seventh annual Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 8, 2019, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC. The sixth panel discussed "Alphabet Soup: EEOC v. OCR v. DOL OFCCP."
This panel will touch on various agency approaches to civil rights issues within administrative agencies. These issues will include but not be limited to, disparate impact analysis, former Attorney General Jeff Session’s rollback of various guidance documents. The panel will have added emphasis on the different approaches taken by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(EEOC), the Office for Civil Rights(OCR), and the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs(DOL OFCCP). The panel will in one sense serve as an update on the administration decisions made in the first two years of the Trump administration, and in another sense offer a foundation upon which to predict what the next two years will bring for civil rights claims under the current administration.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Prof. Gail L. Heriot, Commissioner, United States Commission on Civil Rights; Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law
Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education
Prof. Theodore M. Shaw, Julius L. Chambers Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Civil Rights
Timothy Taylor, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy at U.S. Department of Labor
Moderator: Mr. Erik S. Jaffe, Schaerr Jaffe LLP
The seventh annual Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 8, 2019, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC. The fourth panel discussed "Division of Authority: DOJ Antitrust; the FTC; the FCC; USPTO."
Several Federal agencies share responsibility for regulating economic competition and intellectual property. Does the division of labor protecting competition and intellectual property result in conflicting or consistent perspectives? How effectively do regulations from the involved agencies coalesce into a framework for businesses and entrepreneurs? When should antitrust and competitive analysis overrule patent protection? Does the development of new technology create confusion or interagency rivalry on who is entitled to regulate? Do quickly-evolving emerging technologies deserve special treatment in antitrust? Join us as we gather with leadership from these agencies to explore these questions and listen to their experiences.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Hon. Makan Delrahim, Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
Hon. Andrei Iancu, Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Moderator: Mr. Peter Davidson, General Counsel, U.S. Department of Commerce
The seventh annual Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 8, 2019, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC. The second panel explored "Corporate Responsibility: Maximizing Shareholder Benefit v. Social Justice."
This Panel will focus on the differing theories on the proper duty of corporations. Do corporations only owe their loyalty to their specific shareholders, and should they be bound to conduct that is judged purely on how much it increases the value of shareholder investments? Or, perhaps due to the sheer size and power of corporations, do they also owe a duty to society as whole. Some argue that Corporations are made up of people with individual ideologies and beliefs, and thus corporations making decisions on political motivations is unavoidable. Others argue that since corporations last much longer than individual lives or careers, that they owe a duty to the long term prospects of the company, over the present day shareholders. The debate rages on and the eventual outcome will have wide-ranging implications for American business, and the national economy as a whole.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Hon. Paul Atkins, Chief Executive Office, Patomak Global Partners
Prof. Jonathan R. Macey, Sam Harris Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Prof. Andrew Schwartz, Associate Professor of Law, University of Colorado Law School
Moderator: Mr. Matthew R. A. Heiman, Senior Fellow and Associate Director for Global Security, National Security Institute
The seventh annual Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 8, 2019, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC. The first panel discussed "How the Federal Government Litigates Cases."
The Trump administration has not often reversed its litigation approach completely from that of the prior administration. But the Trump administration made headlines last year when it refused to defend the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act against a lawsuit brought by the State of Texas. Some commentators argued that this was a significant violation of the Department of Justice's “duty to defend" duly enacted laws. Others noted that the “duty to defend" is a relatively recent creation stemming from an Office of Legal Counsel opinion letter in 1980 that is seldom followed and has little if any basis in the Constitution.Does the President have a constitutionally mandated duty to defend duly enacted laws or government action, if he believes they are unconstitutional? If so, are there limits on that duty—i.e., do government attorneys have any additional obligations as servants of the people to consider the long term implications of the arguments they make in defense of government action, or should they simply try to win like private advocates? On the other hand, if the president does not have an obligation to defend laws he finds unconstitutional, should that effect how the court views the standing of third parties intervening to defend challenged laws or government actions that the president elects not to defend? This panel will dive into how the government does and should argue cases.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Hon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Hon. Scott Keller, Partner, Baker Botts LLP
Mr. Gene C. Schaerr, Scaherr Jaffe LLP
Moderator: Mr. Jesse Panuccio, former Acting Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
The seventh annual Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 8, 2019, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC. Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of Management and Budget and acting White House Chief of Staff offered an address.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Hon. Mick Mulvaney, Director, Office of Management and Budget; Acting White House Chief of Staff
Introduction: Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
The seventh annual Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 8, 2019, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC. The first event was a plenary roundtable regarding the "Regulatory Reform Report Card: Agency General Counsel Perspective."
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Featuring:
Hon. Steven G. Bradbury, General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation
Mr. George H. Fibbe, Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Department of Energy
Hon. Hon. Matthew Z. Leopold, General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Hon. Brent J. McIntosh, General Counsel, U.S. Department of the Treasury
Hon. Stephen A. Vaden, General Counsel, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Moderator: Prof. Adam White, Assistant Professor and Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Introduction: Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
The seventh annual Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 8, 2019, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC. The luncheon panel was titled "Revisiting Judicial Deference."
The Department of Justice position taken in Kisor v. Wilke seems to acknowledge that Auer deference is in jeopardy and is a marked difference in tone from how DOJ has continued to strongly defend executive authority in its arguments and briefing in the lower appellate courts. Historically, two key defenses in this area have been the now-controversial deference doctrines of Chevron (requiring courts to defer to executive agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes they administer) and Auer/Seminole Rock (requiring courts to defer to executive agency interpretations of their own regulations). Is the administration making a strategic retreat in an attempt to protect those doctrines from a Court where a majority of its members have signaled an openness to revisiting them? Or does this reflect a commitment to the judicial use of traditional tools of textual interpretation to overcome ambiguity, reining in agency autonomy, and discouraging congressional delegations of lawmaking authority to agencies? Furthermore, with cert pending in United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Postal Regulatory Commission, thirteen states in amicus arguments see a new opportunity to reconsider Chevron. As Chevron and Auer/ Seminole Rock form significant parts of the superstructure of the modern administrative state, what does this mean for the future of the constitutional balance?
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Dr. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service and former Dean, Chapman University's Fowler School of Law; Senior Fellow, Claremont Institute
Mr. Roman Martinez, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP
Prof. David Vladeck, A.B. Chettle Chair in Civil Procedure, Georgetown University Law Center
Prof. Adam White, Assistant Professor and Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University
Moderator: Ms. Sarah M. Harris, Partner, Williams & Connolly
Introduction: Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
The Federalist Society, McCarter & English,and Commonwealth Shakespeare Company
present
Shakespeare and the Law 2019 Belief and the Burden of Proof through the Lens of Six of the Bard's Plays
On April 29, 2019, The Federalist Society's Boston Lawyers Chapter cosponsored their sixteenth annual Shakespeare and the Law Program with McCarter & English and the Commonwealth Shakespeare Company. This year's program took on the themes of belief and the burden of proof through the lens of six of Shakespeare’s plays: Cymbeline, Hamlet, Henry IV, Julius Caesar, Measure for Measure, and Othello.
Following a staged reading of brief scenes from each of the plays, judges, prosecutors, attorneys, activists, and commentators discussed how allegations of impropriety should be measured and judged in the courtroom, the workplace, the college campus, and the congressional hearing room.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Justice Judith Cowin, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (retired)
Samantha Harris, Vice President, Procedural Advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights (FIRE)
Judge Timothy Hillman, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts
Jeff Jacoby, Columnist, Boston Globe
Wendy Kaminer, Author, Lawyer and Social Critic
Andrew Lelling, U.S. Attorney for the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Joan Lukey, Choate Hall & Stewart LLP
Judge George O’Toole, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts
Chief Judge Patti Saris, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts
Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts
Judge Douglas Woodlock, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts
Judge Rya Zobel, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts
Moderated by:
Jennifer Braceras, Senior Fellow, Independent Women’s Forum; Former Commissioner of the United States Commission on Civil Rights (2001-2007)
Judge Nancy Gertner, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (Retired)
Directed by:
Adam Sanders, Associate Artistic Director, Commonwealth Shakespeare Company
Produced by:
Daniel J. Kelly, Partner, McCarter & English; Chairman, Boston Lawyers Chapter
Introduction by:
Steven Maler, Founding Artistic Director, Commonwealth Shakespeare Company
On April 25, 2019, the Federalist Society's Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group sponsored a panel discussion on "Government Takings Litigation Update - Through the Lens of Love Terminal."
A 2018 federal circuit court ruling rejected compensation to the plaintiff in a case in which the government took through eminent domain a privately owned airline terminal and physically demolished it. The plaintiffs, now seeking cert before the U.S. Supreme Court, spent $17 million building that terminal at Dallas Love Field Airport. The U.S. Court of Claims ruled that the taking of the terminal was worth more than $133 million, but the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, declaring the terminal's value to be zero, as the investment property had yet to earn a positive cash flow. Our panel of experts discussed the impact of Love Terminal Partners v. U.S. on takings law.
Featuring:
Mr. George Will, Opinion Writer, The Washington Post
Prof. J. Peter Byrne, J. Hampton Baumgartner, Jr., Chair In Real Property Law, Georgetown Law
Ms. Elizabeth P. Papez, Partner, Gibson Dunn
Prof. George L. Priest, Edward J. Phelps Professor of Law and Economics, Yale Law School
Moderator: Mr. Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Correspondent, The New York Times
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
With recent changes in leadership at the Department of Justice, and still further changes imminent, it is not yet clear what the priorities of the DOJ will be moving forward. Join us for lunch and a panel focused on the various approaches the DOJ may have in the coming years, and what that will mean for the country. Topics discussed will include but not be limited to, border security, election tampering, civil asset forfeiture, and overcriminalization.
Featuring:
John Richter, Partner, King & Spalding
Hon. Scott Keller, Partner, Baker Botts
Lee Casey, Partner, Baker & Hostetler
Hon. George J. Terwilliger, Partner, McGuireWoods
Moderator: Hon. Raymond Randolph, United States Court Of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
On March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The banquet dinner featured a fireside chat with Arizona Governor Doug Ducey and Senator Jon Kyl.
Featuring:
Introduction: Eugene Meyer, President, The Federalist Society
Moderator: Senator Jon Kyl, Arizona
Governor Doug Ducey, Arizona
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The 2019 Joseph Story Award was awarded to Prof. Samuel Bray of the Notre Dame Law School.
The Joseph Story Award is named for Joseph Story, who was appointed to the Supreme Court at the age of 32, served as the first Dane Professor of Law at Harvard, and wrote the Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. It is the successor to the Paul M. Bator Award.
The Joseph Story Award is given annually to a young academic (40 and under) who has demonstrated excellence in legal scholarship, a commitment to teaching, a concern for students, and who has made significant public impact in a manner that advances the rule of law in a free society.
Featuring:
Eugene Meyer, President, The Federalist Society
Walter Pelton, Vice President and Chair of the Joseph Story Award, University of Chicago Law School Federalist Society
Prof. Samuel Bray, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The winner of the second Annual Article I Initiative Writing Contest was Deion Kathawa, a student at Notre Dame Law School.
The Federalist Society's Article I Initiative is focused on the critical issue of why the modern Congress is not functioning as the most powerful branch as envisioned by the Framers. In order to help engage new thought and discussion, the Initiative's second annual writing contest dealt with the theme "Ambition Counteracting Ambition: Enduring Principle or Failed Experiment?"
Featuring:
Nathan Kaczmarek, Director, Article I Initiative | Director, Regulatory Transparency Project, The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies
Deion Kathawa, Notre Dame Law School
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On April 5, 2019, the Federalist Society's Ohio lawyers chapters hosted the 2019 Ohio Chapters Conference in Columbus, OH. The third and final panel explored "Emerging Religious Liberty Issues in Ohio".
Intensifying public debates over religious liberty have spilled into the courts, with some cases making their way to the United States Supreme Court. Ohio is no stranger to this national trend. Panelists will discuss Tree of Life Christian Schools v. City of Upper Arlington, an Ohio zoning dispute involving religious liberty claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), for which a petition for writ of certiorari was recently filed in the United States Supreme Court after the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sided with the city. Panelists will also discuss the Ohio Constitution's provision regarding religious liberty, which explicitly refers to “the rights of conscience," and discuss if and how this provision of the Ohio Constitution should be interpreted differently than the First Amendment with respect to religious liberty issues.
Featuring:
Jeremiah Galus, Legal Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
Holly Gross, Vice President of Government Relations at the Columbus Chamber of Commerce
Philip Williamson, Associate, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Moderator: Matthew Byrne, Of Counsel, Jackson Lewis P.C.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On April 5, 2019, the Federalist Society's Ohio lawyers chapters hosted the 2019 Ohio Chapters Conference in Columbus, OH. The second panel covered "The Future of Administrative Deference".
More and more judges, advocates, and scholars are calling on the courts to reexamine the deference paid to administrative agencies’ legal interpretations. This debate has attracted the most attention at the federal level. But the same is now occurring in state courts—including in Ohio, where just last year four justices on the Supreme Court of Ohio questioned the appropriateness of deference to agency interpretations. This distinguished panel will address these developments, make some predictions about future developments, and discuss whether those likely developments are good, bad, or neither.
Featuring:
Prof. Aditya Bamzai, Associate Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Kristin Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor & Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School & Associate Director, Corporate Institute
Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Associate Professor of Law, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law & Director of the Moritz Washington, D.C., Summer Program
Moderator: Hon. R. Patrick DeWine, Associate Justice, Ohio Supreme Court
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On April 5, 2019, the Federalist Society's Ohio lawyers chapters hosted the 2019 Ohio Chapters Conference in Columbus, OH. United States Solicitor General Noel Francisco offered a keynote presentation regarding the "proliferation of nationwide injunctions".
Hon. Noel Francisco, United States Solicitor General, United States Department of Justice
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On April 5, 2019, the Federalist Society's Ohio lawyers chapters hosted the 2019 Ohio Chapters Conference in Columbus, OH. The first panel of the conference discussed "The Law and Policy of Redistricting Reform".
The Supreme Court will hear argument this term in cases presenting the question whether courts may strike down “partisan gerrymanders.” This presents a number of questions. Some are legal: Do state legislatures act unconstitutionally if they draw districts that favor one party or the other? If so, what are courts to do about it? Others relate to policy: Are so-called “partisan gerrymanders” even troubling? Is there a chance of meaningful reform at the state level? And what does Ohio’s experience with redistricting reform teach us about this? The panel will address these questions and more.
Featuring:
Kathleen Clyde, Portage County Commissioner
Hon. Larry Obhof, Ohio Senate President, 22nd District
Misha Tseytlin, Troutman Sanders & Former Solicitor General, State of Wisconsin
Moderator: Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On April 5, 2019, the Federalist Society's Ohio lawyers chapters hosted the 2019 Ohio Chapters Conference in Columbus, OH. The second address of the conference came from Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost.
Hon. Dave Yost, Attorney General, State of Ohio
Introduction: Matthew Byrne, Jackson Lewis PC
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On April 5, 2019, the Federalist Society's Ohio lawyers chapters hosted the 2019 Ohio Chapters Conference in Columbus, OH. The conference opened with an address by Judge Alice Batchelder.
Hon. Alice Batchelder, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Introduction: Robert Alt, The Buckeye Institute
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The roundtable discussion covered "Federalism's Contribution to Economic Liberty: Catalyzing Technological Advancement and Economic Growth".
Does the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee economic liberty? If not, what role might states play in advancing economic liberty? Frustrated with the federal government’s inability or unwillingness to solve regulatory or competition-based problems, some states have taken matters into their own hands. This panel will address how states have been, and still can be, laboratories of democracy when it comes to regulation and catalyzing economic growth. It will also address how federal regulators can work with, not against, states to accomplish these goals.
Using case studies ranging from emerging technologies to marijuana deregulation, the panel will explore the state’s role in our modern federal system, with special attention paid to modern interpretations of both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause.
Discussion will focus on demonstrating the ways in which states can remain flexible in fostering innovation—both technological and regarding social policy—while ensuring that consumers are adequately protected from dangerous product or service testing or other offerings. This flexibility enables states to attract, test, and encourage competition in emerging and innovative technologies, as well as long-existing technologies with lowered barriers to entry.
Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Ms. Dana Berliner, Senior Vice President and Litigation Director, Institute for Justice
Hon. Clint Bolick, Arizona Supreme Court
Hon. Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General
Prof. Allan Ides, Professor of Law and Christopher N. May Chair, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles
Moderator: Hon. Chad Readler, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The fourth panel discussed "Blockchain-Backed Cryptocurrencies: Order Without Law in the Digital Age".
In the wake of skyrocketing Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency prices, the SEC has argued that cryptocurrencies should be regulated as securities. Yet, many of those responsible for developing cryptocurrencies view them as an efficient, reliable way of storing and exchanging value without government interference or regulation. This panel will discuss the likelihood that cryptocurrencies will play a meaningful role in the global economy, and if and how they should be regulated.
Ms. Mary Beth Buchanan, General Counsel, Kraken Cryptocurrency Exchange
Mr. Jim Harper, Former Executive Vice President, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Prof. Gary Marchant, Regent’s Professor of Law and Director for the Center for Law, Science and Innovation, ASU Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law
Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
Moderator: Hon. John B. Nalbandian, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The third panel explored "Economic Liberty in Criminal Justice: Business Crimes and Economic Sanctions".
Although criminal justice is often associated with non-economic issues—such as those raised by violent crimes and long prison sentences—the system regularly implicates individual economic liberty, as can be seen in the prohibition and prosecution of certain commercial and financial interactions. Sometimes individuals are held strictly liable for their actions even in the absence of force, fraud, or direct harm. In turn, the government may impose a variety of economic sanctions for purported wrongdoing, with fines, fees, and forfeitures levied in legal processes which often seem bereft of basic procedural protections. This panel will explore these and other criminal justice issues and the implications for individual economic liberty.
Prof. Beth A. Colgan, Assistant Professor of Law, UCLA Law
Prof. Erik Luna, Amelia D. Lewis Professor of Constitutional and Criminal Law, ASU Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law
Ms. Christina Sandefur, Executive Vice President, Goldwater Institute
Mr. Peter J. Wallison, Senior Fellow and Arthur F. Burns Fellow in Financial Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute
Moderator: Hon. Elizabeth L. Branch, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The second panel asked "Is Economic Protectionism a Legitimate State Interest?".
The Tenth Circuit held in Powers v. Harris that “intra-state economic protectionism, absent a violation of a specific federal statutory or constitutional provision, is a legitimate state interest.” The Second Circuit agrees. In contrast, the Fifth and Sixth Circuits have struck down laws aimed at protecting local economic actors as unjustified by state police power. Does a state violate the Equal Protection Clause when it restricts economic liberty for the sole purpose of economic protectionism? For example, is the Equal Protection Clause violated when a state doesn’t make an activity or ownership of a certain type of property per se illegal, but the state employs economic “checkpoints” to significantly discourage the activity or specified property ownership (i.e., guns, pornography, etc.).
This panel will also explore the impact of cronyism on emerging technologies and federalism. For example, had Uber and Lyft not been so successful in expeditiously building themselves up before being taken seriously by regulators and traditional industry competitors (i.e., taxi companies), the taxi companies likely could have, and would have, lobbied to pass legislation and create regulations making ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft illegal, or so cost prohibitive as to preclude the ridesharing industry from ever being financially viable.
Prof. Paul Bender, Dean Emeritus and Professor of Law, ASU Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law
Dr. Yaron Brook, Chairman of the Board, Ayn Rand Institute
Prof. Roderick M. Hills, Jr., William T. Comfort, III Professor of Law, NYU Law
Prof. Todd J. Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School
Moderator: Hon. Edith H. Jones, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The first panel discussed "The Original Understanding of 'Privileges of Immunities'".
Scholars contest the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1873, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to state economic regulations under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the Slaughter-House Cases. Since then, the Privileges or Immunities Clause has been best known as a “practical nullity.” However, Justice Thomas provided a strong challenge to this interpretation in his McDonald v. City of Chicago concurrence.
This panel explores whether the Fourteenth Amendment was principally concerned with equality, guaranteeing fundamental rights, or both. If the Fourteenth Amendment does guarantee fundamental rights, does it merely incorporate the bill of rights against the states, or does it do more and provide protections for economic liberty? And was the Amendment intended to accomplish these purposes through a substantive notion of “due process” or through the Privileges or Immunities Clause? Is the fundamental-rights view inconsistent with judicial restraint? This panel will discuss these fundamental questions concerning the Fourteenth Amendment’s original meaning, and whether maintaining an expansive notion of substantive due process or resurrecting the Privileges or Immunities Clause would be an ill-conceived invitation to judicial activism.
Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown Law
Prof. Kurt T. Lash, E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of Law
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Visiting Assistant Professor, ASU Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law
Prof. Rebecca E. Zietlow, Charles W. Fornoff Professor of Law and Values, University of Toledo College of Law
Moderator: Judge Amul R. Thapar, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The symposium opened with a keynote lecture by Prof. Richard Epstein on "Is Lochner v. New York Constitutionally Indefensible?"
KEYNOTE TOPIC: Is Lochner v. New York Constitutionally Indefensible?
Is Lochner v New York constitutionally indefensible? It is commonly asserted that there are only four cases in American constitutional history that are beyond the pale: Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v United States, and Lochner v. New York. The stark contrast between decisions that have thwarted economic and social liberties and the one case that defends it, should itself be sufficient to explain why economic liberties today deserve increased constitutional protection. In this lecture, Professor Epstein will examine the yawning gulf between Lochner and these three other decisions.
Featuring:
Grant Frazier, ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law
Dean Douglas Sylvester, ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law
Prof. Richard Epstein, New York University School of Law
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
The law enforcement landscape is ever-changing, with modern issues such as the challenges associated with electronically stored information, encryption, cyber warfare, fentanyl, and election disinformation campaigns requiring new solutions. Even preceding issues regarding border security, criminal immigration enforcement, firearms trafficking, and organized crime present new challenges for law enforcement efforts in Washington D.C., Virginia, Maryland, and the nation at large. Please join us for an event focusing on some of the most prominent and pressing challenges facing twenty-first century law enforcement.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
G. Zachary Terwilliger, United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia
Robert K. Hur, United States Attorney, District of Maryland
Moderator: Jessie K. Liu, United States Attorney, District of Columbia
Introduction: Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
On March 6, 2019, the Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media and Corporations, Securities, & Antitrust Practice Groups hosted a fireside chat with FTC Commissioner Christine Wilson and Svetlana Gans of NCTA at the offices of Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP in Washington, DC.
Featuring:
Commissioner Christine Wilson, Federal Trade Commission
Moderator: Svetlana Gans, Vice President & Associate General Counsel, NCTA
Introduction: Bryan Tramount, Managing Partner, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
On February 6, 2019, the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative and the Georgetown Student Chapter co-sponsored the first Legislative Branch Review Conference. Senator Lindsey Graham offered the keynote address.
Featuring:
Hon. Lindsey Graham, Senator, South Carolina
Introduction: Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
On February 6, 2019, the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative and the Georgetown Student Chapter co-sponsored the first Legislative Branch Review Conference. The second panel speculated on "A World Without Chevron?"
Chevron has come under fire as of late, and the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh has tipped off a new round of speculation as to how the Court might narrow, or even eliminate, the doctrine. But is a world without Chevron desirable? If courts do not defer to agency interpretations of truly ambiguous statutes, should courts decide de novo what they think such ambiguous laws mean? Are there viable alternatives?
Featuring:
Mr. Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Mr. David D. Doniger, Director, Climate & Clean Air Program, Natural Resources Defense Council
Prof. Kristin Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School
Prof. David S. Schoenbrod, Trustee Professor of Law, New York Law School
Moderator: Prof. Jennifer L. Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School
Introduction: Joel Nolette, Litigation Associate, Mintz Levin
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
On February 6, 2019, the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative and the Georgetown Student Chapter co-sponsored the first Legislative Branch Review Conference. The first panel asked "Can the Other Branches Help Restore Congress?"
Madison famously asserted that “ambition must be made to counteract ambition,” but how would he advise the current federal government Branches in support of the separation of powers? Are there opportunities for each Branch to encourage or even compel Congress to shoulder the constitutional responsibilities that are central to the Legislative Branch's nature and purpose? How can we effectively address this important restoration work from both within and without?
Featuring:
David Hoppe, President, Hoppe Strategies
Prof. Sally Katzen, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence; Co-Director of the Legislative and Regulatory Process Clinic, New York University School of Law
Dr. Philip Wallach, Senior Fellow, Governance, R Street
Hon. Peter J. Wallison, Senior Fellow and Arthur F. Burns Fellow in Financial Policy Studies, AEI
Moderator: Thomas G. Hungar, Partner, Gibson Dunn
Introduction: Nathan Kaczmarek, Director, Article I Initiative; Director, Regulatory Transparency Project
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
On February 6, 2019, the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative and the Georgetown Student Chapter co-sponsored the first Legislative Branch Review Conference. The third panel discussed "Bipartisanship and High Profile Congressional Oversight."
At the outset, the 116th Congress promises many high profile and impactful investigations. However, the last several Congresses have not always maintained a civil, united, and fact-based oversight approach devoted to bipartisan purposes. Is there room for renewal? How can Congress do better?
Featuring:
Ms. Elise Bean, Washington Co-Director, Levin Center at Wayne Law
Mr. Stanley M. Brand, Senior Counsel, Akin Gump
Ms. Machalagh Carr, General Counsel & Parliamentarian (R), Committee on Ways and Means, U. S. House of Representatives
Mr. Jon Skladany, Chief Counsel for Oversight (R), Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives
Moderator: Mr. Justin Rood, Director of the Congressional Oversight Initiative, The Project On Government Oversight
Introduction: Nathan Kaczmarek, Director, Article I Initiative; Director, Regulatory Transparency Project
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
On February 1-2, 2019, the Federalist Society held its annual Florida Chapters Conference in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. The first session discussed "Stare Decisis and Precedent".
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy position. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Welcome and Opening Remarks:
Michelle Suskauer, President, The Florida Bar
Introduction: Daniel Woodring, Principal Attorney, Woodring Law Firm
Panelists:
W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis
Prof. Randy J. Kozel, Associate Dean for Faculty Development, University of Notre Dame Law School
Richard H. Levenstein, Shareholder, Nason Yeager
Prof. Stephen E. Sachs, Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
On February 1-2, 2019, the Federalist Society held its annual Florida Chapters Conference in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. The Florida Chapters Banquet featured keynote speeches from Governor Ron DeSantis and Attorney General Ashley Moody.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Speakers:
Introduction: Amit Agarwal, Solicitor General, Florida
Hon. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Florida
Introduction: Joseph W. Jacquot, General Counsel, Governor of Florida
Hon. Ron DeSantis, Governor, Florida
How will the Janus decision affect the ability of unions to wield political power and what impact will the potential loss of some union power have on local and state policies? Will local and state governments look to pass more minimum wage and other worker regulations to compensate for the decreased power of unions? Will more voter referenda (like one recently passed in Missouri) to override right-to-work laws be used as a tactic to roll back other reforms?
Featuring:
Steven Greenhut, Western Region Director, State Affairs, R Street Institute
William Messenger, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc.
Hon. Chuck Reed, Hopkins & Carley and former Mayor, San Jose, 2007-14
Moderator: Hon. Ryan Nelson, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Introduction: Carol Matheis, President, Orange County Lawyers Chapter
On January 26, 2019, the Federalist Society hosted the annual Western Chapters Conference at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA. Former White House Counsel Don McGahn offered the keynote address.
Featuring:
Don McGahn, Former White House Counsel
Introduction: Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President, The Federalist Society
When is it appropriate for states and cities to contradict or ignore federal law? Do states really possess "plenary power"? What are the limits of local police powers? With the rise of state marijuana legalization and "sanctuary cities," are we facing a nullification crisis, or are the local governments properly shielding people from Washington's overreach? Does the federal government have a role in protecting city residents when a city violates their federal constitutional rights? This panel will explore the balance of power among federal, state, and local governments, with an emphasis on key state and federal court cases.
Featuring:
Prof. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, Fowler School of Law, Chapman University & Senior Fellow at the Claremont Institute
Prof. Pratheepan Gulasekaram, Santa Clara University School of Law
Prof. John Yoo, Emanuel Heller Professor of Law and Director, California Constitution Center, Berkeley Law, University of California
Moderator: Hon. Carlos T. Bea, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Introduction: Ashlee Titus, President, Sacramento Lawyers Chapter
What is the proper role of state attorneys general and the courts in litigation in seeking to nullify federal law? Panelists will discuss the difference in approach between Texas during the Obama administration and other state's efforts during the Trump administration with a particular emphasis on the role of state AGs and the role of the courts in issuing nationwide injunctions. Are nationwide injunctions "legally and historically dubious," as Justice Thomas has described them?
Featuring:
Scott Keller, Baker Botts & Former Solicitor General, Texas
Prof. Michael Morley, Assistant Professor, Florida State University College of Law
Jordan Smith, Former Deputy Solicitor General of Nevada
Moderator: Hon. Allison Eid, U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit
Introduction and Welcome: Lisa Ezell, Vice President & Director, Lawyers Chapters, The Federalist Society
On February 7, 2019, The Federalist Society hosted a panel discussing the role of the bar in selecting Iowa's judges.
Tom Levis is the President of the Iowa State Bar Association, and serves as an elected member of the Judicial Election District 5C Judicial Nominating Commission. He is a shareholder at the Brick Gentry law firm in Des Moines and has been an active member and leader of the Polk County and Iowa State Bar Associations. Professor Brian Fitzpatrick is a national expert on judicial selection. Prior to joining the faculty of the Vanderbilt University Law School, he practiced at Sidley Austin in Washington, D.C., served as a Special Counsel for Supreme Court Nominations for Senator John Cornyn, and clerked for Justice Scalia at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Featuring:
Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School
Tom Levis, President, Iowa State Bar Association
Introduction: Ryan G. Koopmans, Iowa Lawyers Chapter
On January 15, 2019, the Federalist Society's Civil Rights and Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Groups cosponsored a conference on "The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment." The first panel discussed the question of whether the right to bear arms encompasses a right to carry handguns in public.
Featuring:
Stephen P. Halbrook, Senior Fellow, Independent Institute; and author of The Founders’ Second Amendment
Jonathan E. Taylor, Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLC; and author of amicus briefs on behalf of Everytown for Gun Safety
Moderator: Hon. Gregory Katsas, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Introduction: Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
This panel will focus on questions of academic rigor and intellectual orthodoxy in modern American law schools. What is the role of academic rigor in legal scholarship and education? To what extent can it coexist with an intellectual orthodoxy? Is there an intellectual orthodoxy in American law schools? When does an orthodoxy reflect accumulated wisdom, and when does it reflect unexamined assumptions? Does it matter if the orthodoxy has a political valence?
Featuring:
William Baude, University of Chicago Law School
Erwin Chemerinsky, Berkeley Law School
Joshua Kleinfeld, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
Moderator: Thomas Lee, Fordham University School of Law
There have been renewed challenges to the Chicago School framework for antitrust law. Some have argued that it fails to address growing inequality among people and concentration among industries. In cases like Ohio v. American Express, the Supreme Court appears more divided on the application of its principles. This panel will discuss these important developments.
Featuring:
Einer Elhauge, Harvard Law School
Harry First, New York University School of Law
Justin (Gus) Hurwitz, Nebraska College of Law
Moderator: Thomas Arthur, Emory University School of Law
Over the past year, there have been a number of discussions about social media and freedom of speech. Some critics blame social media companies for inadequately monitoring their content and promoting “fake news” at the instigation of foreign governments. Others criticize these companies’ new algorithms or content mediation policies, revised in some instances to respond to the first set of criticisms, as aimed at or disadvantaging certain sets of views. Meanwhile one leading tech company fired an employee for expressing views on the reasons for the company’s lack of gender diversity on the company’s listserv that were then published widely and condemned on social media on the ground that the views were offensive and could be seen as creating a hostile work environment.What kinds of responsibility do/should social media companies have for what is published on their sites? To what extent should this be determined by the companies themselves? By the market? By a body of outside experts? By government regulation?
Featuring:
Justin (Gus) Hurwitz, Nebraska College of Law (moderator and panelist)
Richard Epstein, NYU School of Law, University of Chicago Law School
J.S. Nelson, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law
Hannibal Travis, Florida International University Law School
Aaron Wright, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
On January 3, 2019, the Federalist Society hosted the Young Legal Scholars Paper Presentations. The presentations were a part of the 21st Annual Faculty Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Featuring:
Vince Buccola, University of Pennsylvania, The Wharton School: “The Logic and Limits of Municipal Bankruptcy”
Paul Crane, University of Richmond School of Law: “Incorporating Collateral Consequences into Criminal Procedure”
Jennifer Mascott, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School: “The Ratifiers’ Theory of Officer Accountability”
Lance Sorenson, Utah Office of the Attorney General: “The Hybrid Nature of the Property Clause: Implications for Judicial Review of National Monument Reductions”
Lael Weinberger, University of Chicago JD/PhD Candidate: “Frankfurter, Abstention Doctrine, and the Development of Modern Federalism: A History and Three Futures”
Ilan Wurman, Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law: “The Origins of Substantive Due Process”
Commenter: Richard Epstein, NYU School of Law, University of Chicago Law School
Moderator: Larry Alexander, University of San Diego School of Law
On January 3, 2019, the Federalist Society hosted a luncheon debate on qualified immunity. The debate was a part of the 21st Annual Faculty Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Featuring:
William Baude, University of Chicago Law School
Christopher Walker, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
Moderator: Tara Leigh Grove, William & Mary Law School
Conventional wisdom holds that the original meaning of the "due process of law," as used in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment, is procedural - forbidding deprivations of life, liberty or property without appropriate procedural safeguards and unless they are pursuant to a duly enacted law governing the conduct giving rise to the deprivation. Recent originalist scholarship, however, calls this view into question, arguing that a thicker and indeed "substantive" understanding of due process is justified by a careful reading of the constitutional text and history. This panel will explore and critique these new arguments.
Welcome:
Hon. Lee Liberman Otis, The Federalist Society
Incoming AALS President Vicki C. Jackson, Harvard Law School
Featuring:
Randy Barnett, Georgetown University Law Center
John Harrison, University of Virginia School of Law
Nathan Chapman, University of Georgia School of Law
Ryan Williams, Boston College Law School
Moderator: Christina Mulligan, Brooklyn Law School
When Congress delegates to a federal agency the responsibility for implementing, administering, and enforcing a law, it also authorizes the agency to make and promulgate rules about how it will do that. These rules will often be issued first as a notice of proposed rulemaking, giving the public the opportunity to comment before the regulation becomes final and goes into effect. Many agencies, however, also avail themselves of another, less well-known rule-making tool: adjudication. Rather than promulgate a regulation, these agencies often announce and apply new policies - even ones that will have broad applicability – in the form of decisions resolving disputes with the agency. These decisions are then applied as precedent by the agency. Some agencies including the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Elections Commission, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and other federal agencies, essentially announce and implement all policies this way. That agencies use adjudication to announce and implement policy is not new, but critics contend that it eliminates fair notice of the rule and avoids public participation in its development.
Policy implemented through notice-and-comment rulemaking is generally applied prospectively only, and has the benefit of the agency having solicited and, ideally, responded to public comments. Policy implemented through adjudication, however, has not had the benefit of public input. Further, the application is generally retroactive. To avoid retroactive application of a rule, regulated parties can be inclined to simply comply with an agency's demands, thus depriving the public of a fair test of the agency’s position. Finally, agency adjudication – performed by an agency’s administrative law judge, and appealable to agency leadership who may wish to use the case to make new policy - can be seen to be biased.
How weighty are these concerns? What is the proper role of agency adjudication? What deference, if any, should courts give policies agencies announce through adjudication? What safeguards could be designed and implemented to prevent the misuse of agency adjudication?
Prof. Jack Beermann, Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law
Mrs. Allyson N. Ho, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
Mr. Stephen A. Vaden, Principal Deputy General Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture
Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Associate Professor of Law, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
When can the government require you to speak, or to host speech on your property, or to pay for speech you dislike? Three of the Court’s 2018 cases – the Masterpiece Cakeshop wedding cake/same-sex wedding case, the Janus union dues case, and the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates pregnancy crisis center case -- all involved this question. So do many other matters that are in the news: For instance, the controversy over whether people can be required to use particular pronouns to refer to others is in large measure a controversy about compelled speech. But the law in this area is surprisingly complicated, ambiguous, and unsettled. This panel will consider what the law is, and what the law ought to be.
Prof. Mark L. Rienzi, Professor of Law, Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America
Prof. Amanda Shanor, Assistant Professor, Legal Studies & Business Ethics, The University of Pennsylvania Wharton School
Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California Los Angeles School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Sandra Segal Ikuta, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
RESOLVED: District courts do not have the authority to enter universal injunctions.
Prof. John Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Mr. Neal Katyal, Partner, Hogan Lovells US LLP
Moderator: Hon. Beth A. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, United States Department of Justice
Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society
With the election of the 116th Congress there are many interesting aspects of the intersection between the Executive and Legislative branches to consider. Perhaps there is no topic more volatile or intriguing than how the new Congress will interact with the Executive in the realm of oversight.
What does the Constitution and the track record of prior Congresses tell us about the coming months and how should both Branches respond? For both Democrats and Republicans, what is the role of the majority and minority parties when Congress conducts oversight? How should the executive branch respond to congressional oversight and what impact, if any, should changing political tides have?
Featuring:
Steve Castor, Chief Investigative Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law
Moderator: Amanda Neely, General Counsel for Senator Rob Portman, and Deputy Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
Introduction: Nathan Kaczmarek, Director, Ariticle I Initiative, The Federalist Society
On December 10, 2018, Senator Jon Kyl (AZ) spoke to the DC Young Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society. Senator Kyl reflected on his time in the Senate and the role of Congress.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speaker.
Featuring:
Senator Jon Kyl, United States Senator, Arizona
Moderator: Lisa Ezell, Vice President & Director of Lawyers Chapters, The Federalist Society
Introduction: Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President, The Federalist Society
This event was co-sponsored by the Article I Initiative and the Capitol Hill Chapter of the Federalist Society.
Technology progress in recent years has been driven in large part by the continuous generation of massive amounts of data (“Big Data”) and its processing by means of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”). Self-driving cars, personalized advertising, and automated medical diagnostics are examples of a technology trend that will accelerate in the future, creating unseen before opportunities for innovation, along with serious legal and regulatory pitfalls. This panel will focus on practical matters concerning AI and Big Data related innovation, including (a) protecting of related intellectual property (“IP”) and (b) handling of data ownership and privacy issues. It will tackle problems such as: who owns AI-generated IP?; who owns personal or test data?; who is liable if something goes wrong?; and what role, if any, should the government(s) have in regulating the flow and use of data-driven information?
Address: Hon. Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent Trademark Office
Mr. James C. Cooper, Deputy Director for Economic Analysis, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission
Mr. Shawn D. Hamacher, Assistant General Counsel, Steelcase
Hon. Michelle K. Lee, Former Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Dr. Ognian “Oggie” Shentov, Of Counsel, Jones Day
Moderator: Hon. David J. Porter, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Justice Scalia put it bluntly in Morrison v. Olson: “There are now no lines.” Morrison, 478 at 726 (Scalia, J., dissenting). This is, perhaps, an unsurprising observation, considering the majority in Humphrey's Executor v. United States recognized that, “between the decision in the Myers v. United States case, which sustains the unrestrictable power of the President to remove purely executive officers, and our present decision that such power does not extend to an office such as that here involved, there shall remain a field of doubt." Humphrey's Ex'r, 295 U.S. at 632. How do courts navigate this field?
In Humphrey's Executor, for-cause removal was approved as applied to the five-member FTC, which exercises powers the Court described as "neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative." Id. at 624. In Morrison, the Court approved for-cause removal—by the Attorney General—as applied to an independent counsel. In so doing, it walked back its emphasis on the character of an agency's or officer's functions and expressly noted there was "no real dispute that the functions performed by the independent counsel [were] 'executive.'" Morrison, 487 at 691. But "the real question," the Court reasoned, "is whether . . . removal restrictions are of such a nature that they impede the President's ability to perform his constitutional duty" to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Id. Then, in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, the Court invalidated a two-layer system of for-cause removal that over-insulated PCAOB members. Free Enter. Fund, 561 U.S. at 495–508. Combining the lessons of Humphrey's Executor and Morrison, the problem was that the act in question "grant[ed] the Board executive power without the Executive's oversight, [thereby] subvert[ing] the President's ability to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed." Id. at 498.
While Myers and Free Enterprise teach that limits do exist on Congress's ability to isolate executive functions from executive oversight, a clear articulation of those limits has so far eluded the Court's jurisprudence in this area. And with an active Special Counsel and several recent lawsuits challenging the structural design of various independent agencies, the question remains: how independent is too independent? Is there any unifying principle for lower courts to apply? Does the character of an agency's/officer's functions matter? May an agency's director be removable only for cause if it is a single director? The D.C. Circuit said yes to the latter while sitting en banc in PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but what if there were no Financial Stability Oversight Council with veto power over the CFPB's policies? Or, what if there is such a veto-wielding council but the agency is not subject to funding via the normal budgeting process over which the President holds veto power?
Different agencies are structured differently, so certainly we are stuck with an ad hoc inquiry. But how is a judge to know when Congress has placed one straw too many on the camel's back?
Prof. William W. Buzbee, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Prof. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service and former Dean, Chapman University's Fowler School of Law; Senior Fellow, Claremont Institute
Hon. Henry Kerner, Special Counsel, Office of the Special Counsel
Prof. Jennifer Mascott, Assistant Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Moderator: Hon. Diane Sykes, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
The vast web of federal and state laws protecting employees stands or falls on a single concept: Is there an employment relationship? Payment of overtime, responsibility for employment taxes, union obligations, responsibility for workplace discrimination, workers compensation – every employment law obligation depends on the existence of an employment relationship.
Thus, it may be surprising to some that most employment laws do not define who is an employer or who is an employee. The Fair Labor Standards Act, for example, defines an “employer” as “any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee,” and an “employee” is “any individual employed by an employer.” The National Labor Relations Act also makes us dizzy with circular definitions: an “employer” is “any person acting as an agent of the employer, directly or indirectly” and an “employee” is “any employee.”
The result: Whether an employment relationship exists has been left to the vagaries of agency guidance and decisions. In its 2015 Browning-Ferris decision, the NLRB expanded the definition of “joint employment” to include employers who share direct, indirect, potential or even “ultimate” control over a worker. In a 2016 Administrator’s Interpretation, the Labor Department similarly expanded the definition of joint employment, declaring that “employment generally should be defined expansively” under the FLSA, unrestrained by the concept of control found in the common law concepts of employment. Suddenly, many businesses faced investigations regarding activities of subcontractors, and franchisors were named as defendants for alleged violations by franchisees.
DOL has withdrawn its 2016 Administrator’s Interpretation, but has yet issued no replacement guidance. Browning-Ferris still stands, although the NLRB has announced its intention to issue regulations regarding joint employment. This panel will explore whether and how the key concepts of employment, employer and employee should be defined under our nation’s employment laws: By Congress, the Courts, or agencies? Adopting one definition or many? Based on statutory definitions or the common law?
Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University Law School
Mr. Richard F. Griffin, Jr., Of Counsel, Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC
Hon. Philip A. Miscimarra, Partner, Morgan & Lewis
Moderator: Hon. Timothy M. Tymkovich, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
The administrative state, with roots over a century old, was founded on the premise that Congress lacked the expertise to deal with the many complex issues facing government in a fast-changing country, and that it was unhelpfully mired in and influenced by politics, leading to bad outcomes when it did act. The alternative was to establish administrative agencies, each with assigned areas of responsibility, housing learned experts qualified to make policy decisions, deliberately insulated from political accountability. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), passed in 1946, both governs the manner in which agencies may adopt and enforce regulations, and provides for judicial review of agency action. Supporters of the administrative state point to the successes of agency actions leading to a cleaner environment, more sensible use of finite resources, healthier foods, safety on the roads and rails, and many other areas of improved quality of life. But even looking past structural separation of powers issues written into the bones of the administrative state, critics assert that in the ensuing 70 years the APA has become an ineffective limitation an agency power, as agencies bypassed its requirements by issuing sub-regulatory guidance, letters, FAQs, and more. Compounding the problem, the critics continue, the courts have adopted a policy of deference to agency actions that grant agencies even more latitude. Is it time to revisit the APA? If so, how should it be updated?
Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law
Prof. Philip Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
Prof. Kathryn Kovacs, Professor of Law, Rutgers Law School
Prof. Jon Michaels, Professor of Law, UCLA School Of Law
Moderator: Hon. Britt Grant, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
U.S. businesses operating in the global economy, and non-U.S. businesses operating or looking to invest in the United States, must account for an increasingly prominent national security and personal security law architecture applicable to international trade and investment. Businesses in the United States are both the world’s largest foreign direct investors, and the largest single national beneficiary of foreign direct investment from other countries. But as markets and investment opportunities have become increasingly global, protection of national security interests has become an important consideration for many governments. While the term "national security" naturally conjures up images of military and intelligence matters, the link between trade, investment, and national security has become more prominent for policymakers. Although national security reviews of foreign investment, such as the process conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), perhaps receive the most public and media attention, there are a host of other security-related concerns that must be navigated by companies operating in the global environment: requests to assist the home state government with intelligence and criminal investigations; ensuring that products and services sold outside of the U.S. are done in compliance with applicable U.S. and foreign trade sanctions and import/export licensing regimes; and maintaining data privacy/security and robust cybersecurity protections. Our panel of seasoned general counsels and national security experts will explore the intersection of private sector commerce and national security.
Mr. William J. Haynes II, Former General Counsel of the Department of Defense
Mr. Timothy J. Keeler, Partner, Mayer Brown
Prof. Randal S. Milch, Co-Chair, NYU Center for Cybersecurity; Distinguished Fellow, Center on Law and Security; Professor of Practice, New York University School of Law
Mr. Donald J. Rosenberg, Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Qualcomm Inc.
Moderator: Mr. Eric J. Kadel, Jr., Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
Antitrust enforcers in the post-Microsoft era, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, have been under more or less continuous criticism as insufficiently active. Proponents of this view have offered a number of routes to more vigorous and creative enforcement, ranging from re-writing the core statutes to address high tech industries and following the lead of the European Commission to adopting a “Brandeisian” approach, which focuses on a variety of concerns beyond consumer welfare, including employment, privacy, and environmental sustainability.
As an alternative to these “tear it all down” approaches, could greater transparency be a more effective response? Concerns regarding the level and type of enforcement activity are arguably rooted in widespread misunderstanding of the process, particularly with respect to merger review. Has the time come to update the DOJ/FTC guidelines on horizontal mergers, the licensing of intellectual property, the operation of information exchanges, and other issues? Are agency processes and decisional factors sufficiently well understood? Has the Supreme Court’s antitrust docket hampered or improved transparency? Such questions are particularly timely in light of the FTC’s ongoing hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century.
Hon. Frank Easterbrook, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Ms. Deb Garza, Partner, Covington & burling
Mr. Eric Grannon, Partner, White & Case
Prof. Douglas Melamed, Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
Moderator: Hon. John B. Nalbandian, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Stare decisis – “to stand by things decided” – is the doctrine under which courts follow their own precedents, and precedents of superior courts. Proponents of stare decisis assert that it promotes predictability in the law, reduces revisiting settled issues, and increases reliance on judicial decisions, all while enhancing the legitimacy of the judicial branch. Critics of stare decisis assert that a court decision in error should not be followed blindly, and over-reliance on stare decisis can cause errors to become set in concrete. A handful of recent opinions suggest that some in the judiciary might be open to revisiting the contours of the doctrine of stare decisis. Should it be reevaluated? Does it matter whether the issue under consideration is statutory or constitutional? Does the time in history of the original decision matter? What is the future of this doctrine?
Prof. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center
Hon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Mr. Kannon K. Shanmugam, Partner, Williams & Connolly LLP
Moderator: Hon. Amy Coney Barrett, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
On November 16, 2018, Secretary Alex Azar offered an address on the unintended consequences of health care regulation in the United States.
Hon. Alex Azar, Secretary, United States Department of Health & Human Services
Introduction: Mr. Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society believes that it is most fitting to dedicate an annual lecture on limited government and the spirit of freedom to the memory of Barbara Olson. She had a deep commitment to the rule of law and understood well the relationship between respecting limits on government power and the preservation of freedom. And, significantly, Barbara Olson was an individual who never took freedom for granted in her own life, even in her final terrifying moments-her inspiring and energetic human spirit is a testament to what one can achieve in a world that places a premium on human freedom. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals.
On November 16, 2018, Judge Jeffrey Sutton offered the annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture. Sutton reflected on the roles of state constitutions, state courts, and state governments in the formation of American constitutional law.
Hon. Jeffrey Sutton, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society
For more on Barbara Olson and the Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture Series, follow this link.
On November 15, 2018, Sen. Mike Lee (UT) gave the opening address at the Federalist Society's 2018 National Lawyers Convention. Lee discussed the sharp divisions in modern politics and the role of conflict in our constitutional republic.
Hon. Mike S. Lee, United States Senate, Utah
Introduction: Mr. Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President, The Federalist Society
Mr. Richard Brookhiser, Senior Editor, National Review and Author, John Marshall: The Man Who Made the Supreme Court
Hon. S. Kyle Duncan, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Hon. Kevin Newsom, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Mr. David B. Rivkin, Jr., Partner, BakerHostetler
Moderator: Hon. William H. Pryor, Jr., United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
To what extent can the legal community engage in social media: a critical means to connect and network in the 21st century? To what degree are judges held to higher standards when posting, liking, and retweeting what may be controversial content? In this day and age, when much of America gets its news from social media, the legal community can ill afford to disengage. Justice Don Willett of the Texas Supreme Court, who has been dubbed “the most famous judge on Twitter,” due to his commentary on sports, family, politics, and cultural issues, said he errs on the side of self-censorship: “Usually what goes through my mind before I hit the tweet button is, did I misspell or mis-grammatize anything, but also, is this worth polluting the interwebs with for posterity?”
The possibility of endangering a citizen’s view of their lawyer or an unbiased judiciary seems clear. Critics of the practice argue that a judge should have a more controlled demeanor than is conducive to frequent, polarizing online posting. On the other hand, David Lat, founder of the popular Above the Law blog, has the view that we should be more concerned about what judges and lawyers are writing in their opinions and briefs than online on personal accounts. This panel aims to discuss the tenuous ground on which advocates and judges must tread in the coming years.
Prof. Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law
Mr. John Browning, Shareholder, Passman & Jones
Hon. Stephen Dillard, Chief Judge, Georgia Court of Appeals
Mr. David Lat, Founder, Above The Law
Moderator: Hon. Don Willett, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
We live in a system where regulators make the rules, investigate alleged violations of the rules, and then adjudicate those violations before Administrative Law Judges. If the matter ever gets to court, courts generally defer to the agency on questions of law “and fact.” As a result, agencies know that their regulations are unlikely to face challenge and, if they are challenged, will likely be upheld. In this system, critics argue, the predictable result is more and more irrational regulations and enforcement actions. Arizona has first-of-its-kind legislation to “reverse” Chevron and to instruct courts to give no deference to agency decisions on questions of law. On a related note, Arizona also passed the Right to Earn a Living Act, creating a cause of action to challenge occupational licensing decisions under a heightened standard of review. Some contend that the result of this new law has been significant in that regulators are reviewing and improving rules, or repealing them outright, rather than face litigation. Could these measures serve as a model other states and the federal government in reducing the size and scope of, and otherwise improving the Administrative State?
Prof. Nestor Davidson, Albert A. Walsh Chair in Real Estate, Land Use, and Property Law; Faculty Director, Urban Law Center, Fordham University School of Law
Prof. Chris Green, Associate Professor of Law and H.L.A. Hart Scholar in Law and Philosophy, University of Mississippi School of Law
Prof. Miriam Seifter, Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School
Hon. Jeffrey Sutton, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Moderator: Hon. Michael Scudder, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Over the past several decades, the workload of federal district courts has changed significantly. On the civil side, perhaps as litigants seek to avoid the expense of elaborate discovery and prolonged motions practice and trials, more and more cases are resolved through alternative dispute resolution. On the criminal side, more and more cases are resolved through plea bargaining. The result is fewer and fewer trials. Our panel will discuss these phenomena, and their implications. What are the causes of these evolutions? Is there a lasting impacts on judges themselves? Are lawyers now required to hone different skills? Is there a lasting effect on the administration of justice, and civil society more generally?
Hon. Thomas Hardiman, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Hon. Michael B. Mukasey, Of Counsel, Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP
Hon. William E. Smith, Chief Judge, United States District Court, District of Rhode Island
Hon. Amul Thapar, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Moderator: Hon. Carlos T. Bea, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
The Trump administration has emphasized the importance of ensuring existing regulations are not stifling innovation or foreclosing economic opportunities. Earlier this year, under Chairman Ajit Pai’s leadership, the FCC modified several of its internal processes to further promote transparency and public engagement. The FCC has also continued on a path of eliminating outdated regulations. During this event, Chairman Pai will deliver remarks about his work to-date at the Commission and his plans for the coming year. He will give his take on the current telecommunications marketplace and how federal, state, and local governments can best respond to ever-changing technologies. A panel discussion will follow Chairman Pai’s remarks with reactions. Panelists will also share their views of the current telecommunications landscape and the regulatory path to continued American industry leadership.
Keynote: Hon. Ajit Pai, Chairman, U.S. Federal Communications Commission
Ms. Kathleen Ham, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, T-Mobile
Ms. Nuala O'Connor, President and CEO, Center for Democracy and Technology
Mr. K. Dane Snowden, Chief Operating Officer, NCTA - The Internet & Television Association
Ms. Jamie Susskind, Chief of Staff and Legal Advisor, Office of Commissioner Carr, Federal Communications Commission
Moderator: Hon. Jerry E. Smith, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
It is difficult to find anyone today who is satisfied with how CRA currently works. Its clear and terse statutory purpose is to assess a bank’s record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community. Subsequent regulation and enforcement practices have expanded Community Reinvestment Act requirements and layered on significant compliance obligations, beyond a view of lending, while narrowing its focus to segments of the community, particularly low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. The geographic assumption of the statute appear increasingly out of step with the expansion of banking through the Internet, mobile banking, and ACH and the apparent lessening importance of brick- and mortar- branch offices as sources of deposits. What is the relevance of the CRA today, and what reforms are appropriate? Or should it be repealed altogether?
Mr. Bert Ely, Principal, Ely & Company, Inc
Mr. Deepak Gupta, Founding Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLC
Mr. Keith Noreika, Partner, Simpson Thacher
Mr. Jesse Van Tol, Chief Executive Officer, National Community Reinvestment Coalition
Moderator: Hon. Joan Larsen, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
In 2014, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) sued Harvard University, alleging that Harvard was violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by, among other things, discriminating against Asian Americans in the admissions process. In its recent motion for summary judgment, SFFA presented statistical evidence that Harvard discriminates both in subjective scoring and selection for admission to limit the number of Asian Americans that attend the college. Harvard’s filing denies all of these claims, stating that the statistical model put forth by SFFA is deeply flawed. They argue that the model ignores essential factors, such as personal essays and teacher recommendations, and omits large sections of the applicant pool, such as recruited athletes and legacy applicants. Harvard explains in their rebuttal that once all relevant information is included, there is no evidence of discrimination. The trial began on October 15th in Boston’s Federal District Court. Harvard officials, as well as past and present students, have testified in support of Harvard. This panel will examine the implications of the case, which many believe is destined for the Supreme Court. The resulting decision will set the precedent for college admission processes nationwide and could transform the nation’s higher education landscape.
Prof. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law
Dr. Althea Nagai, Research Fellow, Center for Equal Opportunity
Mr. Patrick Strawbridge, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC
Prof. John Yoo, Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley
Moderator: Hon. James C. Ho, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Many federal government decisions that affect Americans’ day-to-day lives are made by agencies. Agency decisions, therefore, should maximize net benefits to society. For over 37 years, every president has directed executive agencies to do that through a cost-benefit decisional rule. However, regulatory agencies have sometimes interpreted their authorizing statutes to limit or prohibit this approach, and they may enjoy deference from courts when doing so. Many regulatory experts, including the current Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, have expressed concern over agencies’ failure to ensure that their decisions do more good than harm.
How do we guarantee that all executive and independent agencies are accountable for their actions, while preserving needed insulation from overbearing political pressure? Does the answer change depending on the mission of the particular agency? Are there problems with the cost-benefit analysis model that create opportunities for agencies to manipulate and justify their actions?
Hon. Steven G. Bradubury, General Counsel, United States Department of Transportation
Dr. Cary Coglianese, Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science; Director, Penn Program on Regulation, University of Pennsylvania Law School
Prof. Susan Dudley, Director, GW Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, George Washington University
Prof. Catherine M. Sharkey, Crystal Eastman Professor of Law, New York University Law
Moderator: Hon. Michael B. Brennan, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
The Black’s Law Dictionary defines Plea Bargaining as: “[t]he process whereby the accused and the prosecutor in a criminal case work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval. It usually involves the defendant’s pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that possible for the graver charge.” Plea Bargaining as a concept dates farther back than the American justice system itself. However, over the past few decades it has occurred with more and more frequency to reach its’ current unprecedented level in our criminal justice system.
Today, over 95 percent of criminal convictions are a result of Plea Bargaining, which has contributed to an evolving and controversial national debate over whether Plea Bargaining has gone too far. The positives of Plea Bargaining are apparent. It is a much more efficient process than juries, and a much more inexpensive process than trials. However, some opponents of plea bargaining point to the dangerous potential for coercion, insisting that the imbalance of power between prosecutor and defendant can often lead to a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, some criticize Plea Bargaining because it infringes upon the right of the American citizen to participate in the jury process. The debates over the correct response to the frequency of Plea Bargaining will continue to grow as the effects are felt by the entirety of the American Criminal Justice System.
Hon. Stephanos Bibas, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Mr. Greg Brower, Shareholder, Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, Shreck
Prof. Carissa Hessick, Anne Shea Ransdell and William Garland "Buck" Ransdell, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law
Mr. Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice, Cato Institute
Moderator: Hon. Lisa Branch, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
The Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission was unexpectedly based on religious free exercise (rather than free speech) and the evidence of bias in the proceedings of the state commission. This panel will explore the opinions in Masterpiece Cakeshop and the implications of the case for the First Amendment’s religion and speech guarantees. Among the topics discussed will be the differences among the majority and concurring opinions on the free exercise and free speech issues, whether the free exercise holding will have wider reach beyond the specific facts about the Colorado commission’s handling of the case, and implications of Masterpiece Cakeshop for other cases involving freedom of speech or religion and anti-discrimination laws, such as Arlene’s Flowers Inc. v. Washington, which was remanded for consideration in light of the Masterpiece decision.
Prof. Thomas C. Berg, James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas, Minnesota School of Law
Prof. Gerard V. Bradley, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
Ms. Louise Melling, Deputy Legal Director and Director of Center for Liberty, ACLU
Moderator: Hon. Andrew S. Oldham, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
American trade policy has been the subject of much interest and media attention over the last two years. The Constitution grants the legislative branch full authority over trade policy, including the power to impose and collect taxes, duties, tariffs, and to regulate international commerce. By contrast, the Constitution gives the President authority to negotiate international agreements and it assigns him no specific power over international commerce and trade.
However, Congress has consistently delegated much of its power to regulate trade to the executive branch. From global trade initiatives to trade barriers and agreements, should Congress more fully assert its role? Our expert panel will address these topics and more.
Featuring:
Stephen J. Claeys, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP
Daniel McCarthy, Editor, Modern Age
Brian A. Pomper, Partner, Akin Gump LLP
Moderator: Molly Boyl Fromm, General Counsel and Parliamentarian, Financial Services Committee, U.S. House of Representatives
Introduction: Nathan Kaczmarek, Director, Article I Initiative, The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies
On October 29, 2018, the Federalist Society's Kentucky lawyers chapters hosted the second annual Kentucky Chapters Conference. The third panel discussed "Judicial Selection in Kentucky."
Meryl Justin Chertoff - Executive Director, Justice and Society Program, The Aspen Institute
Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick - Vanderbilt University School of Law
Chad Meredith - Deputy General Counsel, Governor Matt Bevin
Moderator: Hon. John Roach - Ransdell Roach & Royse PLLC; former Kentucky Supreme Court Justice
On October 29, 2018, the Federalist Society's Kentucky lawyers chapters hosted the second annual Kentucky Chapters Conference. The first panel covered "Criminal Justice Trends and Potential Reform."
Featuring:
Daniel Jay Cameron, Frost Brown Todd LLC; Spokesman, Kentucky Smart on Crime
Hon. Robert M. Duncan, Jr., United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Hon. Lou Anna Red Corn, Fayette County Commonwealth's Attorney, 22nd Judicial District
Hon. Danny Reeves, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky; Commissioner, United States Sentencing Commission
Moderator: Andrew English, General Counsel, Kentucky Justice & Public Safety Cabinet
On October 29, 2018, the Federalist Society's Kentucky lawyers chapters hosted the second annual Kentucky Chapters Conference. Sen. Mitch McConnell offered the keynote address on the role of judges, the Senate's power of advice and consent, and the process of Supreme Court confirmations.
Featuring:
Hon. Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader, United States Senate
On October 29, 2018, the Federalist Society's Kentucky lawyers chapters hosted the second annual Kentucky Chapters Conference. The second panel discussed various aspects of the Kentucky Constitution.
Joseph A. Bilby - General Counsel, Kentucky Department of Agriculture
Matthew Kuhn - Deputy General Counsel, Governor Matt Bevin
Eric Lycan - Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
Moderator: Hon. Allison Ball - State Treasurer, Kentucky
On October 19, 2018, the Federalist Society's Pennsylvania chapters hosted the 2018 Pennsylvania Chapters Conference in Philadelphia. The luncheon address by Hon. Jeffrey Sutton of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals covered the role of state constitutions and state courts in formulating American constitutional law.
Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton - U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Introduction: Matthew Hank, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson PC and President, Philadelphia Lawyers Chapter
51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law
On October 19, 2018, the Federalist Society's Pennsylvania chapters hosted the 2018 Pennsylvania Chapters Conference in Philadelphia. The first panel discussed their different approaches to constitutional and statutory interpretation.
Hon. Anne E. Covey, Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
Prof. Michael Moreland, University Professor of Law and Religion, Villanova University, Charles Widger School of Law and Director, Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law
Hon. David N. Wecht, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Moderator: David R. Osborne, President and General Counsel, The Fairness Center
On October 19, 2018, the Federalist Society's Pennsylvania chapters hosted the 2018 Pennsylvania Chapters Conference in Philadelphia. The second panel covered a wide array of cases in the Pennsylvania appellate courts.
Hon. P. Kevin Brobson, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Hon. Victor P. Stabile, Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Moderator: Linda A. Kerns, Law offices of Linda A. Kerns, LLC
Introduction: Matthew Hank, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson PC and President, Philadelphia Lawyers Chapter
On October 19, 2018, the Federalist Society's Pennsylvania chapters hosted the 2018 Pennsylvania Chapters Conference in Philadelphia. The opening address by Hon. Ronald Castille covered the interplay between state and federal courts.
Hon. Ronald D. Castille, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (1994-2014); Chief Justice (2008-2014)
Introduction: Greg Teufel, Founder, OGC Law and President, Pittsburgh Lawyers Chapter
In the past few years, a series of lawsuits have been filed by cities and states against oil and gas companies, seeking to hold these companies liable for the effects of climate change. Join us for an engaging, expert panel discussion on these lawsuits, their background, the legal theories underlying them, and recent developments in some of the jurisdictions where they have been filed.
Speakers:
Prof. Steven Ferrey, Suffolk University Law School
Phil Goldberg, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P; Director, Progressive Policy Institute Center for Civil Justice
Prof. Donald Kochan, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law
Prof. James R. May, Widener University Delaware Law School
Kenneth Reich, Kenneth Reich Law, LLC; Adjunct Professor, Boston University School of Law
Moderator: Lindsey de la Torre - National Association of Manufacturers
Online registration is closed. Walk-ins welcome.
Drinks and hors d'oeuvres will be served.
On October 3, 2018, the Federalist Society's student chapter at George Mason's Antonin Scalia Law School and the Pacific Legal Foundation co-hosted an event on Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania.
Featuring:
David Breemer, Pacific Legal Foundation
Prof. Ilya Somin, Antonin Scalia Law School
Lisa Soronen, State and Local Legal Center
Introductions: Christina Martin, Pacific Legal Foundation
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Related Links:
The Federalist Society: "Courthouse Steps: Knick v. Township of Scott Oral Argument"https://fedsoc.org/events/courthouse-steps-knick-v-township-of-scott-oral-argument
Pacific Legal Foundation: "Supreme Court considers second-class treatment of property rights"https://pacificlegal.org/case/knick-v-scott-township-pennsylvania/
SCOTUSblog: "Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania"http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/knick-v-township-scott-pennsylvania/
On October 3, 2018, the Federalist Society's Colorado Lawyers Chapter co-hosted a forum with the American Constitution Society. Two candidates for the position of Colorado Attorney General discussed their thoughts on the role of state attorneys general.
Featuring:
Phil Weiser, Professor & Former Dean, University of Colorado Law School
George Brauchler, District Attorney for the 18th Judicial District
Moderator: Shaun Boyd, CBS News
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
On September 28, 2018, the Las Vegas Lawyers Chapter hosted a luncheon forum featuring two Nevada Supreme Court candidates.
Featuring:
Hon. Elissa Cadish, Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada
Hon. Jerry Tao, Nevada Court of Appeals, Department 1
Moderator: Hon. Mark Hutchison, Lieutenant Governor, State of Nevada
Introduction: Matthew Saltzman, Shareholder, Kolesar & Leatham
The Constitution did not create a direct democracy; it established a constitutional republic. Its goal was to preserve individual liberty. To this end, the Framers provided that the power of various political actors would derive from different sources. One example from the Founders’ original design was the election of U.S. Senators by state legislators.
However in 1913 the Seventeenth Amendment replaced the original means for election of Senators with the current system of direct election by the people. What impact has this significant change made on federalism and the Legislative branch? Would reinstating the Framers’ design for the Senate elections be a worthwhile step toward restoring constitutional government? Our distinguished panel will weigh these important considerations and offer their views.
Speakers:
Professor Garrett Epps, Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law
Professor Todd Zywicki, Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Moderator: Todd B. Tatelman, Deputy General Counsel, U. S. House of Representatives, Office of General Counsel
On September 7-8, 2018, the Federalist Society's Fort Worth Lawyers Chapter hosted the fourth annual Texas Chapters Conference. The third panel covered "Religious Liberty and Conscience Rights in the Trump Era."
Featuring:
Justin Butterfield, Conscience and Religious Freedom Division, Health and Human Services
Eric Rassbach, Deputy General Counsel, Becket
Kelly Shackelford, President and CEO, First Liberty Institute
Prof. Nelson Tebbe, Cornell Law School
Moderator: Judge Don R. Willett, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
On September 7-8, 2018, the Federalist Society's Fort Worth Lawyers Chapter hosted the fourth annual Texas Chapters Conference. The inaugural Gregory S. Coleman Memorial Lecture featured Justice Clarence Thomas, who reflected on the major influences on his judicial philosophy.
Featuring:
Justice Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court of the United States
Interviewer: Leonard Leo, The Federalist Society
Introduction: Judge Edith H. Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Award: April Farris, Yetter Coleman LLP
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
On September 7-8, 2018, the Federalist Society's Fort Worth Lawyers Chapter hosted the fourth annual Texas Chapters Conference. The second panel covered current federal criminal justice issues.
Featuring:
Introduction: Erin Nealy Cox, U.S. Attorney, Northern District of Texas
Stephen Fahey, Chief, Criminal Division, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Northern District of Texas
Wes Hendrix, Chief, Appellate Division, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Northern District of Texas
Marc Levin, Vice President of Criminal Justice Policy, Texas Public Policy Foundation and Right on Crime
John Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government; Director, Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
Moderator: Judge Reed O’Connor, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
On September 7-8, 2018, the Federalist Society's Fort Worth Lawyers Chapter hosted the fourth annual Texas Chapters Conference. The first panel covered significant cases from the most recent Supreme Court term and Justice Gorsuch's first year on the Court.
Featuring:
John F. Bash, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Western District of Texas
James Sullivan, Deputy General Counsel, Office of Texas Governor Greg Abbott
Aaron Streett, Chairman, Supreme Court and Constitutional Law Practice; Partner, Baker Botts LLP
David O. Taylor, Co-Director, Tsai Center for Law, Science and Innovation and Associate Professor, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law
Moderator: Judge James C. Ho, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
On September 10, 2018, National Security Advisor John R. Bolton delivered an address on "Protecting American Constitutionalism and Sovereignty from International Threats" at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC.
Hon. John R. Bolton, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society
Please join the Federalist Society as we host Hon. John R. Bolton
for his first address since becoming National Security Advisor
Hon. John R. Bolton
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
Protecting American Constitutionalismand Sovereignty from International Threats
Monday, September 10, 201812:00 noon - 2:00 p.m.The Maflower HotelGrand Ballroom
THIS EVENT IS OPEN TO PRESS AND ON THE RECORD.
Last June, President Donald Trump reinstituted the National Space Council by Executive Order, chaired by Vice President Mike Pence. The council has been active on many fronts and has approved several recommendations devoted to regulatory reform for various commercial space activities. Since the Council’s reformation, President Trump has adopted two directives, the second of which sets policies ensuring that any regulations adopted and enforced promote economic growth and encourage American leadership in space commerce. At the same time, the FCC has been focusing on related issues. It recently granted authorization of the use of the Ka, Ku and V bands for satellites to provide internet service in the geostationary and non-geostationary satellite orbits. The Commission has also proposed changes to the regulatory review process for smaller satellite systems and discussed the issue of space debris. With so many government initiatives on these issues, it is timely to focus public attention on the domestic and global barriers to U.S. leadership.
This event was hosted by the Federalist Society’s Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group and focused on the current Administration's efforts to modernize and reform American commercial space policy and the Federal Communication Commission's regulatory approach to the booming American space industry.
Schedule:
Luncheon and Opening Address12:00 p.m.- 1:00 p.m.
Featuring:
Michael Beavin, Senior Policy Advisor, National Space Council
Panel Discussion 1:00 p.m. - 1:45 p.m.
Featuring:
Maj. Gen. Jim Armor, USAF (Ret.), Director, Government Relations, Northrop Grumman Corporation
Jennifer A. Manner, Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, EchoStar Corporation/Hughes Network Systems LLC
Maureen McLaughlin, Vice President, Public Policy, Iridium Satellite, LLC
Jennifer A. Warren, Vice President, Technology Policy & Regulation, Lockheed Martin Government Affairs
Moderator Erin McGrath, Legal Advisor, Wireless, Public Safety and International, Federal Communications Commission
Closing Remarks1:45 p.m.- 2:00 p.m.
Featuring:
Hon. Michael O'Rielly, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
Featuring:
Hon. Kenneth L. Wainstein, Partner, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
Introduction: Vincent Vitkowsky, Partner, Seiger Gfeller Laurie LLP
This panel will focus on questions such as what measures major companies can take, individually or collectively, to prevent, detect, mitigate and halt imminent or in-progress cyberattacks, such as the WannaCry attack, which spread around the globe, infecting over 200,000 computers in more than 150 countries. What else can they do to enhance collective cybersecurity? What resources are available to them? What other resources are needed? What legal protections are necessary and appropriate?
Featuring:
David Lieber, Senior Privacy Policy Counsel, Google
Dr. Andrea Little Limbago, Chief Social Scientist, Endgame; Visiting Fellow, National Security Law & Policy Program, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Angela McKay, Senior Director, Cybersecurity Policy and Strategy, Microsoft
Moderator: Prof. Jamil N. Jaffer, Adjunct Professor, NSI Founder, and Director, National Security Law & Policy Program, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Introduction: Vincent Vitkowsky, Partner, Seiger Gfeller Laurie LLP
In recent years, a new populist movement in antitrust law has been labeled “hipster antitrust,” and its proponents include prominent members of Congress including Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. These would-be antitrust revolutionaries oppose using the consumer welfare standard of Judge Bork as the sole policy interest of antitrust law, and instead argue that antitrust law should be used to solve a myriad of far-reaching issues such as income inequality, redistribution of wealth, and political power. Proponents further contend that an overhaul of antitrust law could be used to curb the power and influence of vast companies such as Amazon, Facebook, and Google. Are such companies truly becoming too expansive and powerful? Is an overhaul of antitrust law, or revisiting the consumer welfare standard, a necessary or even desirable step in response to such powerful companies?
Featuring:
Deb Garza, Partner, Covington & Burling LLP
Diana Moss, President, American Antitrust Institute
Hon. Noah Phillips, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
Hon. Joshua Wright, Executive Director, Global Antitrust Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School
Moderator: Judge Douglas Ginsburg, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia
In 1978, Judge Robert Bork published the book The Antitrust Paradox. The Antitrust Paradox has become one of the most influential authorities on antitrust policy, changing the landscape of American antitrust law forever. Since its publication, The Antitrust Paradox has been cited by over 100 different United States courts, and its reasoning has often been adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Bork argued the original intent of the Sherman Act and other American antitrust laws was to protect competition itself rather than consumers. The result of this flawed approach was certain market practices such as vertical integration and price discrimination, which posed no threat to consumers, were still outlawed in favor of competition, even if this competition lead to an overall harm to the consumer. Instead, Judge Bork advocated for a consumer welfare standard, where violations of antitrust law would be measured solely by their affect on consumers. Jude Bork’s articulation of these principles in The Antitrust Paradox had a lasting impact that can be felt in antitrust law to this day.
Featuring:
Susan Creighton, Partner, Co-Chair, antitrust practice, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Andrew Finch, Principal Deputy Attorney General, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
Charles (Rick) Rule, Co-Chair, Antitrust Group, Paul|Weiss
Hon. Joshua Wright, Executive Director, Global Antitrust Institute, Antonin Scalia Law school
Moderator: Judge Laurence Silberman, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia
Featuring:
Hon. Makan Delrahim, Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
Introduction: Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
It is difficult to imagine any criminal acts, espionage, or terrorism that does not leave some form of cyber fingerprints. As corporate citizens, to what extent can and should the companies cooperate in supporting criminal, intelligence, and counterintelligence operations? What should their duties be, if any, to combat information warfare conducted by foreign governments or terrorist organizations? What incentives can be created to encourage them? What are the challenges to working collaboratively with the government on these issues? Are compliance regimes necessary and, if not, how should we ensure that companies and the government are able to work together effectively on such issues?
Featuring:
Craig Albright, Vice President, Legislative Strategy, BSA
Stewart Baker, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson
Mark Champoux, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice
Prof. F. Scott Kieff, Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School
David Kris, Advisor, Intellectual Ventures
Moderator: Matthew R. A. Heiman, Visiting Fellow, National Security Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
On June 11, 2018, the Federalist Society's DC Young Lawyers Chapter and the Article I Initiative cosponsored an event which featured Senator Chuck Grassley.
Sen. Grassley (IA) spoke on developments in the federal judiciary and the importance of Congress reasserting its constitutional powers.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speaker.
Featuring:
Senator Chuck Grassley, United States Senator for Iowa and Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
Introduction: Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President, The Federalist Society
Welcome: Lisa Ezell, Vice President & Director of Lawyers Chapters, The Federalist Society
What would history have to say about the way in which American foreign policy is conducted in the modern era? Are Congress and the Executive duly considering the founding principles of our nation as they conduct foreign policy, from the division of labor between these two branches, to the appropriate use of treaties, executive agreements, and other less formal agreements not submitted to the Senate for ratification, to the imposition or revocation of sanctions? And what of multilateral treaties, international governing bodies, and the preservation of American sovereignty? These and other issues will be addressed by our guest speaker and panelists.
Featuring
An address by:
Hon. Mike Gallagher, U.S. House of Representatives, WI-8
Followed by a panel with:
Prof. Henry Nau, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, Elliot School of International Affairs, The George Washington University
Prof. Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law
Mr. Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
Moderator: Mr. Nathan Kaczmarek, Director, Article I Initiative, The Federalist Society
On February 25, 2006, the Federalist Society student chapter at Columbia Law School hosted the 25th Annual National Student Symposium. The Symposium featured a panel on the question, "How Does International Law Limit the War on Terrorism?"
Featuring:
Prof. Akhil Amar, Yale Law School
Prof. Catherine Powell, Fordham Law School
Prof. Saikrishna B. Prakash, University of San Diego School of Law
Prof. John Yoo, Boalt Hall (UC Berkeley) School of Law
Moderator: Hon. A. Raymond Randolph, U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
On June 22, 1999, the Oklahoma City Federalist Society Chapter hosted a panel discussion on Lawyers and the U.S. Justice System.
Featuring:
Hon. Laurence H. Silberman, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
William G. Paul, President-Elect, American Bar Association
Introductions: Hon. Robert Henry, U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Opening Remarks: Andy Lester, Chairman, Oklahoma City Federalist Society Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
On April 3, 1987, the University of Chicago chapter hosted the Sixth Annual National Student Symposium. The Symposium featured a panel on the topic, "The Classical Theory of Law."
Introductory Remarks:
Janice Calabresi, University of Chicago Law School, Federalist Society Chapter President
Dean-Designate Geoffrey Stone, University of Chicago Law School
Panel Featuring:
Prof. Norman P. Barry, The University of Buckingham Law School
Prof. Richard Epstein, University of Chicago Law School
Prof. Gary Peller, University of Virginia School of Law
Moderator: Dean-Designate Geoffrey Stone, University of Chicago Law School
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
On Friday, May 18, 2018, the Regulatory Transparency Project and Capitol Hill Chapter of the Federalist Society co-sponsored a panel discussion on emerging technology legislation. Experts explored drone delivery, autonomous vehicles, flight sharing, and more.
Featuring:
Ryan Hagemann, Director of Technology Policy, Niskanen Center
Christopher L. Koopman, Senior Director of Strategy and Research, The Center for Growth and Opportunity at Utah State University
Gregory S. McNeal, Professor of Law and Public Policy, Pepperdine University School of Law
Brent Skorup, Senior Research Fellow, Technology Policy Program, Mercatus Center at George Mason University
Introduction: Devon Westill, Director, Regulatory Transparency Project, The Federalist Society
Co-Hosted by the Regulatory Transparency Project (https://regproject.org) & the Capitol Hill Chapter of the Federalist Society
Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel delivered the luncheon address at the Inaugural Wisconsin Lawyers Chapters Conference in Madison, Wisconsin on May 4, 2018.
Hon. Brad D. Schimel, Wisconsin Attorney General
Introduction: Robert Driscoll, Milwaukee Chapter President, The Federalist Society
Justice Brennan’s 1977 article “State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights,” provoked many litigators to look to the state courts to enhance individual liberties beyond the scope of the federal constitution. This came at a time when the conservative legal movement developed out of a perception that the Warren Court and its successors had gone too far, with courts holding an influence far too powerful in American life. They called for a more restrained view of the judicial role, while those on the left looked to state courts to assert their role in protecting individual rights. This sparked a New Federalism that embraced more active and robust efforts to achieve litigation-oriented outcomes through state constitutional litigation. In recent years, many in the conservative legal movement have also come to embrace state constitutions as separate documents that best protect both individual and economic liberty. This panel will offer a historical overview of these trends as well as offer perspectives of the role of state constitutions from the federal and state bench.
The Inaugural Wisconsin Lawyers Chapters Conference was held on May 4, 2018, in Madison, Wisconsin.
Panelists:
Hon. Stephen Markman, Chief Justice, Michigan Supreme Court
Joseph Ranney, Professor of Law, Marquette University Law School & Shareholder, DeWitt Ross & Stevens S.C.
Hon. Jeffrey Sutton, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Moderator: Hon. Brian K. Hagedorn, Wisconsin Court of Appeals
This panel examined judicial appointments in Wisconsin and at the federal level. Panelists will discuss the characteristics executives should seek in judicial nominees as well as the approaches used to select those nominees. Topics include the Governor's selection methods, the president's selection methods, blue slips, and possible reforms to the federal judicial selection process.
The Inaugural Wisconsin Lawyers Chapters Conference was held on May 4, 2018, in Madison, Wisconsin.
Panelists:
Katie Ignatowski, Chief Legal Counsel, Office of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker
Ryan Owens, Professor of Political Science; Affiliated Faculty, University of Wisconsin Law School
Carrie Severino, Chief Counsel and Policy Director, Judicial Crisis Network
Moderator: Andrew Hitt, Chairman, Governor’s Judicial Selection Advisory Committee
This panel debated perspectives from both sides of two important national discussions: the debate over free speech on campus and the debate over whether certain wedding-related services are speech or public accommodation. The panelists touched upon First Amendment controversies both on a national level and other free speech controversies in Wisconsin.
The Inaugural Wisconsin Lawyers Chapters Conference was held on May 4, 2018, in Madison, Wisconsin.
Opening Remarks:
Robert Driscoll, Milwaukee Chapter President, The Federalist Society
Panelists:
Rick Esenberg, Founder, President, and General Counsel for the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty
Jordan Lorence, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
Lester Pines, Senior Partner, Pines Bach
Howard Schweber, Professor of Political Science, University of Wisconsin - Madison
Moderator: Misha Tseytlin, Solicitor General, State of Wisconsin
On September 9, 1988, then-presidential candidate Ron Paul spoke on a panel at the Federalist Society's second Annual Lawyers Convention on "Improving National Drug Policy."
There has been an increasingly loud tide of opinion of late that our nation's current policy toward illicit drugs is not working. Proposed solutions range from the deployment of full-scale military force, to greater and more systematic application of the laws already on the books, to legalization. This panel will discuss a wide range of possible ways to strengthen or alter the status quo.
Featuring:
Dr. Ron Paul, Presidential Candidate, Libertarian Party
Richard Cohen, The Washington Post
Richard Willard, Steptoe & Johnson LLP
Moderator: Dr. Jeff Eisenach, The Heritage Foundation
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
On May 2, 2018, the Montgomery Federalist Society and Faulkner University hosted candidates running for the Alabama Office of Attorney General in the 2018 primary elections on campus for an informational forum. Allen Mendenhall, Ph.D., the president of the Montgomery Federalist Society, associate dean of Faulkner’s Jones School of Law and executive director of The Blackstone and Burke Center of Law and Liberty moderated the forum.
All candidates had been invited to participate. Each candidate was introduced and was given a few minutes to speak to the public and their constituents on their platform, policies and beliefs. They also fielded questions from Mendenhall.
Featuring:
Chess Bedsole, Former Criminal Court Judge & Senior Counsel to DOJ
Chris Christie, Former Trial Lawyer, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
Alice Martin, Former Alabama Chief Deputy & Deputy Attorney General
Steve Marshall, Alabama Attorney General
Moderator: Allen Mendenhall, Associate Dean and Executive Director, Blackstone & Burke Center for Law & Liberty, Faulkner University
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular political or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speaker.
On March 6, 1988, Hon. Robert H. Bork spoke to the Federalist Society's National Student Symposium at the University of Virginia. Judge Bork discussed the campaign against his recently failed Supreme Court nomination and its implications for future judicial nominations, constitutional law, politics, and culture.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Hon. Robert H. Bork, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
Hon. T. Kenneth Cribb, Jr., Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs
Hon. David M. McIntosh, Domestic Policy Council
On January 30-31, 1987, the Federalist Society hosted its first-ever national lawyers convention at the Mayflower Hotel. The conference featured a panel on the timeless topic, "Methods of Statutory Construction."
Featuring:
-Hon. Antonin Scalia, United States Supreme Court
-Prof. Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School
-Hon. Frank Easterbrook, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
-Hon. Laurence Silberman, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
-Moderator: Senator Orrin Hatch, Utah
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
On April 16, 2018, the Georgetown Law Federalist Society presented its Lifetime Service Award to Sen. Rand Paul. The Senator gave a short presentation and answered questions.
Hon. Rand Paul, United States Senator, Kentucky
Introduction: Mr. Ryan McNulty, Director of Events, Georgetown Student Chapter
Welcome: Mr. Ethan Womble, President, Georgetown Student Chapter
Co-sponsored by the Article I Initiative. Learn more at https://fedsoc.org/ArticleI
The Sixth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference is scheduled for Tuesday, April 17 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. and will examine the increase in federal regulatory activity and the legal and practical considerations of regulatory reform. This daylong conference will feature plenary panels, addresses, and breakout panels.
Prof. Gail Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law
Mr. Roger Clegg, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity
Prof. Theodore M. Shaw, Julius L. Chambers Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Civil Rights, University of North Carolina School of Law
Mr. Gene C. Schaerr, Schaerr Duncan LLP
The Sixth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference is scheduled for Tuesday, April 17 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. and will examine the increase in federal regulatory activity and the legal and practical considerations of regulatory reform. This daylong conference will feature plenary panels, addresses, and breakout panels.
Mr. William S. Consovoy, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC
Mr. Michael J. Fischer, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Impact Litigation Section, Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General
Prof. Alan Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service Law; Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University Law School
Prof. Ernest A. Young, Alston & Bird Professor of Law, Duke University Law School
Moderator: Mr. Stuart S. Taylor, Jr., Contributing Editor, National Journal
The Sixth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference is scheduled for Tuesday, April 17 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. and will examine the increase in federal regulatory activity and the legal and practical considerations of regulatory reform. This daylong conference will feature plenary panels, addresses, and breakout panels.
Ms. Ilona Cohen, Chief Legal Officer, Aledade, Inc.
Dr. Steven P. Croley, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP
Mr. Jeffrey M. Harris, Former Associate Administrator, Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs
Hon. Jeffrey A. Rosen, Deputy Secretary, Department of Transportation
Moderator: Hon. Laurence H. Silberman, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
The Sixth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference is scheduled for Tuesday, April 17 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. and will examine the increase in federal regulatory activity and the legal and practical considerations of regulatory reform. This daylong conference will feature plenary panels, addresses, and breakout panels.
Mr. Theodore Cooperstein, General Counsel, Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
Hon. Stuart F. Delery, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
Mr. G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association
Mr. David W. Ogden, Partner, WilmerHale
Moderator: Mr. John C. O'Quinn, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
The Sixth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference is scheduled for Tuesday, April 17 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. and will examine the increase in federal regulatory activity and the legal and practical considerations of regulatory reform. This daylong conference will feature plenary panels, addresses, and breakout panels.
Hon. Paul R. Michel, U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit (ret.)
Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Co-Director of Academic Programs & Senior Scholar at the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Prof. Arti K. Rai, Elvin R. Latty Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law
Prof. Melissa Wasserman, Charles Tilford McCormick Professor of Law, University of Texas Law
Moderator: Hon. Stephen F. Williams, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
The Sixth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference is scheduled for Tuesday, April 17 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. and will examine the increase in federal regulatory activity and the legal and practical considerations of regulatory reform. This daylong conference will feature plenary panels, addresses, and breakout panels.
Hon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Mr. Todd Gaziano, Director, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation
Prof. Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
Prof. Jonathan Turley, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law; Director of the Environmental Law Advocacy Center; Executive Director, Project for Older Prisoners, The George Washington University Law School
Moderator: Hon. Greg Katsas, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
The Sixth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference is scheduled for Tuesday, April 17 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. and will examine the increase in federal regulatory activity and the legal and practical considerations of regulatory reform. This daylong conference will feature plenary panels, addresses, and breakout panels.
Opening Remarks: Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
Opening Remarks: Hon. David J. Redl, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and Administrator, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Prof. Michelle P. Connolly, Professor of the Practice of Economics, Duke University
Mr. Brad Gillen, Executive Vice President, CTIA
Hon. Chip Pickering, CEO, INCOMPAS
Moderator: Mr. Bryan Tramont, Managing Partner, Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer LLP
The Sixth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference is scheduled for Tuesday, April 17 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. and will examine the increase in federal regulatory activity and the legal and practical considerations of regulatory reform. This daylong conference will feature plenary panels, addresses, and breakout panels.
Hon. Neomi Rao, Administrator, Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs
Introduction: Mr. Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
What methods of interpretation should Ohio courts use in constitutional matters and in cases involving disputes over statutory text? Does the Ohio Supreme Court have obligations or restrictions different from those facing federal courts? Are there systemic problems in the Ohio judicial system that the Ohio Supreme Court needs to address? Has the Ohio Supreme Court improperly ignored established precedent or constitutional or statutory requirements in ways that need to be corrected? Can judges really maintain independence if they are elected by voters and must run in partisan primaries? If so, how? What role do lawyers play in building citizen trust and support in the judiciary?
Candidates for the two current vacancies on the Ohio Supreme Court shared their views on how the Ohio Supreme Court should address these and other questions. They also explained how their views are informed and shaped by the Ohio Constitution, the Ohio canons of judicial ethics, and past studies of the administration of justice in Ohio’s courts.
Hon. Craig Baldwin, Fifth District Court of Appeals
Hon. Mary DeGenaro, Associate Justice, Ohio Supreme Court
Hon. Michael Donnelly, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court
Hon. Melody Stewart, Eighth District Court of Appeals
Moderator: Douglas R. Cole, Partner, Organ Cole LLP
Demand for criminal justice reform appears to be growing across the political spectrum. Bipartisan coalitions have formed to address over criminalization, prison reform, bail bond reform, sentencing guidelines reform, and more. Panelists will explore these efforts. Are reforms truly needed, or does the criminal justice system already work well? If reforms are needed, what reforms are best—and are there reforms in other states that may be worth exploring in Ohio? What efforts have the Ohio General Assembly and the Ohio Supreme Court made to address criminal justice reform? Are there arguments that criminal law practitioners should be making in the courtroom in light of these legal developments?
Heather Childs, Vice President, Compliance, Capital One
Daniel Dew, Legal Fellow, Buckeye Institute
Hon. Dave Yost, Ohio State Auditor
Moderator: Hon. Sharon Kennedy, Associate Justice, Ohio Supreme Court
Earlier this year the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31. The case turns on the question of whether “agency fee” arrangements—which require workers to pay union fees to public sector unions to cover the unions’ activities other than political action—violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court previously found such mandatory union fees to be constitutional in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977). However, in 2016, the Supreme Court split 4-4 on this question in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association.
L. Camille Hebert, Carter C. Kissell Professor of Law, Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University
William L. Messenger, Staff Attorney, National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation
Moderator: Robert Alt, President and Chief Executive Officer, The Buckeye Institute
Since the 1980s, the originalist approach to constitutional interpretation has gained greater and greater acceptance in legal circles, and the number of originalists within the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary has grown. At the same time, originalism still has fierce critics who argue that it is an inappropriate method for constitutional interpretation. Likewise, in the last decades of the 20th century the U.S. Supreme Court breathed new life into a federalist view of the Constitution and the relationship between the federal government and the states. As with originalism, the federalist movement has its own strong critics.
The panelists discussed these two legal concepts. What are originalism and federalism, really? Are they valid or flawed? What developments may we see from the federal courts with regard to these concepts in the future—particularly in light of Neil Gorsuch’s joining the U.S. Supreme Court in 2017? And how do these concepts apply to the work of ordinary legal practitioners?
Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law; Director, Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Eric Murphy, State Solicitor, Ohio
Peter M. Shane, Jacob E. Davis and Jacob E. Davis II Chair in Law, Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Introduction to the 2018 Ohio Chapters Conference made by Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice.
Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice
On Thursday, March 29, Professor Josh Blackman was invited to speak at CUNY Law about free speech on campus. Upon arrival at the law school, he was met with protesters and hecklers who attempted to disrupt the event. Warning: Audio and video contain strong language.
Prof. Josh Blackman, South Texas College of Law, Houston
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
In both the House and the Senate, it has become extremely difficult to build consensus, which in turn creates gridlock, dysfunction, and partisanship.
Does Congress need to reform its processes altogether? Or should it return to earlier methods of committees, conferencing, and compromise? Machalagh Carr, Josh Chafetz, David Schoenbrod, and David Hoppe reflect on the processes of Congress which enable the legislative branch to effectively wield its constitutional powers.
Watch the video on YouTube
Prof. Josh Chafetz, Professor of Law, Cornell Law School
David Hoppe, President, Hoppe Strategies
Prof. David Schoenbrod, Professor of Law, New York Law School
Moderator: Machalagh Carr, General Counsel & Parliamentarian, Committee on Ways and Means, U. S. House of Representatives
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Under the Constitution, the legislative branch possesses full authority over trade policy. Congress, however, has delegated much of this power to regulate trade to the executive branch, creating a number of serious issues, from trade wars to favoritism to economic depression.
What can Congress do to counteract the consequences of their abdication? Mike Lee discusses the history of Congress' trade powers, suggesting a procedural solution to restore the balance of powers intended by the Founders.
Watch the video on YouTube
Hon. Michael Lee, U.S. Senator, Utah
Introduction: Mr. Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
As the upper chamber of Congress, the Senate functions as a check on the legislative process. Many have complained, however, that the Senate is obstructionist, anti-majoritarian, and overly partisan.
Is the Senate broken? Or is it operating as intended by the framers of the Constitution? Daniel Flores, Christopher DeMuth, Matt Glassman, and James Wallner discuss their views on Senate reform.
Watch the video on YouTube
Hon. Christopher DeMuth, Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute
Dr. Matt Glassman, Senior Fellow, Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University
Dr. James Wallner, Senior Fellow, R Street Institute
Moderator: Daniel Flores, Chief Counsel for the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law for the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
The Constitution was carefully designed to balance powers between three federal branches and the states, but over the years disparities between both the federal and the state governments and the executive and legislative branches have become increasingly pronounced.
Does the balance of powers still function as intended by the Founders? John Kyl examines the gradual deterioration of the constitutional structure and consequences of this growing imbalance for issues such as international affairs, judicial nominations, and congressional leadership.
Watch the video on YouTube
Hon. Jon Kyl, Former U.S. Senator, Arizona
Moderator: Prof. Susan Dudley, Director, George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center
Introduction: Mr. Nathan Kaczmarek, Director, Article I Initiative, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Since the passage of the The 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, Congress has successfully managed to follow the twelve-step budget process only four times.
Why does Congress continue the pretense of following a system that doesn't work? Is there any way to reform the budget process to account for deficits, debt, overspending, and the bigger picture? James Lankford explores potential budgetary reforms that will help the legislative branch to regain the power of the purse.
Watch the video on YouTube
Hon. James Lankford, U.S. Senator, Oklahoma
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Even though the Founders conceived Congress as the most powerful of the three branches of government, today the legislative branch is widely regarded as weak, indolent, and even irrelevant.
With the imbalance of power and accountability that has been created by this political vacuum, Congress has lapsed into problematic behavior that is both expensive and harmful to the notion of representative government.
What can Congress do to mend its ways and restore the balance of power? David McIntosh, Tom Davis, and Barry Loudermilk discuss the problems that most plague the legislative branch, including issues such as earmarks, appropriations, continuing resolutions, filibusters, judicial appointments, and political polarization.
Watch the video on YouTube
Hon. Ron DeSantis, U.S. House of Representatives, Florida's 6th District
Hon. Barry Loudermilk, U.S. House of Representatives, Georgia's 11th District
Hon. Tom Davis, Former Congressman, Virginia's 11th District
Moderator: Hon. David McIntosh, President, Club for Growth
Introduction: Mr. Nathan Kaczmarek, Director, Article I Initiative, The Federalist Society
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
The Georgetown Student Chapter hosted this conversation with Justice Thomas during the 2018 National Student Symposium Banquet on March 10, 2018.
Hon. Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States
Prof. Jennifer Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Supreme Court and Administrative Law Clinics, Antonin Scalia Law School
Article V of the Constitution provides a process for amending the Constitution. However, this process has only produced a handful of Amendments. Many Amendments have been proposed throughout the nation’s history. What’s next? Looking to first principles, did the Founders leave anything out that is necessary today? What possible Amendments might be desirable and practical?
Prof. Jamal Greene, Dwight Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
Prof. Laura Donohue, Professor of Law, Georgetown Law
Prof. Michael S. Greve, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
Prof. Robin Fretwell Wilson, Roger and Stephany Joslin Professor of Law, Illinois College of Law
Moderator: Judge Amy Coney Barrett, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
The Fourteenth Amendment dramatically changed constitutional law. How are we to understand these changes? Did the Fourteenth Amendment change our Federalism and, if so, how much?
Prof. John C. Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Professor of Law, Georgetown Law
Elizabeth B. Wydra, President, Constitutional Accountability Center
Prof. Kurt T. Lash, E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of Law
Moderator: Judge Diane S. Sykes, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
What role for the executive was envisioned by the Framers and Founding generation? How did the Founding generation understand the Executive’s role? How did the likely first President, George Washington shape their views? Has the role of the Executive changed?
Prof. Martin S. Flaherty, Leitner Family Professor, Co-Director, Leitner Center for International Law and Justice, Fordham University School of Law
Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law and Co-Faculty Director, Korea Law Center, University of California, Berkeley Law School
Prof. Saikrishna Prakash, James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law and Paul G. Mahoney Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School
Moderator: Judge Amul Thapar, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
In 1776, the Continental Congress declared the birth of a new nation. Six of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence went on to craft and sign the Constitution in 1787. What role does the Declaration of Independence play in constitutional interpretation? Should it be considered foundational to the Constitution’s purpose and structure or is it just one source among many?
Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown Law
Prof. Michael P. Zuckert, Nancy Reeves Dreux Professor of Political Science, The University of Notre Dame
Prof. John Mikhail, Agnes N. Williams Research Professor; Associate Dean, Research and Academic Programs, Professor of Law, Georgetown Law
Prof. Lee J. Strang, John W. Stoepler Professor of Law & Values, The University of Toledo College of Law
Moderator: Judge Thomas Hardiman, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Attorney General Jeff Sessions delivered this address at the 2018 National Student Symposium at Georgetown Law on March 10, 2018.
Hon. Jeff Sessions, Attorney General of the United States
Introduction by: Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown Law
Welcome: Ethan Womble, President, Georgetown Student Chapter
Hamilton referred to the federal judiciary as the “least dangerous” branch of the new federal government. But the Court has clearly done more than he envisioned. What is its proper role? How much should judges interpret the exact text and how much should they look to the core principles the text seeks to protect?
Welcome: Ethan Womble, President, Georgetown Student Chapter
Opening Remarks: Dean Mitchell C. Bailin, Associate Vice President and Dean of Students, Georgetown Law
Justice Clint Bolick, Arizona Supreme Court
Ed Whelan, President, Ethics & Public Policy Center, former Law Clerk to Justice Scalia, and Co-Editor, Scalia Speaks: Reflections on Law, Faith and Life Well Lived
Moderator: Judge Kevin C. Newsom, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Introduction: Darina Merriam, Vice President and Symposium Chair, Georgetown Student Chapter
Is there something wrong with the way we speak about speech? Tara Smith, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin, discusses several conceptual issues in how we talk about free speech.
Hosted by the University of Texas at Austin School of Law Federalist Society.
Dr. Tara Smith, Professor of Philosophy; BB&T Chair for the Study of Objectivism; Anthem Foundation Fellow for the Study of Objectivism, The University of Texas at Austin
Welcome: Amanda Salz, President, Texas Student Chapter
Introduction: Ashley Terrazas, Vice President of Speakers, Texas Student Chapter
Click here to read the event handout.
This symposium was co-sponsored by the Regulatory Transparency Project and took place at the Antonin Scalia Law School on February 2, 2018.
Authors:
C. Boyden Gray, Founding Partner, Boyden Gray & AssociatesRegulating in the Shadows: How Agencies Achieve Indirectly that Which they have No Authority to Achieve Directly
Adam J. White, Director, Center for the Study of the Administrative State and Adjunct Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law SchoolRestoring Meaningful Limits to “Waters of the United States”
Discussants:
Robert L. Glicksman, Shapiro Professor of Environmental Law, George Washington University Law School
Nathan Richardson, Assistant Professor of Law, University of South Carolina
Moderator:
Caroline Cecot, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
This symposium was co-sponsored by the Regulatory Transparency Project and took place at the Antonin Scalia Law School on February 2, 2018.
Authors:
Stewart A. Baker, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson
Justin ‘Gus’ Hurwitz, Assistant Professor of Law and Co-Director of Space, Cyber, and Telecom Law Program, University of Nebraska College of LawRegulators in Cyberia
Discussants:
Alan Butler, Senior Privacy Counsel, Electronic Privacy Information Center
Brenda Leong, Senior Counsel and Director of Strategy, Future of Privacy Forum
Moderator:
Sandra Aistars, Senior Scholar and Director Copyright Research & Policy, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property; Clinical Professor, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
This symposium was co-sponsored by the Regulatory Transparency Project and took place at the Antonin Scalia Law School on February 2, 2018.
Authors:
James C. Cooper, Associate Professor of Law and Director, Program on Economics and Privacy, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law SchoolState Licensing Boards, Antitrust, and Innovation
Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice, Cato InstituteOccupational Licensing Run Wild
Discussants:
Ryan Nunn, Fellow in Economic Studies, Brookings Institution
Gabriel Scheffler, Regulation Fellow, Penn Program on Regulation, University of Pennsylvania Law School
Moderator:
John M. Yun, Associate Professor of Law and Director of Economic Education, Global Antitrust Institute George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
This symposium was co-sponsored by the Regulatory Transparency Project and took place at the Antonin Scalia Law School on February 2, 2018.
Welcome & Introduction:
Bonnie Kelly, Editor in Chief, Journal of Law, Economics & Policy
Devon Westhill, Director, Regulatory Transparency Project, The Federalist Society
Authors:
Charles J. Cooper, Partner, Cooper & KirkRegulating in the Shadows: How Agencies Achieve Indirectly that Which they have No Authority to Achieve Directly
Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law SchoolConsumer Protection at the FTC and the CFPB
Discussants:
Deepak Gupta, Founding Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLC
David C. Vladeck, A.B. Chettle Chair, Georgetown University Law Center
Moderator:
Paolo Saguato, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
2018 Annual Florida Chapters Conference
The panelists discussed the roles and responsibilities of Attorney Generals and specifically the role of Florida's AG. Discussion included an explanation of the varied roles and responsibilities statutorily and constitutionally given to the Attorney General and different means and perspectives on filling those roles. The discussion also encompassed the proper role of the Attorney General in multistate and federal matters, such as litigation over federal laws and their applicability to states, including laws such as the Affordable Care Act. Other federal matters in which attorney generals are or may be involved were discussed. The role of the Solicitor General within the AG's office was also discussed.
Participants:
Rep. Jay Fant – District 15, Florida House of Representatives
Hon. Ashley Moody – Former Hillsborough County Circuit Judge
Rep. Ross Spano – District 59, Florida House of Representatives
Ryan Torrens – Torrens Law Group, P.A.
Rep. Frank White – District 2, Florida House of Representatives
Moderator: Joe Jacquot - Foley & Lardner, LLP
2018 Annual Florida Chapters Conference
Session III: Florida Separation of Powers
Panelists:
Amit Agarwal – Solicitor General, Florida
Kathryn Ciano – Senior Counsel, Uber
Mayanne Downs – City Attorney, Orlando
Daniel Nordby – General Counsel, Governor of Florida
Moderator: Hon. Tom Barber, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Florida
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
2018 Annual Florida Chapters Conference
Opening Remarks
Hon. Adam Putnam - Agriculture Commissioner, Florida
Session II: The First Amendment/Title IX and Due Process at the Universities
Nancy Hogshead-Makar - CEO, Champion Women; Advocacy for Girls and Women in Sports
Prof. Michael T. Morley – Barry University, School of Law
Jesse Panuccio - Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
Ayman Rizkalla – Partner, Akerman LLP
Moderator: Carlos G. Muniz - Senior Vice President, McGuireWoods Consulting; Partner, McGuireWoods LLP
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
2018 Annual Florida Chapters Conference
Panel Discussion Participants:
Hon. R. Alexander Acosta - Secretary, United States Department of Labor
Hon. Scott Pruitt - Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency
Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas - United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Governor Rick Scott of Florida delivered a short address at the 2018 Annual Florida Chapters Conference.
Hon. Richard L. Scott - Governor, Florida
Introduction: Daniel Nordby – General Counsel, Governor of Florida
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
2018 Annual Florida Chapters Conference
Welcome and Opening Remarks:
Elena Crosby - Director of Constituent Services, Office of US Senator -Marco Rubio; Orlando Lawyers Chapter President, The Federalist Society
Hon. Jimmy Patronis - Chief Financial Officer, Florida
Session I: Departures from the American Rule on Attorney’s Fees
Panelists:
Bruce J. Berman – Shareholder, Carlton Fields
Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick – Vanderbilt University Law School
Hinda Klein – Partner, Conroy Simberg
R. Hugh Lumpkin – Managing Partner, Ver Ploeg & Lumpkin
Moderator: Hon. Robert Luck - Third District Court of Appeal, Florida
Remarks:
Hon. Ron DeSantis - U.S. House of Representatives, Florida 6th District
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
No clause in the Constitution draws more judicial encomia to liberty than the Free Speech Clause. But as Justice Robert Jackson warned, extending freedom of speech to unworthy expression can actually “belittle great principles of liberty.” Courts today regularly confront opportunities to expand free speech protection--for example, whether there is a speech right to flash one’s headlights to warn oncoming drivers of police speed traps or whether law enforcers can restrict the social-media posts of their own officers. The Ninth Circuit has already confirmed the right to view executions, but current litigation seeks to expand the scope of that right.
On the other hand, our law also recognizes many categories of unprotected expression--libel, fraud, perjury, intimidation, mislabeled drugs, and exposure of military secrets, to name a few. What these categories have in common is a conclusion that speech’s harm can--and often does--outweigh its supposed entitlement to protection. The panel will explore the intersection of criminal law and procedure with First Amendment jurisprudence with a particular focus on evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of further expanding free speech protections.
Dominic Draye, Solicitor General, Arizona
Professor Thane Rosenbaum, NYU Law School
Steve Simpson, Ayn Rand Institute
Joseph Tartakovsky, Deputy Solicitor General, Nevada
Moderator: Hon. Tim Tymkovich, U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Introduction: Joe Peters, Assistant Attorney General, Colorado Attorney General's Office
With federal proposals like the DISCLOSE Act sidelined by Republicans in Congress, some state governments officials, including state secretaries of state, have sought to place limitations on campaign speech through other methods. State legislators have proposed new state laws against “dark money” and advocated new disclosure regimes as well as increased restrictions on speech and political engagement by key public officials who coordinate on a national level. City lawmakers have proposed public financing regimes as well as matching funds, which are often far more restrictive than with state law. State Secretaries of State have proposed rules to implement failed campaign finance reform proposals and impose heightened donor disclosure regulations as well as requiring more detailed financial disclosures from non-profit organizations. Do these campaign speech proposals and increased pushes toward greater disclosure lead to more transparency and freer and fairer elections, or do these efforts infringe upon First Amendment rights?
Professor Richard L. Hasen, Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science, University of California, Irvine
Professor Brad Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law, Capital University Law School
Moderator: Hon. Carlos T. Bea, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Introduction: Joseph Rose, Gubson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Although the First Amendment makes no distinction between types of speech, courts have consistently offered so-called “commercial speech” less protection than non-commercial speech. Under the Central Hudson test, courts balance the interests of regulators against the interests of those engaged in commercial speech. These interests can lead to limitations on how pharmaceutical companies communicate information about lawful treatments with patients, doctors, and insurance companies; how lawful products like tobacco or liquor are advertised; and how businesses express themselves. What limitations should courts permit government to impose on commercial speech, if any? Should Central Hudson be reconsidered? And what about occupational speech? Should “commercial speech-level restrictions” be imposed on individuals who offer advice in the fields of interior design, investing, or parenting, for example? How or should concerns about economic liberty be factored in? And do state constitutions provide broader protections for commercial speech than the federal Constitution? If so, should cases like Nike vs. Kasky be overturned?
Bradley Benbrook, Founding Partner, Benbrook Law Group
Erik Jaffe, Law Office of Erik Jaffe
Amanda Shanor, Yale Law PhD Candidate
Moderator: Christina Sandefur, Executive Vice President, Goldwater Institute
Introduction: Lisa Ezell, Vice President & Director of Lawyers Chapters, The Federalist Society
Free speech on college campuses has been under attack in recent years, increasingly from students who have protested speakers whom they disagree with politically. These protests have succeeded in both cancelling events and creating disturbances through blockades, shouts, and even violence as was the case at Middlebury College. What responsibilities do universities hold to protect a climate that encourages the open and respectful exchange of ideas? Should “hate speech” be protected or are special protections needed to protect students from “offensive” discourse? What do universities owe students and speakers to protect their personal safety if protests break out?
Marieke Tuthill Beck-Coon, Director of Litigation, The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education,
Harmeet K. Dhillon, Founding Partner, Dhillon Law Group
Professor Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School
Elizabeth Wydra, President, Constitutional Accountability Center
Moderator: Hon. Sandra Ikuta, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Introduction: Joshua McDaniel, Horvitz & Levy LLP
With January 2018 marking roughly a decade after the start of the most recent financial crisis, this panel will assess the corresponding legal and regulatory responses to the crisis.
Panelists:
Hilary Allen, Suffolk University Law School
David Zaring, The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania
Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School
Moderator: Robert Ahdieh, Emory Law School
This panel will discuss the operation and effects of rules assigning third party liability for sexual misconduct to universities or other organizations, whether the rules come from tort law or regulation.
Panelists:
Ellen Bublick, University of Arizona College of Law
Gail Heriot, University of San Diego School of Law
Eugene Volokh, UCLA School of Law
Moderator: Brad Areheart, University of Tennessee College of Law
The winners of our Young Legal Scholars Paper Competition will present their papers, and various other attendees will invite feedback on works they have in progress.
Jud Campbell, University of Richmond School of Law: “The Invention of First Amendment Federalism”
Jonathan Mitchell, Stanford Law School: “The Writ-of-Erasure Fallacy”
Lochlan Shelfer, Gibson Dunn: “Intergovernmental Federalism Disputes”
Megan Stevenson, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School: “Assessing Risk Assessment”
Lael Weinberger, University of Chicago JD/PhD candidate: “Rebellion against International Law: Law, Ideology, and the Bricker Amendment”
Commenter: Richard Epstein, NYU School of Law, University of Chicago Law School
Moderator: Josh Teitelbaum, Georgetown University Law Center
This debate will discuss when congressional authorization is required for the use of military force, and whether that authorization must be both specific to a conflict and explicit.
John Harrison, University of Virginia School of Law
John Yoo, UC Berkeley School of Law
Moderator: Jide Nzelibe, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
The panel will discuss what reforms Congress should or should not make to the administrative state. Topics will include the REINS Act, the position of independent agencies, and rules of deference to the administrative state, including Chevron and Auer.
Panelists:
Jack Beermann, Boston University School of Law
Kathryn Kovacs, Rutgers Law School
Michael Rappaport, University of San Diego School of Law
Christopher Walker, Ohio State University College of Law
Moderator: Emily Bremer, University of Wyoming School of Law
The Constitution does not explicitly grant Congress the authority to conduct inquiries or investigations of the Executive branch. However, oversight authority is inherent in many facets of the Legislature's duties and responsibilities. The Supreme Court confirmed this in McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927) stating:
A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change, and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information -- which not infrequently is true -- recourse must be had to others who do possess it. Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete, so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed. Id. at p.175.
From legislating and appropriating to confirmation, impeachment, and war, Congress’ ability to compel information and properly supervise federal activity and policy implementation is essential to its nature.
Throughout the history of our country, Congress has exercised oversight via numerous means such as committee hearings, direct Member contact, staff studies and casework, statutory commissions and inspector general reports. Through these methods and others, Congress endeavors to ensure faithful execution of Congressional intent, monitor the efficacy and efficiency of federal programs, protect legislative authority from Executive encroachment, investigate waste, fraud and abuse, assess agency management and financial priorities, and safeguard individual liberties.
In recent decades some have observed that the federal growth of agencies, programs, debt, political polarization, and divided government have greatly intensified the environment in which oversight occurs. They assert that oversight has become weaponized and too partisan. Others lament the use of federal time and energy for “show hearings” designed to embarrass individuals or score purely political points. This panel will explore the current oversight landscape, compare it with prior eras, and offer insight for how it may be improved.
Featuring:
Michael D. Bopp, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Machalagh Carr, Oversight Staff Director, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives
Hon. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Moderator: Amanda Neely, General Counsel for Senator Rob Portman, and Deputy Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
"The philosophic fight for the future of America" is how John Allison describes the force driving much of today's partisan and social divide. The former BB&T and Cato Institute CEO, now an executive in residence at Wake Forest University, described the fight during a speech Tuesday, October 3, 2017, to the Triangle Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society.
Footage courtesy of CarolinaJournal.com.
Speaker:
John Allison, Former President and CEO, Cato Institute; Former Chairman and CEO, BB&T
Introduction: Kevin Hales, President, Triangle Lawyers Chapter
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Congressional redistricting is the process by which voter district boundaries are drawn for the election of representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives. Historically Congressional districts have been based on numerous factors including population, geography, ethnic groupings, voting records, and the preferences of political parties. Manipulation of districts for partisan gain, or gerrymandering, has been around since before 1812 when Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry redistricted his state to the benefit of his party. One of Governor Gerry’s districts carved out voters in an unusual shape that some felt resembled a salamander and the now commonplace portmanteau, combining the Governor’s name with salamander, was coined.
Until the 1960’s challenges to redistricting plans were generally considered to present non-justiciable political questions. Since then there have been several prominent court challenges and this term the Supreme Court is once more weighing the constitutionality of legislative districts, this time in Wisconsin, in Whitford v. Gill.
But beyond the important legal issues raised by these cases lies the impact redistricting may be having on the makeup and environment within the Legislative branch. Some contend that with advances in technology the partisan control of how districts are drawn has become too exacting and manipulative and resulted in a detrimental increase in polarization. Others argue that partisan redistricting has been a part of our system for over 200 years, other more important factors are driving Congressional dysfunction, and even if the current system is scrapped, no alternative could eliminate bias. Our panel will explore these and other important topics.
Featuring:
Jay Cost, Contributing Editor, Weekly Standard
Hon. Christopher Shays, Former Congressman
Moderator: Nathan Kaczmarek, Deputy Director, Article I Initiative, The Federalist Society
Advocates of limited government are sometimes accused of being blind to issues of race and sex. Here's one way in which that might be true: Over the last few decades our legal system has been increasingly shaped by identity politics. Legislation often contains numerous benefits aimed at one or more identity groups. But perhaps even more strikingly, race and sex increasingly permeate the activity of regulatory agencies. For example, disparate impact liability, originally the brainchild of EEOC lawyers, used to be limited to employment law. But in more recent years it has spread to areas like housing and credit, thus putting lenders and landlords in the same boat with employers, where every criterion they use for hiring, promoting, lending, or leasing is presumptively illegal. Elected officials who otherwise support the principles of limited government are often reluctant to push back when expansions of the administrative state are couched in terms of race or sex. Are they being prudent? Or something else?
Prof. Gail Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law
Mr. Peter Kirsanow, Partner, Benesch Attorneys at Law
Prof. R. Shep Melnick, O'Neill Professor, Boston College, Department of Political Science
Prof. Ted Shaw, Julius L. Chambers Distinguished Professor of Law & Director of the Center for Civil Rights, University of North Carolina School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Rachel L. Brand, Associate Attorney General, United States Department of Justice
The Internet has dynamically changed the way we live. It touches every sector of the U.S. and global economies. For two decades, it flourished in an environment devoid of heavy-handed regulatory oversight, resulting in $1.5 trillion in investments by Internet Service Providers. However, the FCC dramatically changed course in 2015 when it reclassified broadband as an old style utility regulated under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Earlier this year, the FCC initiated a new proceeding, Restoring Internet Freedom, that proposes to return to the classification of broadband service as a Title I information service. But the legal and policy debate continues with passionate supporters on both sides.Moving forward, how should these tensions be addressed? How should the FCC move forward with its Internet Freedom proceeding? Is there a legislative or regulatory fix? Is there a role for other administrative agencies? Should so called "edge companies" (like Google and Facebook) be regulated differently from Internet Service Providers? Today's panel will explore these and other issues.
Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
Dr. Roslyn Layton, Visiting Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
Hon. Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Acting Chairman, Federal Trade Commission
Mr. Jonathan B. Sallet, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP
Mr. Jonathan Spalter, President & CEO, USTelecom
Dr. Nicol Turner-Lee, Fellow, Governance Studies, Center for Technology Innovation, The Brookings Institution
Moderator: Hon. Stephen F. Williams, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
This panel will examine the history of the emergence of the Administrative State and will ask whether even in a reformed fashion such a state can ever be consistent with the separation of powers. The panelists will each comment on the separation of powers challenge to modern Administrative Law. Can modern Administrative Law be made consistent with the Framers' Constitution of 1787? The Framers envisioned a much smaller government. How does one govern and oversee in a meaningful way a government of this size? Is accountability practical? Does the idea of accountability need rethinking?
Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Prof. Philip Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
Prof. John Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Gary Lawson, Philip S. Beck Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law
Prof. Kevin M. Stack, Lee S. and Charles A. Speir Chair in Law, Vanderbilt Law School
Moderator: Hon. Kevin Newsom, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
How much leeway do agencies have in implementing federal law? What is the source of this leeway? In whom is it vested? What is the remedy for exceeding it? What are the consequences of exceeding it?Administrative agencies are comprised of numerous components and employ tens of thousands of individuals with different ideas about what the law requires and what policies best serve the public interest. Individually or collectively, agency officials may disagree with all or parts of congressionally-enacted laws, with regulations properly adopted by prior administrations, or with the regulatory and enforcement priorities of politically-appointed agency leaders. They may even question the legitimacy of those political appointments. Government resources are finite: both enforcement priorities and resource allocation decisions are primarily within the authority of the Executive Branch. Does permitting agency personnel, whether high ranking or low, to decide to selectively enforce or not enforce laws on the basis of their policy preferences or perceptions of legitimacy turn our government away from the rule of law and toward the rule of man? What can agency personnel do when their agency refuses to administer laws for which it is responsible, or enforces laws they consider unlawful or ill advised? What recourse do Congress or the courts have if the Executive Branch will not follow their commands?
Prof. Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Director of the Constitutional Law Center; Stanford Law School and Senior Fellow, Hoover Institute
Mr. Stuart S. Taylor Jr., Contributing Editor, National Journal
Prof. Jonathan Turley, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law; Director of the Environmental Law Advocacy Center; Executive Director, Project for Older Prisoners, The George Washington University Law School
Prof. Michael Uhlmann, Professor of Government, Claremont Graduate University
Moderator: Hon. A. Raymond Randolph, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) accounts for nearly half of all civil cases in federal courts. Although MDLs were designed to be efficient mechanisms for “coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings,” in some instances they have become one-sided forums known for lacking the basic protections afforded to all other cases by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), the Federal Rules of Evidence and appellate review.
Featuring:
John Beisner, Partner, Skadden Arps LLP
Brian Jackson, Partner, Butler Snow LLP
Chris Seeger, Founding Partner, Seeger Weiss LLP
Jonathan D. Selbin, Partner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
Moderator: Jeffrey B. Clark, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) accounts for nearly half of all civil cases in federal courts. Although MDLs were designed to be efficient mechanisms for “coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings,” in some instances they have become one-sided forums known for lacking the basic protections afforded to all other cases by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), the Federal Rules of Evidence and appellate review.
Featuring:
Prof. Jaime Dodge, Director, The Institute for Complex Litigation & Mass Claims, Emory Law School
Prof. Maria Glover, Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown Law Center
Prof. Francis McGovern, Professor of Law, Duke Law School
Kate Comerford Todd, Former Senior Vice President & Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center
Moderator: Mary Nold Larimore, Partner, IceMiller LLP
Multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) accounts for nearly half of all civil cases in federal courts. Although MDLs were designed to be efficient mechanisms for “coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings,” in some instances they have become one-sided forums known for lacking the basic protections afforded to all other cases by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), the Federal Rules of Evidence and appellate review.
Featuring:
David Bernick, Partner, Paul Weiss LLP
Honorable Eduardo Robreno, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Chris Seeger, Founding Partner, Seeger Weiss LLP
Andrew J. Trask, Senior Counsel, McGuireWoods LLP
Moderator: Doug Smith, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) accounts for nearly half of all civil cases in federal courts. Although MDLs were designed to be efficient mechanisms for “coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings,” in some instances they have become one-sided forums known for lacking the basic protections afforded to all other cases by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), the Federal Rules of Evidence and appellate review.
Featuring:
Malini Moorthy, Vice President & Associate General Counsel, Bayer
Timothy A. Pratt, Executive Vice President & General Counsel, Boston Scientific Corporation
Dan Troy, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, GSK
Moderator: Prof. Brian Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University School of Law
Libel law leads two lives. Most famously, there is the life of presidential candidates and the New York Times; of celebrities and the National Enquirer; of exposes in Rolling Stone. The rules here seem settled, with the “actual malice" standard and public/private figure distinctions. President Trump seems to be questioning whether they were settled right -- were they?But there is also the life created by the Internet: of Yelp reviews, of gripe blogs, of consumer complaints on RipOffReport and sites such as BadBoyReport.kr and ShesAHomeWrecker.com. People are finding it easier than ever to widely publicize their grievances, whether accurate or not. Here the questions focus more on remedies than on “actual malice" and similar substantive standards. The traditional compensatory, presumed, and punitive damages remedies are often seen as largely pointless. Criminal libel survives, and is in some measure being revived; should it be? Injunctions against libel, long thought by many to be quintessential unconstitutional prior restraints, are routine; is that good? As to either life of libel law, how can the law punish defamatory falsehoods without unduly deterring accurate accusations?
Mr. Paul Alan Levy, Attorney, Public Citizen Litigation Group
Ms. Libby Locke, Partner, Clare Locke LLC
Prof. Rodney A. Smolla, Dean and Professor of Law, Widener University Delaware School of Law
Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California Los Angeles School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Jerry E. Smith, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Today, every bar, restaurant, sidewalk, road and bridge anywhere in the world has become a terrorist target. Attacks are often conducted by lone wolves or small cells. This makes the acquisition and sharing of intelligence by government agencies an urgent priority. Yet nations must find a balance between surveillance and privacy. The panelists have faced these issues at the highest levels of their governments and will share their views.
Dr. August Hanning, Former State Secretary, The Federal Interior Ministry, Federal Republic of Germany
Mr. Robert Hannigan, Former Director, Government Communications Headquarters, United Kingdom
Hon. Michael Mukasey, Of Counsel, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and former United States Attorney General
Hon. Nathan A. Sales, Ambassador-at-Large and Coordinator for Counterterrorism, United States Department of State
Moderator: Prof. Jamil N. Jaffer, Adjunct Professor, NSI Founder, and Director, National Security Law & Policy Program, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
It has long been understood that broad congressional delegations of rulemaking authority have empowered administrative agencies to play a robust role in setting policy priorities for many subjects, including the environment. This phenomenon is even more evident when realizing that most of the major environmental laws were passed several decades ago and have seen little updating since. Has Congress purposefully, or because of its inattention to passing or amending environmental laws, been ceding its policy-setting authority to others? This panel will consider that question by looking at the role of not just administrative agencies handling environmental issues but also other non-congressional mechanisms for controlling the environmental law and policy agenda.
Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Prof. Donald J. Kochan, Professor and Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development, Chapman University School of Law
Prof. Robert V. Percival, Professor of Law and Director, Environmental Law Program, University of Maryland School of Law
Prof. Michael P. Vandenbergh, David Daniels Allen Distinguished Chair of Law and Director, Climate Change Research Network Co-director, Energy, Environment and Land Use Program, Vanderbilt Law School
Moderator: Hon. Amul Thapar, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
At its August 2016 meeting in San Francisco, the American Bar Association approved a major change to its Rules of Professional Conduct that will affect all lawyers if adopted by their licensing states. In pertinent part, the new Rule 8.4(g) would make it professional misconduct for a lawyer to “harass or knowingly discriminate against persons on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, or socioeconomic status." The new Rule applies to “conduct related to the practice of law" which (1) represents an expansion from the present conduct performed “in the course of representing a client" and (2) new Comment 3 defines conduct to “include[e] the operation and management of a law firm or law practice."
Ms. Paulette Brown, Partner, Locke Lord LLP; Immediate Past President, American Bar Association
Mr. Stephen Gillers, Elihu Root Professor of Law, New York University School of Law
Prof. Ronald D. Rotunda, Professor, Doy and Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman University
Hon. Ken Paxton, State Attorney General, Texas
Moderator: Hon. G. Barry Anderson, Associate Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court
Professor Rotunda's PowerPoint Slides
RESOLVED: Lochner v. New York: Still Crazy After All These Years.
The Tenth Annual Rosenkranz Debate was held on November 18, 2017, during The Federalist Society's 2017 National Lawyers Convention.
Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law Center
Moderator: Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society
Christopher J. Scalia and Edward Whelan have published a definitive collection of beloved Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's finest speeches. The book, Scalia Speaks: Reflections on Law, Faith, and Life Well Lived, covers a breadth of topics, including law, faith, virtue, the justice's pastimes, and his heroes and friends.
Prof. Rachel E. Barkow, Segal Family Professor of Regulatory Law and Policy; Faculty Director, Center on the Administration of Criminal Law, New York University School of Law
Hon. Amy Coney Barrett, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Mr. Christopher J. Scalia, Editor, Scalia Speaks: Reflections on Law, Faith, and Life Well Lived
Mr. M. Edward Whelan III, President, Ethics and Public Policy Center and Editor, Scalia Speaks: Reflections on Law, Faith, and Life Well Lived
Moderator: Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
In recent decades, the President has sought to control the regulatory state through the Office of Management and Budget and through the office within OMB known as OIRA. This panel will discuss whether that is a positive development, and whether presidential review powers should apply to independent as well as executive branch agencies, which could be accomplished by allowing removal of independent agency heads by the President. Would such implementation of the unitary executive lodge too much power in one man, as clearly the Framers feared? Do views on such matters depend on who is the President at any given moment? The panel will also discuss possible changes to notice and comment rulemaking, and what guidance agencies ought to give to their prosecutorial law enforcement personnel.
Prof. Aditya Bamzai, Associate Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Susan Dudley, Director, Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, George Washington University
Prof. Lisa Heinzerling, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law, Georgetown University
Hon. Neomi Rao, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, The Office of Management and Budget
Moderator: Hon. David Barron, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit
Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
At both the federal and state levels, bureaucrats wield power to make decisions that substantially impact the exercise of religion. From interpreting and enforcing public accommodations laws to administering vast regulatory regimes and deciding how all of these laws interact with RFRAs, agencies headed by political appointees are often charged with determining --- at least in the first instance --- the extent to which generally applicable law will impinge on religious freedom. Who will be required to provide contraceptive coverage; how will religious accommodations be extended, and to whom? Must bakers and photographers with religious objections service gay weddings? Must doctors perform surgeries on patients that violate their faith and medical judgment? Even without a change in legislation, the answers to such questions often flip after new administrations appoint new agency heads. This panel will discuss whether the administrative state places religious freedom in too precarious a position, and if so, what can and should be done about it.
Prof. William P. Marshall, William Rand Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law
Mr. Mark L. Rienzi, Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Professor of Law, Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America
Ms. Melissa Rogers, Nonresident Senior Fellow in Governance Studies, The Brookings Institute
Mr. Roger Severino, Director, Office for Civil Rights, United States Department of Health and Human Services
Moderator: Hon. Diarmuid O'Scannlain, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
In 2011, Congress created a new administrative tribunal in the U.S. Patent Office with the power to cancel previously granted patents, called the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB). The PTAB has become a flashpoint of controversy. Some companies and organizations defend it as an important tool for eliminating invalidly issued patents. Critics have highlighted a wide range of concerns, including, among others, not providing patent-owners with basic due process protections and a structural bias against patents that has led to inordinately high “kill" rates. In Oil States v. Greene's Energy Group, the Supreme Court will decide whether assigning such power to an administrative agency is consistent with the constitutional requirements of Article III, the Seventh Amendment, and the nature of patents as property rights. At the intersection of patent law, administrative law, and constitutional law, Oil States is a blockbuster case in the October 2017 term that will impact the governmental branches, the law and the innovation economy.
Prof. Gregory Dolin, Co-director of the Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of Law
Prof. John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Arti K. Rai, Elvin R. Latty Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law
Mr. Robert Greene Sterne, Director, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox PLLC
Moderator: Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School, and former Commissioner, United States International Trade Commission
On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society believes that it is most fitting to dedicate an annual lecture on limited government and the spirit of freedom to the memory of Barbara Olson. She had a deep commitment to the rule of law and understood well the relationship between respecting limits on government power and the preservation of freedom. And, significantly, Barbara Olson was an individual who never took freedom for granted in her own life, even in her final terrifying moments-her inspiring and energetic human spirit is a testament to what one can achieve in a world that places a premium on human freedom.
Mr. Donald F. McGahn, II, White House Counsel
Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society
For more on Barbara Olson and the Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture Series, follow this link.
Concern with “the regulatory state" often focuses on reforms to formal institutional structures and legal doctrines such as Chevron deference. But arguably these formal constraints only touch the tip of the iceberg regarding the issues of individual liberty and the rule of law raised by concerns about the regulatory state, because they fail to appreciate the myriad ways in which regulators exercise informal influence to accomplish ends that they might not be able or willing to achieve through more formal processes. In particular, the deep entanglement between the government and the banking system involves regulatory activity that is outside of the public eye. Commentators and practitioners who raise such concerns point to unwilling banks that felt pressured to take TARP money, implementation of Operation Choke Point, and some enforcement theories applied in the name of lending discrimination. Commentators on the other side of the argument point out the extent to which financial services affect not only individual lives but the welfare of the community and the nation, including the danger of financial crises. What does the experience of the financial services industry and its regulation tell us about concerns and challenges going forward?
Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law
Prof. Hal S. Scott, Nomura Professor of International Financial Systems and Director, Program on International Financial Systems, Harvard Law School
Mr. Peter J. Wallison, Senior Fellow, Arthur F. Burns Fellow in Financial Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute
Prof. Arthur E. Wilmarth, Jr., Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School
Moderator: Hon. Carlos T. Bea, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Attorney General Jeff Sessions delivered this address at the 2017 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. He was introduced by former Attorney General Ed Meese.
Hon. Jeff Sessions, United States Attorney General
Introduction: Hon. Ed Meese, former United States Attorney General
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt delivered this address at the 2017 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. He was introduced by Ambassador C. Boyden Gray.
Hon. Scott Pruitt, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency
Intoduction: Hon. C. Boyden Gray, Founding Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates
We have seen two consecutive years of an alarming increase in violent crime, at least in some major urban areas. This comes after an entire generation of decreasing crime, to the point that crime rates are half what they were in the early 1990's. Why has crime started to rise again, and what should be done about it? Are incarceration rates a factor?
Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center
Ms. Heather Childs, Vice President & Compliance Counsel, Capital One
Mr. Adam Gelb, Director, Public Safety Performance Project, The Pew Charitable Trusts
Hon. Michael Mukasey, Of Counsel, Debevoise & Plimpton and former United States Attorney General
Mr. George J. Terwilliger III, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP
Moderator: Hon. David Stras, Associate Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court
As an advisor to Woodrow Wilson, Louis Brandeis observed that “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." Concerns about market concentration – with particular focus on the tech sector and such issues as use of, and access to, consumer data – have generated renewed interest in a Brandeisian approach, which has also found its way into the Democratic Party's “Better Deal." Has the time come for this New Brandeis Movement or is it merely, as others would have it, “hipster antitrust"? Should antitrust enforcement encompass such concerns as jobs, wages, data privacy, and viewpoint diversity in media, or is the consumer welfare standard's narrower focus on prices and consumer choice still appropriate? Would broadening antitrust's mandate raise rule of law concerns? And is this a genuinely new debate or is it a return to the familiar concern that “antitrust dosesn't fit the tech sector," which drove the George W. Bush era Antitrust Modernization Commission?
Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law and President, Cass & Associates, PC
Prof. Daniel Crane, Frederick Paul Furth Sr. Professor of Law, The University of Michigan Law School
Hon. Douglas H. Ginsburg, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Mr. Jonathan S. Kanter, Partner, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
Mr. Barry C. Lynn, Executive Director, Open Markets Institute
Moderator: Hon. Brett Kavanaugh, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
President Trump's administration has helped renew interest in federalism among Democrats and liberals. Is there now more opportunity for cross-ideological support for this important structure of the Constitution? Or do continuing divisions on the nature of federalism such as the debate between competitive and cooperative federalism make this an unpromising alliance?
Prof. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Jurisprudence, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman University
Dean Heather K. Gerken, Dean and Sol & Lillian Goldman Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Prof. Abbe R. Gluck, Professor of Law and Faculty Director, Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy, Yale
Law School
Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law, School George Mason University
Moderator: Hon. William H. Pryor Jr., United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Statutory administrative law judges (ALJ) located within each agency adjudicate administrative law cases brought by agency enforcement personnel, located in the same building as the judges. These judges do not enjoy tenure during good behavior or an irreducible salary. Their rulings are often appealable only to the administrative agency itself and only later to an Article III Court, and then only on a very deferential standard of judicial review. Civil jury trial is not currently available in administrative law judicial proceedings and the rules of evidence and the burden of proof arguably operate in a manner that favors the agency. This panel will assess the constitutionality of current law and ask whether Congress ought to change the law and, if so, how. Should ALJs have life tenure? Should they be housed separately from their agency?
Prof. Steven G. Calabresi, Clayton J. and Henry R. Barber Professor of Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
Prof. Linda D. Jellum, Ellison C. Palmer Professor of Tax Law, Mercer University School of Law
Prof. Jennifer L. Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Prof. Gillian Metzger, Stanley H. Fuld Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
Moderator: Hon. Edith Jones, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Senator Tom Cotton opened the 2017 National Lawyers Convention on November 16 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. He was introduced by Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.
Hon. Tom Cotton, United States Senate
Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
Through regulation and enforcement, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, National Labor Relations Board and U.S. Department of Labor can have a significant negative or positive impact on our economy. The Trump Administration had a quick start on addressing regulatory reach by issuing three executive actions in its first month to freeze regulations and reduce regulatory costs. But, the pace of political appointments has meant a slow start to policy changes at the agencies. Join Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta and leaders from the EEOC and NLRB to hear about personnel and policy at their agencies.
Hon. R. Alexander Acosta, Secretary, United States Department of Labor
Hon. Nicholas C. Geale, Chief of Staff and Acting Solicitor, United States Department of Labor
Hon. Victoria A. Lipnic, Commissioner and Acting Chair, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Hon. Philip A. Miscimarra, Chairman, National Labor Relations Board
Moderator: Hon. John K. Bush, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Many are noting an increased use of antitrust enforcement by foreign governments, particularly in Asia, to regulate intellectual property licensing activity of U.S. companies. The U.S. economy relies on longstanding principles of private markets and competition – are Asian competition authorities using antitrust powers in protectionist ways to devalue U.S. intellectual property to benefit their own government-owned companies and economies? How do foreign enforcement regimes differ in terms of substantive law, and due process? What does all this mean for American business competitiveness and innovation, including U.S. leadership in the development of 5G mobile networks, the Internet of Things, and other critical innovative industries from medical devices to automobiles?
EPA regulatory power, voting rights and redistricting, federal directives regarding transgender persons, the constitutionality of ACA provisions, and seized execution drugs. Texas, often joined by other states, sued the federal government at least forty-eight times during the Obama administration. Suits are currently pending against the Trump Administration pertaining to the Emoluments Clause and environmental policy. This panel examines the role of the states in checking Executive authority in an era of executive action and the administrative state’s regulatory growth. Topics include: Whether and how the Executive Branch has increased its power in recent years, federal interference with state policy choices and core powers, and litigating against Executive overreach. The panel will be moderated by Justice Jeff Brown.
Speakers:
Caitlin Halligan, Partner, Gibson Dunn; Former New York Solicitor General
Scott Keller, Texas Solicitor General
Prof. Ernest Young, Alston & Bird Professor of Law, Duke University
Moderator: Hon. Jeff Brown, Supreme Court of Texas
Keynote: Senator John Cornyn, U.S. Senator, TXIntroduction: Charles Eskridge, Partner, Quinn Emanuel
The greater the power of the Executive, the greater the imperative to adhere to the highest ethical standards in the execution of the Executive’s duties. A proposition likely to garner widespread support in theory; but as they say, the devil is in the details. This panel examines the legal and practical bases from which Executive Branch ethics are derived, as well as the role and function of those ethical standards in executing the Executive’s duties. Topics include: The extent to which the President is bound by ethics laws, the role of White House Counsel in ensuring adherence to ethics standards in the Executive Branch, and the ethics involved in the selection of a Supreme Court nominee and the role of the Executive Branch in the confirmation process. The panel will be moderated by Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod.
Speakers:
Bobby Burchfield, Partner, King & Spalding
Adam White, Research Fellow, Hoover Institution; Director of the Center for Study of the Administrative State at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School
Tobi Young, General Counsel, Staff Secretary, and Secretary of the Board, George W. Bush Presidential Center
Moderator: Hon. Jennifer Elrod, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
What is the constitutional and statutory scope of the Executive Branch’s power in the area of immigration? And how does the Executive’s enforcement, or lack of enforcement, of immigration law impact states and local cities? This panel is a discussion from federal and state perspectives on the current status of the Executive’s implementation of immigration law and the scope of the Executive Branch’s power and discretion in the area of immigration. Topics include: Prosecutorial discretion in the enforcement of immigration law, the Executive’s statutory and constitutional power to exclude aliens from entry, sanctuary cities and the potential consequences of refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, and whether statements made on the campaign trail can be used in determining the legality of an Executive order. The panel will be moderated by Judge Jerry Smith.
Allyson Ho – Partner, Morgan Lewis
Brantley Starr - Deputy First Assistant Attorney General, State of Texas
Andre Segura – Legal Director, American Civil Liberties Union of Texas
Moderator: Hon. Jerry Smith – U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
On Wednesday, October 4th at noon in the Moot Court Room the GW Federalist Society Chapter will host a timely debate on the Statutory Authority of Sexual Assault inspired by the ongoing discussion of how the Department of Education is pursuing sexual assault cases on college campuses.
Featuring:
Wendy Murphy, Adjunct Professor of Sexual Violence Law at New England Law|Boston
Stuart Taylor, Contributing Editor, National Journal
Moderator: Prof. Renee Lettow Lerner, Donald Phillip Rothschild Research Professor, George Washington University Law School
The Federalist Society and Commonwealth Shakespeare Company presentShakespeare’s Measure by Measure and the Art of Judging.
The Federalist Society, Commonwealth Shakespeare Company, and McCarter & English, LLP present their 15th Annual Shakespeare and the Law program featuring a staged reading of Measure by Measure followed by a discussion of the legal and political issues addressed in the play and their application to today's headlines.
Hosted by:
Justice Charles Canady, Florida Supreme Court
Judge Jeffrey Sutton, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
Participants Include:
Chief Judge Patti Saris, Massachusetts U.S. District Court
Judge Nathaniel Gorton, Massachusetts U.S. District Court
Judge Timothy Hillman, Massachusetts U.S. District Court
Judge Dennis Saylor IV, Massachusetts U.S. District Court
Judge Douglas Woodlock, Massachusetts U.S. District Court
Judge Rya Zobel, Massachusetts U.S. District Court
Justice Kimberly Budd, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Justice Robert Cordy, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (retired)
Justice, Judith Cowin, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (retired)
Judge William Meade, Massachusetts Appeals Court
Judge Eric Neyman, Massachusetts Appeals Court
Directed by:
Steven Maler, Artistic Director of Commonwealth Shakespeare Company
Produced by:
Daniel J. Kelly, Partner at McCarter & English
October 2nd will mark the first day of oral arguments for the 2017 Supreme Court term. The Court's docket already includes major cases involving Federal Courts, redistricting, the First Amendment, election law, business law, class actions, international and immigration issues, Alien Tort Statute, and the Fourth Amendment. -- The full list of cases granted thus far for the upcoming term can be viewed on SCOTUSblog here. The panelists will also discuss the current composition and the future of the Court. -- Featuring: Kyle Duncan, Schaerr Duncan, LLP; Prof. Samuel Estreicher, New York University School of Law; Prof. Orin Kerr, George Washington University Law School; Andrew Pincus, Mayer Brown, LLP; and Carrie Severino, Judicial Crisis Network. Moderator: Jan Crawford, CBS News.
The Yale Federalist Society presents a conversation and Q&A on income inequality. Is it fair or unfair? -- Featuring: Dr. Yaron Brook, Executive Chairman, Ayn Rand Institute and Author, "Equal Is Unfair" -- and -- Prof. Daniel Markovits, Guido Calabresi Professor of Law, Yale Law School and Author, "Snowball Inequality"
Each year, the U.S. Congress is responsible for developing a federal budget and must pass 12 bills to appropriate the next year’s discretionary federal spending. These bills reflect the priorities of the Members and the Congressional budget process is intended to allow for separate inspection and approval of proposed expenditures. -- For the first two hundred years of our nation’s history nearly every federal budget was proposed, considered and accepted in this fashion. However, since the late 1970s, the Congress has frequently forgone the traditional budgeting procedure and chosen to utilize omnibus spending bills. Omnibus packages offer members of Congress an expedited voting process, combining what is ostensibly all 12 appropriations bills into one decision presented to the whole. This methodology saves the Legislative Branch a great deal of time. -- Some contend that the resulting bills are too long and virtually no Congressional office can give them proper attention before a vote. Others contend that the density of omnibus spending bills create a public smokescreen, burying controversial measures, avoiding scrutiny, and tacking on wasteful appropriations intended to favor specific constituents or special-interest groups. Further arguments highlight the structural weaknesses that occur when spending decisions are separated from the committees that are charged to provide oversight. -- Join the Federalist Society’s Article I Initiative as our panel deliberates this important contemporary topic. Does the current appropriations process and eventual omnibus legislation improve how our Congress functions or weaken it? Does the apparent efficiency come at the expense of proper deliberation and scrutiny? -- Featuring: David Hoppe, President Hoppe Strategies and Professor Frances Lee, Professor of Government and Politics, University of Maryland.
The George Washington University Law School (GW) Federalist Society Chapter presents a conversation with United States Senator Rand Paul moderated by GW Professor Orin Kerr. Senator Paul will discuss Congressional authority under Article I and will field questions from the audience. -- Speakers: Professor Orin Kerr, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School and Hon. Rand Paul, United States Senator, Kentucky.
Every state has laws or regulations that require individuals seeking to offer a certain service to the public first to obtain approval from the state before they may operate in the state. Recent years have seen a significant proliferation of such laws, with less than 5% of jobs in the American economy requiring a license in the 1950’s to between 25-30% today. Although licensing in some occupations may benefit the public by reducing information asymmetry and/or ensuring a minimum quality level for a particular service, the significant growth in the number of occupations governed by some form of licensing requirements poses a potential threat to competition and consumer welfare. Our panel of experts will discuss these important issues. -- This event took place at Crowell & Moring in Washington, DC, on August 9, 2017. -- Featuring: Hon. Maureen Ohlhausen, Acting Chair of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission; James Cooper, Associate Professor, Scalia Law School at George Mason University; and Sarah Oxenham Allen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Moderator: Koren W. Wong-Ervin, Director, Global Antitrust Institute, Scalia Law School at George Mason University. Moderator: Lisa Kimmel, Senior Counsel, Crowell & Moring LLP.
On July 13, 2017, Miguel Estrada of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP delivered the Annual Supreme Court Round Up at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.
What kind of war power does the Constitution grant the President and Congress? What limitations apply to each branch concerning the power to declare war and the use of military force? Over time, how has the Framers’ understanding been followed and in what ways has it been ignored? Do the founding principles regarding these topics still have application to our modern era? Join us for an insightful discussion with Former Congressman Mickey Edwards and National Review Institute Senior Fellow Andrew C. McCarthy. -- This event was held on July 7, 2017, at the Russell Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. Mickey Edwards, Former Congressman, Vice President and Program Director, Rodel Fellowships In Public Leadership, Aspen Institute and Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National Review Institute. Moderator: Nate Kaczmarek, Deputy Director, Article I Initiative, The Federalist Society.
In this sequel to our panel last year on “The Limits of Federal Criminal Law,” we ask a distinguished panel to discuss how enforcement policy is evolving under Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Is the Yates Memo targeting individual employees of a corporation still operative? Do the speeches of the new Attorney General give any insights into future enforcement tendencies? -- This event was held on June 13, 2017, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. Alice Fisher, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP; Matthew S. Miner, Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP; and Hon. George J. Terwilliger III, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP. Moderator: Hon. Richard J. Leon, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Antitrust policy during much of the Obama Administration was a continuation of the Bush Administration’s minimal involvement in the market. However, at the end of President Obama’s term, there was a significant pivot to investigations and blocks of high profile mergers such as Halliburton-Baker Hughes, Comcast-Time Warner Cable, Staples-Office Depot, Sysco-US Foods, and Aetna-Humana and Anthem-Cigna. How will or should the new Administration analyze proposed mergers, including certain high profile deals like Walgreens-Rite Aid, AT&T-Time Warner, Inc., and DraftKings-FanDuel? -- This lively luncheon panel discussion covered these topics and the anticipated future of antitrust enforcement. This event was held on June 9, 2017, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. -- Speakers: Albert A. Foer, Founder and Senior Fellow, American Antitrust Institute; Prof. Geoffrey A. Manne, Executive Director, International Center for Law & Economics; and Hon. Joshua D. Wright, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law and President, Cass & Associates, PC.
The Fifth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference will examine the changing and often convoluted relationship between the legislative and the executive branches in the United States government. The Conference began with an opening address by Senator Mike Lee and concluded with this closing address by OMB Director Mick Mulvaney. -- The 2017 Executive Branch Review Conference was held at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. on May 17, 2017. -- Featuring: Hon. Mick Mulvaney, Director, Office of Management and Budget. Introduction: Hon. David M. McIntosh, President, Club for Growth and Vice Chairman, The Federalist Society.
The Fifth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference will examine the changing and often convoluted relationship between the legislative and the executive branches in the United States government. The Conference began with this opening address by Senator Mike Lee and concluded with a closing address by OMB Director Mick Mulvaney. -- This panel of the 2017 Executive Branch Review Conference was held at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. on May 17, 2017. -- Featuring: Ms. Sally Greenberg, Executive Director, National Consumers League; Mr. Robert Fisher, Senior Vice President, Federal Government Relations, Verizon; Mr. Abbott "Tad" Lipsky, Acting Director of Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission; and Mr. Bret Swanson, Visiting Fellow, Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology, American Enterprise Institute. Moderator: Hon. Kathleen Q. Abernathy, Former Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission.
The Fifth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference will examine the changing and often convoluted relationship between the legislative and the executive branches in the United States government. The Conference began with an opening address by Senator Mike Lee and concluded with a closing address by OMB Director Mick Mulvaney. -- This panel of the 2017 Executive Branch Review Conference was held at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. on May 17, 2017. -- Featuring: Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law and President, Cass & Associates, PC; Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law; Prof. Richard Pierce, Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School; and Mr. M. Edward Whelan, President, Ethics and Public Policy Center. Moderator: Hon. Thomas B. Griffith, United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit.
The Fifth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference will examine the changing and often convoluted relationship between the legislative and the executive branches in the United States government. The Conference began with an opening address by Senator Mike Lee and concluded with a closing address by OMB Director Mick Mulvaney. -- This panel of the 2017 Executive Branch Review Conference was held at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. on May 17, 2017. -- Featuring: Prof. Lisa Heinzerling, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Mr. Matthew Spalding, Associate Vice President and Dean for Educational Programs, Hillsdale College; Mr. Adam J. White, Research Fellow, The Hoover Institution and Adjunct Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; and Ms. Elizabeth B. Wydra, President, Constitutional Accountability Center. Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.
The Fifth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference will examine the changing and often convoluted relationship between the legislative and the executive branches in the United States government. The Conference began with an opening address by Senator Mike Lee and concluded with a closing address by OMB Director Mick Mulvaney. -- This panel of the 2017 Executive Branch Review Conference was held at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. on May 17, 2017. -- Featuring: Hon. James C. Miller, III, Senior Advisor, Husch Blackwell LLP; Mr. Alan C. Raul, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP; and Mr. Zachary I. Schram, Oversight Counsel, United States Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Moderator: Hon. Kathleen S. Casey, Senior Advisor, Patomak Global Partners.
The Fifth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference will examine the changing and often convoluted relationship between the legislative and the executive branches in the United States government. The Conference began with an opening address by Senator Mike Lee and concluded with a closing address by OMB Director Mick Mulvaney. -- This panel of the 2017 Executive Branch Review Conference was held at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. on May 17, 2017. -- Featuring: Mr. Adam Ambrogi, Program Director, Elections, Democracy Fund Voice; Mr. Robert Popper, Senior Attorney and Director, Election Integrity Project, Judicial Watch; Mr. Robert A. Sensenbrenner, General Counsel, Committee on House Administration; and Mr. John Tanner, Former Chief, United States Department of Justice Voting Section. Moderator: Mr. Will Consovoy, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC.
The Fifth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference will examine the changing and often convoluted relationship between the legislative and the executive branches in the United States government. The Conference began with an opening address by Senator Mike Lee and concluded with a closing address by OMB Director Mick Mulvaney. -- This panel of the 2017 Executive Branch Review Conference was held at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. on May 17, 2017. -- Please excuse the below average audio quality of this video. -- Featuring: Mr. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis, Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School and Hon. Michael B. Mukasey, Of Counsel, Debevoise & Plimpton. Moderator: Mr. Benjamin Wittes, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution.
The Fifth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference will examine the changing and often convoluted relationship between the legislative and the executive branches in the United States government. The Conference began with an opening address by Senator Mike Lee and concluded with a closing address by OMB Director Mick Mulvaney. -- This panel of the 2017 Executive Branch Review Conference was held at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. on May 17, 2017. -- Featuring: Hon. Todd F. Gaziano, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Law and Executive Director of Pacific Legal Foundation's DC Center; Hon. David M. McIntosh, President, Club for Growth and Vice Chairman, The Federalist Society; and Prof. David C. Vladeck, A.B. Chettle Chair in Civil Procedure, Georgetown University Law Center. Moderator: Mr. Stuart S. Taylor, Jr., Contributing Editor, National Journal.
The Fifth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference will examine the changing and often convoluted relationship between the legislative and the executive branches in the United States government. The Conference began with this opening address by Senator Mike Lee and concluded with a closing address by OMB Director Mick Mulvaney. -- This address at the 2017 Executive Branch Review Conference was held at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. on May 17, 2017. -- Featuring: Hon. Mike Lee, United States Senate, Utah. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.
State courts are often faced with cases raising arguments under state and federal law. If there are similar provisions in both the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution, how should judges interpret these provisions? Must they be interpreted in the same way? If not, then what is needed to justify a court's decision to interpret text in the Ohio Constitution differently than similar (or even identical) text in the United States Constitution? -- This panel was held during the Inaugural Ohio Chapters Conference at the Athletic Club of Columbus on Friday, March 31, 2017. -- Featuring: Hon. Judith French, Ohio Supreme Court and Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit. Moderator: Hon. Steve Yarbrough, Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals. Introduction: Matt Kemp, President, Toledo Lawyers Chapter.
In our nation's federalist system, the federal government's powers are limited to those that have been prescribed by the U.S Constitution, with additional powers reserved to the states. In recent years, state attorneys general have served as a robust check on executive branch overreach, increasingly using litigation to challenge federal encroachment with respect to environmental and land use issues, immigration, labor policy, and health care (among other examples). This panel will discuss what Ohio can and should do to fight federal encroachment into state affairs. How will federalism be protected during the Trump Administration? -- This panel was held during the Inaugural Ohio Chapters Conference at the Athletic Club of Columbus on Friday, March 31, 2017. -- Featuring: Hon. Mike DeWine, Ohio Attorney General; David Fornshell, Warren County Prosecutor; Hon. Wes Goodman, Ohio House of Representatives, District 87 and Hon. Dave Yost, Ohio Auditor of State. Moderator: Eric Murphy, Ohio State Solicitor. Introduction: Ben Flowers, President, Columbus Lawyers Chapter.
The keynote address at the Inaugural Ohio Chapters Conference was delivered at the Athletic Club of Columbus on Friday, March 31, 2017, by J.D. Vance, Author of Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis. He was introduced by Jedidiah Bressman, President of the Ohio State University Student Chapter.
Article V of the United States Constitution permits state legislatures to call a constitutional convention to consider amendments to the Constitution. State legislatures have never utilized this procedure. Calls for an Article V Convention have increased in recent years in response to the growth of the federal government. This panel will discuss whether the States should hold an Article V Convention to amend the Constitution, with a focus on whether Ohio would benefit from such amendments. -- This panel opened the Inaugural Ohio Chapters Conference at the Athletic Club of Columbus on Friday, March 31, 2017. -- Featuring: Hon. Tom Brinkman, Ohio House of Representatives, District 27; Hon. Jennifer Brunner, Ohio 10th District Court of Appeals; Professor David Forte, Professor of Law, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland State University and Hon. Matt Huffman, Ohio State Senate, District 12. Moderator: Hon. Larry Obhof, Ohio Senate President.
Introduction: Matthew Byrne, President, Cincinnati Lawyers Chapter.
In Professor David Schoenbrod’s new book DC CONFIDENTIAL: Inside the Five Tricks of Washington, he asserts that in the 1960s, elected officials in Congress and the White House figured out a system for enacting laws and spending programs—one that lets them take the credit for promising good news while avoiding the blame for producing bad results. He argues that with five key tricks, politicians of both parties now avoid accounting to the people for what the government does. The result is a vicious cycle of grand promises and budget gimmicks by elected officials, failed policies, blame-shifting by politicians, and spiraling distrust of a government too dysfunctional and unaccountable to solve major problems. The book contends that the ground rules of government must change so that elected officials will once again shoulder responsibility for results. Schoenbrod also offers a practical action plan for reform including a legislative solution—the "Honest Deal Act"—which would change incentives and fundamentally reform government procedures. -- This program was held at the Rayburn House Office Building on April 19, 2017. -- Featuring: Honorable Martin Frost, Former Congressman, Vice-President, U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress; Professor David Schoenbrod, Trustee Professor of Law, New York Law School; and Professor Adam White, Research Fellow, The Hoover Institution and Adjunct Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University.
For the past two decades, the U.S. has experimented with “market”-based competitive wholesale electric markets. Through FERC-superintended regional transmission organizations (RTOs) and Independent System Operators (ISOs), large regions of the country have procured electricity through a competitive generation model. Recently, those markets have been questioned as baseload electric resources – nuclear, coal and combined-cycle gas – have become unprofitable in the face of tax-favored renewable energy and low cost natural gas. States, in particular, have engaged in regulatory and legislative steps to rescue distressed baseload resources. The New York Clean Energy Standard, the Illinois Future Energy Jobs Bill and moves by states as politically disparate as Massachusetts, Ohio, Connecticut, Texas and California have brought the issue of the future of electric markets to the fore. This program will examine the legal and regulatory issues facing the states, the FERC, the courts and the entire electricity industry. -- This program was held at the National Press Club on April 18, 2017, and included an opening Keynote from Acting FERC Chairman Cheryl A. LaFleur followed by an expert panel discussion. -- Featuring: Larry Gasteiger, Chief, Federal Regulatory Policy for PSEG; Ray Gifford, Denver Managing Partner, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP; Hon. Cheryl A. LaFleur, Acting FERC Chairman; Prof. William (Bill) Hogan, Research Director, Harvard Electricity Policy Group, Raymond Plank Professor of Global Energy Policy, Harvard University; and Steven Schleimer, Senior Vice President for Government and Regulatory Affairs, Calpine Corp.
Moderator: Tony Clark, Former FERC Commissioner, Senior Advisor, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP.
The Federalist Society hosted a lunch and discussion on the role of Economic Liberty in the United States on Tuesday, March 28, 2017. -- Today, many job-seeking Americans and companies face significant government barriers that restrict their full participation in the economy. These barriers, often in the form of restrictive regulatory regimes, prevent consumers from using their skills, entering new professions, and starting new businesses. They also prevent low and middle-class Americans from moving up the ladder. Competition and free markets have the power to spur innovation, create new business models, and drive economic opportunity and growth. -- Policymakers, like Acting Chair of the Federal Trade Commission Maureen Ohlhausen, have begun to take actions to address these barriers. For example, Ms. Ohlhausen recently announced the creation of an Economic Liberty Task Force to advance economic liberty issues, with a particular focus on occupational licensing regulations. These topics and others were addressed. -- Speakers Include: Prof. Michelle P. Connolly, Professor of the Practice of Economics, Duke University; Clark Neily, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice; and Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies. Moderator: Hon. Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Acting Chairman, Federal Trade Commission. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.
Senator Ted Cruz gives the keynote address to open the Federalist Society's lunch and discussion on the role of Economic Liberty in the United States on Tuesday, March 28, 2017. Senator Cruz was introduced by Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.
Professor Richard Epstein delivered the keynote address titled "A common lawyer looks at the constitutional protection for freedom of speech" during the 2017 National Student Symposium at Columbia Law School on Saturday, March 4, 2017. -- The theme of this talk is what happens if we think about freedom of speech as an ideal, without any of the standard constitutional glosses—strict scrutiny, purposive interpretations—and then how does it play out. It does differ from the current law, quite radically on some key question that lie at the border line between tortious actions and free speech: offensive behavior, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, deceit, coercion and the like. The answers sometimes overlap and sometimes differ, and I hope to explain why the common law approach is superior. -- Keynote: Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University School of Law. Introduction: Mr. Shiva H. Logarajah, Symposium Chair, Columbia Law School Student Chapter.
Universities have long been thought of, and cherished, as places for the free exchange of ideas. This idea has, however, come under pressure. Student groups have now routinely exercised pressure to keep people who they disagree with off campus. And safe spaces and trigger warnings—which limit speech that some have deemed offensive—have become regular features at universities across the nation. -- Many see the climate of shouting-down or protesting the expression of others' viewpoints as the symbolic beginning of an era limiting the freedom of speech on college campuses. While surveys seem to show a majority of students disagree with universities curtailing speech, even when it is offensive, vocal minorities with opposing views have been the ones capturing news headlines and the attention of the public at large. -- With the accessibility to speech provided by the internet and viral sharing of information, expression and speech spread with more ease than ever, but this same technology creates opportunities for back-lash on social media and gives a larger stage to those who would threaten the free market of ideas at our nation's universities. -- The First Amendment protects principles which have always required vigilance to maintain, and today's world makes no exception. This panel will explore how these developments have affected intellectual discourse on campus and if they are conducive to a meaningful learning experience at our universities. -- This panel was presented at the 2017 National Student Symposium on Saturday, March 4, 2017, at Columbia Law School in New York City, New York. -- Featuring: Prof. Robert Post, Dean and Sol & Lillian Goldman Professor of Law, Yale Law School; Prof. Phillip Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; Prof. Suzanne Goldberg, Executive Vice President for University Life, Columbia University; Herbert and Doris Wechsler Clinical Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; and Prof. Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law; Director, Constitutional Law Center; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution. Moderator: Hon. Thomas Hardiman, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
In September, 2016, the United States Commission on Civil Rights released a report entitled Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling Nondiscrimination Principles with Civil Liberties. In the report, the USCCR concluded that religious exercise is in tension with individual rights of certain subsections of the American population. It then went on to make a number of recommendations that suggest that that religious exercise must give way to civil rights protections when the two come into conflict: -- Narrow Tailoring of Religious Exceptions: Federal and state courts, lawmakers, and policy-makers at every level must tailor religious exceptions to civil liberties and civil rights protections as narrowly as applicable law requires. -- Protections of Beliefs Over Conduct: The recognition of religious exemptions to nondiscrimination laws and policies should be made pursuant to the holdings of Employment Division v. Smith, which protect religious beliefs rather than conduct. -- Amending the Religious Freedoms Restoration Act (“RFRA") (and State equivalents): Federal legislation should be considered to clarify that RFRA creates First Amendment Free Exercise Clause rights only for individuals and religious institutions and only to the extent that they do not unduly burden civil liberties and civil rights protections against status-based discrimination. States with laws similar to RFRA should similarly amend their laws. -- This panel will first explore whether the USSCR Report is correct that there is, in fact, an irreconcilable tension between religious liberty and civil liberties. And second, if there is a conflict between religious liberty and civil liberties, the panel will debate whether the recommendation by USCCR to limit religious exemptions is the best way to navigate such conflict. -- This panel was presented at the 2017 National Student Symposium on Saturday, March 4, 2017, at Columbia Law School in New York City, New York. -- Featuring: Prof. Bill Marshall, Kenan Professor of Law, University of North Carolina; Prof. Michael Paulsen, Distinguished University Chair and Professor, University of St. Thomas; Prof. Marci Hamilton, Fox Family Pavilion Distinguished Scholar, University of Pennsylvania; and Prof. Douglas Laycock, Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law; University of Virginia Law School; Professor of Religious Studies, University of Virginia. Moderator: Hon. William H. Pryor, Jr. U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit.
In August 2016, the American Bar Association (ABA) added new anti-discrimination guidelines for lawyers to its Model Rules of Professional Conduct through section 8.4. This section now binds lawyers to adhere to particular speech codes in the many states that have adopted it. -- The provision labels engagement “in conduct that [a] lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law." The ABA has defined discrimination and harassment to include “harmful verbal or physical conduct that manifests bias or prejudice towards others. Harassment includes sexual harassment and derogatory or demeaning verbal or physical conduct. Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature." The conduct guidelines extend to “the practice of law," including, “representing clients; interacting with witnesses, coworkers, court personnel, lawyers and other while engaged in the practice of law; operating or managing a law firm or law practice; and participating in bar association, business or social activities in connection with the practice of law." -- Some have described this section as infringing on the rights on lawyers to speak their mind, while others have argued it is necessary to prevent discrimination within the profession. This debate will discuss the implications of Model Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4 and its impact on workplace discrimination and lawyers' rights. -- This debate was presented at the 2017 National Student Symposium on Saturday, March 4, 2017, at Columbia Law School in New York City, New York. -- Featuring: Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law and Mr. Robert N. Weiner, Partner, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP. Moderator: Hon. Lavenski Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit.
Congress' passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 did not end the debate on campaign finance. Instead, it arguably created more legal questions than it did answers. -- The Act's passage quickly unleashed subsequent litigation, resulting in a number of Supreme Court decisions directly related to the BCRA and, more broadly, to general laws regulating campaign finance. These recent Supreme Court cases, including the much-discussed Citizens United decision, struck down many campaign regulations on the grounds that they infringe upon individuals' First Amendment rights. Some have charged that decisions like these have increased the influence of a privileged few in our political system. Others have argued that these decisions are not only doctrinally correct, but the prudential fears many have expressed have not been borne out. -- Still, Americans remain discontented with the current campaign finance regime. According to a New York Times/CBS News poll in 2015, 46% of respondents agree that the country needs to completely rebuild its campaign finance system, while 39% believed it requires fundamental change. Today, groups and individuals continue to fight limits on political contributions, and restrictions on political speech, while others push for stricter regulations. -- This panel will weigh in on whether decisions like Citizens United are correct as a matter of law, and if they are desirable from a policy perspective. The panel will also discuss the jurisprudential foundations of Citizens United—including the landmark case of Buckley v. Valeo—and where future fights over campaign finance regulations are likely to occur. -- This panel was presented at the 2017 National Student Symposium on Saturday, March 4, 2017, at Columbia Law School in New York City, New York. -- Featuring: Prof. Brad Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law, Capital University Law School; Former FEC Commissioner; Prof. Richard Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law; Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University School of Law; and Prof. Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Fellow, Brennan Center for Justice; Associate Professor of Law, Stetson University College of Law. Moderator: Hon. Richard J. Sullivan, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York.
The Internet has made information not only much more accessible, it has allowed almost anyone to be a provider of such information. -- This has not been without consequence: the refusal to take down an obscene video led to an eye-popping $140 million jury verdict and the subsequent collapse of Gawker Media. Personal e-mails or national secrets can quickly turn into political ammunition through the amplification of Wikileaks. A wide range of individuals, from Dan Rather to former President Barack Obama, have criticized the spread of misinformation. They claim false information is being dressed up as legitimate online journalism with the intent to deceive and misinform. Technology CEOs have felt the pressure. For example, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is devoting considerable resources to developing methods to regulate speech on his platform— probably the most significant in the world. But, as Zuckerberg himself said, “identifying 'the truth' is complicated." -- This panel will explore this new reality and whether it necessitates new regulation. Will any effort be imprecise, such that protected speech will necessarily be silenced? Does such regulation go against the principles enshrined in the First Amendment? -- This panel was presented at the 2017 National Student Symposium on Friday, March 3, 2017, at Columbia Law School in New York City, New York. -- Featuring: Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University School of Law; Prof. Irina Manta, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Intellectual Property Law, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University; Mr. Jameel Jaffer, Director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University; and Prof. Steve Coll, Dean & Henry R. Luce Professor of Journalism, Columbia Journalism School; Staff Writer, The New Yorker. Moderator: Hon. Reena Raggi, Circuit Judge, US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Opening: Dean Gillian Lester, Dean and Lucy G. Moses Professor of Law, Columbia Law School.
These remarks were given by the Honorable Michael R. Pence, Vice President of the United States on February 4, 2017, at Congress Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. -- Vice President Pence was welcomed by Eugene B. Meyer, President of the Federalist Society. Prayer was led by Reverend Paul Rourke, SJ, Chaplain of the Georgetown University Law Center. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Vance Thomas Yanney II of the Shipley School, and the national anthem was sung by Leigh Emery, Co-founder of Broadway Lights the Night.
This panel, Combating Federal Overreach, was held on February 4, 2017, at the 2017 Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's BoardWalk Inn at the Walt Disney World® Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. -- Featuring: Amit Agarwal, Solicitor General, Florida; Andrew Brasher, Solicitor General, Alabama; Scott Keller, Solicitor General, Texas; and Elbert Lin, Solicitor General, West Virginia. Moderator: Hon. Allen Winsor, Florida 1st District Court of Appeals and Former Solicitor General, Florida. Introduction: Rachel Nordby, Deputy Solicitor General, Florida Office of the Attorney General.
This address by the Honorable Mike Lee (U.S. Senator, Utah) was given on February 4, 2017, at the 2017 Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's BoardWalk Inn at the Walt Disney World® Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. Introduction by Jesse Panuccio, Acting Associate Attorney General / Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice.
This panel, Government Ethics & Corruption, was held on February 4, 2017, at the 2017 Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's BoardWalk Inn at the Walt Disney World® Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. -- Featuring: Nick Cox, Florida Statewide Prosecutor; Renee Flaherty, Institute for Justice; Todd Graves, Graves Garrett; and Prof. Matthew Stephenson, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. Moderator: Judge Susan Rothstein-Youakim, Florida Second District Court of Appeal. Introduction: Jefferson Knight, Owner, The Knight Law Firm.
This panel, Florida and the Future of Trade Policy, was held on February 4, 2017, at the 2017 Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's BoardWalk Inn at the Walt Disney World® Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. -- Featuring: Alice Ancona, Director of Global Outreach for the Florida Chamber of Commerce; Stephen Ezell, Vice President, Global Innovation Policy, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation; Dr. Thomas Palley, Senior Economic Policy Advisor, AFL-CIO; and Bryan Riley, Jay Van Andel Senior Policy Analyst, Trade Policy, The Heritage Foundation. Moderator: Judge Jonathan Gerber, Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal. Introduction: Morgan W. Streetman, Founder and Principal, Streetman Law. Remarks: Daniel Woodring, Principal Attorney, Woodring Law Firm.
This address by the Honorable Marco Rubio (U.S. Senator, Florida) was given on February 3, 2017, at the 2017 Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's BoardWalk Inn at the Walt Disney World® Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. Introduction by William W. Large, President, Florida Justice Reform Institute.
This panel, The Legacy of Justice Scalia, was held on February 3, 2017, at the 2017 Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's BoardWalk Inn at the Walt Disney World® Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. -- Featuring: Prof. John Baker, Professor Emeritus, LSU Law Center; Rachel Kovner, Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States; Prof. Michael Morley, Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law, Barry University; and Hon. Jeff Sutton, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Moderator: Hon. Ricky Polston, Justice, Florida Supreme Court. Introduction: Jordan E. Pratt, Deputy Solicitor General, Florida Office of the Attorney General.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral arguments in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley. The case questions whether the exclusion of churches from an otherwise neutral and secular aid program violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of Free Exercise of Religion and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Debaters will address this case along with the Blaine Amendment implications. -- This panel was part of the 2017 Annual Western Chapters Conference at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA on January 28, 2017. -- Debate—State Blaine Amendments -- David A. Cortman, Senior Counsel and Vice President of U.S. Litigation, Alliance Defending Freedom and Prof. Steven Green, Fred H. Paulus Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Religion, Law & Democracy, Willamette University College of Law. Moderator: Hon. Carlos Bea, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. Introduction: Lisa Ezell, Vice President & Director of Lawyers Chapters, The Federalist Society.
What is the proper role of the State judiciary when considering questions of federal law? If there are independent and adequate federal and State grounds, on which basis should a state supreme court decide a case? -- This panel was part of the 2017 Annual Western Chapters Conference at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA on January 28, 2017. -- Luncheon: Conversation with State Supreme Court Justices -- Hon. Clint Bolick, Arizona Supreme Court and Hon. Stephen Markman, Michigan Supreme Court. Moderator: Hon. Diane Sykes, U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit. Introduction: Jennifer Perkins, Assistant Solicitor General, AG Opinions and Ethics at Arizona Attorney General's Office.
The past forty years have seen a surge in efforts to litigate under state constitutional provisions furthering individual liberties. Panelists could look to numerous examples of differences between the state and federal constitutions (examples include criminal justice, property rights, same-sex marriage, education/school choice, labor, speech, and economic liberty) and explore how such differences have affected litigation strategy and forum shopping. Which emerging controversies are ripe to be litigated in state courts as opposed to the federal courts? What about business and arbitration cases? In the light of the results of the 2016 election, might some litigators further turn to the state courts to best protect liberty in light of changes to the federal bench? -- This panel was part of the 2017 Annual Western Chapters Conference at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA on January 28, 2017. -- Litigating State Constitutional Issues -- Thomas F. Ahearne, Foster Pepper and Counsel to Plaintiffs, McCleary v. State; Paul Avelar, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice; and Jeremy Rosen, Partner, Horvitz & Levy LLP and Director, 9th Circuit Appellate Clinic, Pepperdine University School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Carolyn Kuhl, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Introduction: Joel Ard, Member, Foster Pepper PLLC and Carrie Ann Donnell, Legal Programs Director, Goldwater Institute.
In 1977, the publication of Justice William Brennan’s article, “State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights,” provoked many litigators to look to the state courts to enhance individual liberties beyond the scope of the federal constitution. Panelists will discuss the legacy of Justice Brennan’s call for state constitutions to serve as a bulwark for individual liberties. How have state courts responded? Panelists will also discuss if the advancement of federalism has been an unintended consequence of this call to action. They will also discuss what this trend toward greater state judicial engagement means for the separation of powers and legislative action. -- This panel was part of the 2017 Annual Western Chapters Conference at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA on January 28, 2017. -- Forty Years Later: The Brennan Article and State Constitutions -- Dean James A. Gardner, Interim Dean, SUNY Distinguished Professor and Bridget and Thomas Black Professor, University at Buffalo School of Law; Prof. Kenneth Miller, Claremont McKenna College; and Prof. Derek Muller, Pepperdine University School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Jay Bybee, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society.
Congressman Goodlatte discusses the House Judiciary Committee's agenda for the 115th Congress. He delivered these remarks on Wednesday, February 1, 2017, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. Bob Goodlatte, United States House of Representatives. Introduction: Hon. C. Boyden Gray, Founding Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates.
The Federalist Society's Practice Group and Student Divisions and the American Branch of the International Law Association (ABILA) are pleased to present a half-day conference on the future of international and national law under freshly inaugurated President Trump. This panel will feature a lively discussion between leading international lawyers the Hon. John Bellinger and Associate Dean and Professor Rosa Brooks about whether international law will matter to the new administration. The luncheon panel will be moderated by Professor David Stewart. -- This panel was part of the conference on International Law in the Trump Era: Expectations, Hopes, and Fears held on January 23, 2017, at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, DC. -- Luncheon Panel: Will International Law Matter to the Trump Administration? -- Hon. John B. Bellinger, III, former Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State and the National Security Council and Prof. Rosa Brooks, Associate Dean, Graduate Programs & Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Moderator: Prof. David Stewart, President, American Branch of the International Law Association (ABILA).
The Federalist Society's Practice Group and Student Divisions and the American Branch of the International Law Association (ABILA) are pleased to present a half-day conference on the future of international and national law under freshly inaugurated President Trump. This second panel will discuss the future of American alliances and interventions under the Trump administration. -- This panel was part of the conference on International Law in the Trump Era: Expectations, Hopes, and Fears held on January 23, 2017, at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, DC. -- Panel II: Alliances and Interventions -- Hon. Brian H. Hook, Former Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations; Hon. Lawrence Korb, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense; and Amb. Kristen Silverberg, Former U.S. Ambassador to the European Union. Moderator: Prof. Jamil N. Jaffer, Former Chief Counsel and Senior Advisor, U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
The Federalist Society's Practice Group and Student Divisions and the American Branch of the International Law Association (ABILA) are pleased to present a half-day conference on the future of international and national law under freshly inaugurated President Trump. This first panel will focus on the future of trade law, under a president who made free trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and NAFTA a campaign issue. -- This panel was part of the conference on International Law in the Trump Era: Expectations, Hopes, and Fears held on January 23, 2017, at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, DC. -- Panel 1: What is the Future of Trade Law? -- Prof. Timothy J. Keeler, Former Chief of Staff, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR); Prof. John O. McGinnis, Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice; and Prof. Alvaro Santos, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Moderator: Mr. Matthew R. A. Heiman, Former Attorney Advisor, U.S. Department of Justice for the National Security Division.
This panel will discuss administrative agencies’ increasing use of devices such as guidance letters, consent decrees, and Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (instead of final rules or adjudications issued with APA procedural protections) as mechanisms for setting major policies that may be effectively binding on private parties. -- This panel was held on January 6, 2017 during the 19th Annual Faculty Conference in San Francisco, CA. -- Panel: “Dear Colleague”/Guidance Letters, Consent Decrees, and other administrative law innovations -- Prof. Richard Epstein, New York University School of Law; Prof. Gail Heriot, University San Diego School of Law; Prof. Richard Pierce, The George Washington University Law School; and Prof. Aaron Saiger, Fordham University School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Michael W. McConnell, Stanford Law School.
December 2015 marked 150 years since the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment—an occasion of singular moral, political, and legal importance in American history. This panel reflects on that past with an eye toward the future. While the Amendment plainly outlaws slavery itself, does it go beyond that, or authorize Congress to go beyond that, and if so, how? -- This panel was held on January 5, 2017 during the 19th Annual Faculty Conference in San Francisco, CA. -- Panel: The Thirteenth Amendment 150 Years Later -- Prof. Jennifer Mason McAward, Notre Dame Law School; Prof. Alexander Tsesis, Loyola University of Chicago School of Law; and Prof. David Upham, University of Dallas. Moderator: Prof. Randy Barnett, Georgetown University Law Center.
This panel was held on January 5, 2017 during the 19th Annual Faculty Conference in San Francisco, CA. -- Young Legal Scholars Paper Presentations -- Prof. Daniel Hemel (University of Chicago Law School) & Prof. Aaron Nielson (Brigham Young University School of Law): "Chevron Step One-and-a-Half"; Prof. Ryan Holte (Southern Illinois College of Law) & Prof. Christopher Seaman (Washington & Lee University School of Law): “Patent Injunctions on Appeal: An Empirical Study of the Federal Circuit’s Application of eBay”; Prof. Stephen Sachs (Duke Law School): “Pennoyer Was Right: Jurisdiction and General Law”; Prof. Christopher Walker (Ohio State University College of Law): “Legislating in the Shadows”; and Mr. Ilan Wurman (Winston & Strawn): “As-Applied Nondelegation”. Commenter: Prof. Richard Epstein, New York University School of Law, University of Chicago Law School. Moderator: Prof. Amy Coney Barrett, Notre Dame Law School.
This debate will discuss the proper role of the criminal and civil jury in modern America and as understood at the Founding. It was held on January 5, 2017 during the 19th Annual Faculty Conference in San Francisco, CA. -- Luncheon Debate: The Past and Future of the Criminal and Civil Jury -- Prof. Renee Lettow Lerner, George Washington University Law School and Prof. Suja Thomas, University of Illinois College of Law. Moderator: Prof. Joshua Kleinfeld, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law.
This panel is about “corpus linguistics,” a technique that involves the use of computer searches of large collections of texts, or corpora, to determine meaning by reference to usage. It will discuss this technique’s potential value and limitations in informing the interpretation of different kinds of legal texts. -- This panel was held on January 5, 2017 during the 19th Annual Faculty Conference in San Francisco, CA. -- Welcome -- Hon. Lee Liberman Otis, The Federalist Society; AALS President Kellye Y. Testy, Dean, University of Washington School of Law; and Prof. Steven G. Calabresi, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law [on the late Justice Antonin Scalia] -- Panel: Corpus Linguistics and Legal Interpretation -- Justice Thomas Lee, Utah Supreme Court; Mr. Stephen Mouritsen, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP; and Prof. Lawrence Solan, Brooklyn Law School. Moderator: Prof. Kurt T. Lash, University of Illinois College of Law.
In the last year, the Department of Justice lost three major cases against Fed Ex, Vascular Solutions and Warner Chilcott. Critics argue that each case was an example of over-enforcement by DOJ and overcriminalization by Congress. Proponents assert that it is a critical role of government to police and dissuade bad acts by private citizens and corporations. Are there too many federal agencies, giving prosecutors too much power over individuals and corporations? Is it good policy to prosecute individual employees of a corporation, as suggested in the Yates memorandum? Panelists, including lawyers in each of these three cases, will discuss the limits of federal criminal law and prosecutions. -- This panel was held on December 8, 2016, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. -- Speakers: Cristina C. Arguedas, Partner, Arguedas, Cassman & Headley LLP; Leslie R. Caldwell, Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, The United States Department of Justice; Ben Hatch, Partner, McGuireWoods; John Richter, Partner, King & Spalding; and Joseph Savage, Partner, Goodwin Proctor. Moderator: Stuart S. Taylor, Contributing Editor, National Journal.
The final Showcase panel examines Justice Scalia's transformation of five very important areas of Supreme Court doctrine. First, Justice Scalia transformed freedom of expression doctrine by entrenching a rule of viewpoint neutrality in place of different tests for different kinds of speech. In the five to four flag burning cases, Justice Scalia teamed up with Justices Brennan and Marshall to protect political speech. In the five to four decision in Citizens United he did the same thing with a different block of Justices. In another five to four opinion, Justice Scalia recognized constitutional protection for hate speech in RAV v. City of St. Paul. He joined a summary affirmance of a Seventh Circuit opinion by Judge Frank Easterbrook banning Catherine MacKinnon's anti-pornography laws. Second, Justice Scalia revolutionized the law of the religion clauses by largely burying the Lemon test and leading the Supreme Court in affirming the constitutionality of education vouchers for religious schools. Third, Justice Scalia revolutionized the Second Amendment by finding that it protected an individual's right to bear arms to defend himself, and he was very libertarian and protective of criminal defendants' rights in his criminal procedure jurisprudence. Fourth, Justice Scalia surprised some observers with his criminal law and procedure opinions on searches, the Confrontation Clause, and more. Finally, Justice Scalia played what some describe as a unique role in standing, including in his opinion in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. -- This panel was held on November 19, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. Floyd Abrams, Partner, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP; Hon. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institute; Hon. David R. Stras, Minnesota Supreme Court; Prof. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, New York Law School; former President, American Civil Liberties Union; Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law; and Mr. Edward Whelan, President, Ethics & Public Policy Center. Moderator: Hon. Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Introduction: Hon. Lee Liberman Otis, Senior Vice President, The Federalist Society.
RESOLVED: Hostile Environment Law, On and Off Campus, Often Violates the First Amendment. -- The Ninth Annual Rosenkranz Debate was held on November 19, 2016, during The Federalist Society's 2016 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Prof. Deborah L. Rhode, Ernest W. McFarland Professor of Law; Director, Center on the Legal Profession; Director, Program in Law and Social Entrepreneurship, Stanford Law School and Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Jennifer W. Elrod, U.S Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society.
“Those who won our independence," Justice Brandeis wrote nearly a century ago, “eschewed silence coerced by law – the argument of force in its worst form." They believed that “the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones." Holding that belief, the Founding Generation added an amendment to the Constitution that expressly protects the freedom of speech. Today, however, public officials and private citizens facing what they believe to be “evil counsels" have sometimes responded not by offering good counsel but by invoking judicial processes. They use “the argument of force in its worst form" to silence opinions and speech that they disapprove of. -- Recent examples of this phenomenon include District Attorneys in Texas and Wisconsin who investigated and charged a sitting Governor, the whistleblower who exposed the practices of Planned Parenthood, and those whose political views diverged from those of the District Attorney. In two of those cases, investigators broke into homes and seized computers and documents. Significantly, in each case, the charges were dropped, although not without great angst and effort from the targeted. -- Mark Steyn has asserted that the process is, itself, the punishment. Steyn has been sued by a Penn State climatologist who famously claims that he was defamed when his writings were subjected to ridicule. Four years after the suit was filed, it is still in its preliminary stages. -- Most recently, a coterie of Attorneys General, aided by some senators, have declared their intention to stifle dissent on the subject of climate change. The Attorneys General of Massachusetts and the Virgin Islands sent subpoenas for documents to Exxon and a number of think tanks grounding their action on the contention that the dissenters are guilty of fraud. -- Are these actions appropriate uses of the judicial process? -- What, if anything, can be done to curtail the use of judicial processes to target speech? Are measures like Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation) laws an appropriate response? Are they constitutional? What about a federal anti-SLAPP law? -- It is noteworthy that the worst abuses have taken place in state courts. Should Congress allow removal to federal court when a defendant makes a plausible case that the relief sought would violate rights under the First Amendment? -- Featuring: Prof. Arthur Hellman, Professor of Law, Sally Ann Semenko Endowed Chair, University of Pittsburgh School Law; Hon. Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General, West Virginia; Prof. Patrick A. Parenteau, Senior Counsel, Professor of Law, Vermont Law School; and Ms. Kimberley A. Strassel, Wall Street Journal Editorial Board Member, Author of The Intimidation Game: How the Left is Silencing Free Speech. Moderator: Hon. Steven M. Colloton, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Introduction: Mr. John J. Park, Jr., Of Counsel, Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP.
In his nearly 30 years on the Court, Justice Scalia left a profound mark on many areas of the law, including property rights. From his seminal decisions in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council to his frequent questioning at oral argument, Justice Scalia helped define the relationship between property and the Constitution. While his critics have suggested that Justice Scalia's property rights jurisprudence manifested a willingness to engage in “judicial activism," others have defended Scalia's approach as consistent with original understandings of the text of the Constitution. -- This panel will address Justice Scalia's influence on constitutional understandings of property rights. Professor Ely has written extensively on the historical understandings of property rights including the popular book, The Guardian of Every Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property Rights. Professor Somin's recently published The Grasping Hand: "Kelo V. City of New London" and the Limits of Eminent Domain explores one of the Court's most notorious departures from the protection of property rights. Professor Hills is a renowned expert on the law of land use planning and has taken a more charitable view of the power of government to control the use of property. He is a co-author of Land Use Controls: Cases and Materials. The panel will be moderated by Justice Allison Eid, from the Colorado Supreme Court. -- Featuring: Prof. John Echeverria, Professor of Law, Vermont Law School; Prof. James W. Ely, Jr., Milton R. Underwood Professor of Law Emeritus, Professor of History Emeritus, Lecturer in Law, Vanderbilt Law School; Prof. Roderick M. Hills, Jr., William T. Comfort, III Professor of Law, New York University School of Law; Hon. Adam P. Laxalt, Attorney General, Nevada; and Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University. Moderator: Hon. Allison H. Eid, Colorado Supreme Court. Introduction: Mr. Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
For all of his many contributions to modern American jurisprudence, no area of law bears Justice Scalia's imprint more than administrative law. Indeed, he dedicated his entire career to it: from teaching at Virginia and Chicago, to serving in the Ford Administration, to his regulatory policy and legal writings at the American Enterprise Institute, to his service on the D.C. Circuit and ultimately the Supreme Court, he left a body of work unmatched by any modern Supreme Court justice. Whether writing in defense of particular doctrine or in criticism of it, his opinions and essays fundamentally shaped modern administrative law. Yet even late in his career, he continued to reflect and rethink his views, especially on questions such as Chevron deference and Seminole Rock deference. This panel collects some of the nation's most significant administrative law minds, to reflect on his legacy and evolution. -- This panel was held on November 19, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. Ronald A. Cass, President, Cass & Associates, PC and Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law; Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Prof. E. Donald Elliott, Senior of Counsel at Covington & Burling, Professor (Adjunct) of Law, Yale Law School; and Prof. Lisa Heinzerling, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Moderator: Mr. Eugene Scalia, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. Introduction: Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor, PLLC.
Justice Scalia also greatly influenced the law of statutory interpretation. By eliminating legislative history as a source of statutory meaning, Justice Scalia forced Congress to say what it meant in the text of the laws it adopted rather than hiding the ball in a forest of contradictory legislative history. Justice Scalia construed statutes by looking at the plain meaning of their texts. He revived the canons of statutory interpretations, which had fallen into disuse since the Legal Realist movement of the 1930's and 1940's. He even wrote a treatise on statutory interpretation, which no justice other than Justice Joseph Story in the early Nineteenth Century had done. In the Warren Court era, statutory cases rarely quoted the text of the statutes being interpreted and focused instead exclusively on the legislative history. Justice Scalia helped change that. Courts today always begin with the text of statutes and rarely look at the legislative history. Justice Scalia also played the key role in developing the doctrine of Chevron deference in Administrative Law, moving the interpretation of ambiguous delegations of legislative power to elected executive branch officials and away from courts. While it is clear why Justice Scalia expressed these views, he was also expressing, in the last years, great concern about how Chevron deference was working in practice. -- This panel was held on November 19, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. William Eskridge, Jr., John A. Garver Professor of Jurisprudence, Yale Law School; Prof. Abbe R. Gluck, Professor of Law and Faculty Director, The Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy, Yale Law School; Prof. Gary S. Lawson, Philip S. Beck Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law; and Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Moderator: Hon. Diane S. Sykes, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.
On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society believes that it is most fitting to dedicate an annual lecture on limited government and the spirit of freedom to the memory of Barbara Olson. She had a deep commitment to the rule of law and understood well the relationship between respecting limits on government power and the preservation of freedom. And, significantly, Barbara Olson was an individual who never took freedom for granted in her own life, even in her final terrifying moments-her inspiring and energetic human spirit is a testament to what one can achieve in a world that places a premium on human freedom. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals. In 2016, Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska delivered the lecture. -- This lecture was delivered on November 18, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Introduction by Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society.
This panel will consider Justice Scalia's legacy in national security law, revisiting his opinions in major national security cases, including Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and Boumediene v. Bush. It will also discuss the influence Justice Scalia's jurisprudence has exerted on national security law more broadly and his views on the role of the courts reviewing national security policy. -- This panel was held on November 18, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Bradford R. Clark, William Cranch Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School; Ms. Elizabeth Goitein, Co-Director, Liberty & National Security Program, Brennan Center for Justice; Mr. Adam Klein, Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security; and Prof. Stephen I. Vladeck, Professor of Law, The University of Texas at Austin School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Jerry E. Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Has Originalism played a significant role in the Supreme Court's free speech jurisprudence? One scholar has concluded that even Justice Scalia used Originalism in only 30% of his 56 opinions on freedom of expression through the 2010 Term. -- Do landmark freedom of expression opinions square with the original understanding of the First Amendment? The Amendment's protections have been held to cover flag burning, cross burning, commercial advertising, campaign funding, virtual child pornography, violent video games and DVDs, expressive association, protests at military funerals and abortion clinics, false statements of fact, and nude dancing. The Supreme Court has also held that the First Amendment to some extent limits disciplinary measures in public schools, government employment actions, and conditions attached to government benefits. -- This panel will discuss how Originalism has been used in fashioning freedom of expression doctrine, and whether it should be used more (or less). -- This panel was held on November 18, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. David F. Forte, Garwood Visiting Professor, Princeton University; Hon. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Director of the Constitutional Law Center; Stanford Law School, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institute; Prof. David M. Rabban, Dahr Jamail, Randall Hage Jamail and Robert Lee Jamail Regents Chair; University Distinguished Teaching Professor, University of Texas at Austin School of Law; and Prof. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, New York Law School; former President, American Civil Liberties Union. Moderator: Hon. Carlos T. Bea, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Erik S. Jaffe, Sole Practitioner, Erik S. Jaffe, PC.
Justice Scalia first entered public service in 1971, when he was appointed by President Richard Nixon to serve as the General Counsel for the Office of Telecommunications Policy (“OTP") in the White House. From that day in 1971 through his dissent in the Brand X case regarding broadband classification, Justice Scalia brought a deep understanding of technology policy to his career on the Supreme Court. And of course, Justice Scalia was never one to mince words. “It would be gross understatement to say that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is not a model of clarity. It is in many important respects a model of ambiguity or indeed even self-contradiction," he observed in AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Util. Bd. The Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group has brought together a panel of experts to discuss Justice Scalia's legacy on telecommunications and media issues and discuss current litigation through the lens of his jurisprudence. -- This panel was held on November 18, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law; Mr. Henry Goldberg, Goldberg, Godles, Wiener and Wright LLP; and Mr. Richard E. Wiley, Chairman Emeritus, Wiley Rein LLP. Moderator: Hon. Don Willett, Texas Supreme Court.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), in its more than five year existence, has ordered consumer financial service providers to return more than a billion dollars in monetary relief to consumers it believes were victims of practices that it deems unfair, deceptive, abusive, or otherwise violative of its view of regulations and laws. The CFPB has ordered monetary relief for discriminatory lending and proposed regulations that would shutter many low-income lending locations and encourage class actions lawsuits. Proponents of the Bureau point to fines collected and bad practices addressed. Critics assert that Bureau activities actually harm consumers rather than help them. This panel will assess whether the CFPB has been of net benefit or net harm to the people it was created to protect. -- This panel was held on November 18, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. John A. Allison, Chairman, Executive Advisory Council, Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, Cato Institute; Mr. Leonard N. Chanin, Of Counsel, Morrison & Foerster LLP; Mr. Deepak Gupta, Founding Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLC; and Prof. Todd J. Zywicki, Foundation Professor of Law and Executive Director, Law & Economics Center, Antonin Scalia School of Law, George Mason University. Moderator: Hon. Edith Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Introduction: Hon. Wayne A. Abernathy, Executive VP for Financial Institutions Policy and Regulatory Affairs, American Bankers Association.
The Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller recognized for the first time in our history that individual Americans have a right to gun ownership. Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller is widely regarded as a signal success for his originalist approach to constitutional interpretation. This panel will assess Heller's contribution to the law. How originalist was the opinion? Have the lower courts been faithful in applying Heller to issues outside its narrow holding? Is the Court likely to read Heller broadly or narrowly in the future? -- This panel was held on November 18, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. Noel J. Francisco, Partner, Jones Day; Prof. Nelson Lund, University Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; Prof. Michael O'Shea, Professor of Law, Oklahoma City University School of Law; and Prof. Allan Rostron, University of Missouri - Kansas City Law School. Moderator: Hon. Raymond M. Kethledge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Introduction: Hon. Gail Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law.
Senator Ted Cruz delivered this address at the 2016 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 18, 2016. He was introduced by Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups at The Federalist Society.
Governor Nikki Haley delivered this address at the 2016 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 18, 2016. She was introduced by Alan Gocha of ETC Capital. Mr. Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President of The Federalist Society, introduced Mr. Gocha.
Justice Scalia believed that the rule of law required a law of rules rather than of balancing tests. He favored rules (like the requirement the President be at least 35 years old) over standards (a requirement that the president be “a mature individual") because they lend themselves more to principled judicial enforcement. As a result, Justice Scalia revolutionized the caselaw he inherited from the Burger Court by eliminating as many balancing tests as possible and replacing them with rules. An example is his favoring of a rule of viewpoint neutrality in freedom of expression cases over separate treatment of various categories of speech. He believed that rules over standards promote the rule of law because they guarantee that judges will decide like cases alike rather than deciding each case on its facts using a totality of the circumstances test. Justice Scalia was so committed to rules over standards that he refused to enforce the non-delegation doctrine because to do so he would have had to employ a balancing test standard, however, in his last year on the bench, there were signs that Justice Scalia was moving away from this position. Justice Scalia also favored rules over standards because they limit lower federal and state court discretion in applying Supreme Court precedents as compared to balancing tests. The reemergence of rules over standards in Supreme Court opinions is another of Justice Scalia's legacies. -- This panel was held on November 18, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale University; Hon. Frank Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit; Prof. John C. Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law; and Prof. Victoria Nourse, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Moderator: Hon. William Francis Kuntz II, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.
Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the Keynote Address at the 2016 National Lawyers Convention Annual Dinner on November 17, 2016. In keeping with the theme of the convention, Justice Thomas discussed the jurisprudence and legacy of Justice Antonin Scalia. -- Justice Thomas was introduced by Mr. Eugene Scalia, a partner at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher and son of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Prior to the introduction, Mr. Eugene Meyer, President of the Federalist Society, announced that from now on the Annual Dinner will be known as the Antonin Scalia Memorial Dinner.
In his seminal decision in Employment Division v. Smith in 1990, Justice Antonin Scalia held that the First Amendment typically does not authorize courts to grant religious exemptions from generally applicable laws. This decision altered the 1963 Sherbert v. Verner test which had given courts the power to strike down any law that (1) if it substantially burdened religious practice, was not (2) based on a compelling government interest, and (3) narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Rather, Scalia said that religious adherents should look to the political process for accommodation, and he consistently supported the constitutionality of such accommodations. In response to Smith, a primary means of such accommodation has been the passage of state and federal Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs), which codify the Sherbert test. However, in the wake of Obergefell v. Hodges (or Hobby Lobby), RFRAs have become the focus of intense political controversy. What do these laws actually do in practice? Are they a good idea? Would a different approach to protect religious liberty be better? -- This panel was held on November 17, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, Chapman University Fowler School of Law; Senior Fellow, The Claremont Institute; Prof. Richard W. Garnett, Paul J. Schierl/Fort Howard Corporation Professor, Concurrent Professor of Political Science, Notre Dame Law School; Prof. William P. Marshall, William Rand Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law; and Prof. Vincent Phillip Muñoz, Tocqueville Associate Professor of Religion & Public Life, University of Notre Dame. Moderator: Prof. Michael M. Uhlmann, Professor of Politics and Policy/SPE, Claremont Graduate University. Introduction: Mr. William L. Saunders, Senior Vice President of Legal Affairs and Senior Counsel, Americans United for Life.
Justice Scalia's originalism had an important impact on our nation's criminal law. While sometimes overlooked, his commitment to the rights of criminal defendants, as rooted in the Constitution, is indisputable. He forthrightly addressed new Fourth Amendment issues including technological advances in surveillance, revived the Sixth Amendment's jury and confrontation clauses, remained mindful of both common law and substantive criminal law concerns, and in many instances swayed his fellow justices. This panel will delve into these areas and discuss if and how Justice Scalia's work will continue to affect future Court decisions. -- This panel was held on November 17, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Rachel E. Barkow, Segal Family Professor of Regulatory Law and Policy and Faculty Director, Center on the Administration of Criminal Law, New York University School of Law; Prof. Stephanos Bibas, Professor of Law and Criminology and Director, Supreme Court Clinic, University of Pennsylvania Law School; Prof. Orin S. Kerr, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School; Mr. Paul J. Larkin, Jr., Senior Legal Research Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation; and Hon. Stephen J. Markman, Michigan Supreme Court. Moderator: Hon. David R. Stras, Minnesota Supreme Court. Introduction: Mr. John G. Malcolm, Director, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation.
Justice Scalia often said that, while he always tried to get the Bill of Rights cases correct, he cared most about the structural constitutional cases. Once or twice each summer, he even taught a course called Separation of Powers. His opinions on the structural issues of separation of powers and federalism often cited The Federalist Papers. He routinely urged law students and lawyers to read the whole of The Federalist. The authors of the Federalist Papers placed primordial importance on separated powers, both among branches of the federal government and between federal and state governments. With the separation of powers both horizontal and vertical increasingly in doubt, it is particularly important to understand the Federalist's treatment of constitutional structure. This panel, therefore, looks at Justice Scalia's Federalist focus on the importance of separation of powers and federalism as structural protections of liberty. -- This panel was held on November 17, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center; Hon. Ron DeSantis, U.S. House of Representatives, Florida 6th District; Mr. Roger Pilon, Vice President, Legal Affairs, Cato Institute; Hon. Luther Strange III, Attorney General, Alabama; and Prof. Jonathan Turley, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law; Director of the Environmental Law Advocacy Center; Executive Director, Project for Older Prisoners, The George Washington University Law School. Moderator: Hon. William H. Pryor Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
The “gig" or “on demand" economy may be the fastest growing segment of our economy, with 22.4 million consumers spending $56.6 billion annually. By 2020, according to some studies, 7.6 million Americans will be working as independent contractors in the gig economy. At the same time, however, the U.S. Department of Labor has narrowed standards for classifying workers as independent contractors, and entered enforcement partnerships with 30 States looking to find misclassified independent contractors in order to increase workers' compensation, unemployment and employment tax revenue. A battle has begun between regulators and entrepreneurs, between independent contractor and employee status. This panel will explore who should win, who will win, and whether there is a third way – creating a new legal category, the “independent worker," for those who occupy the grey area between employee and independent contractor. -- This panel was held on November 17, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. Mark Brnovich, Attorney General, Arizona; Mr. Mark Floyd, Senior Director and Global Relations Lead, Uber Technologies Inc.; Mr. Randel K. Johnson, Senior Vice President, Labor, Immigration and Employee Benefits, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and Mr. Bill Samuel, Director of Government Affairs, AFL-CIO. Moderator: Hon. Thomas M. Hardiman, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
In the past six years, there has been a momentous shift in what can be patented. In four separate cases, the Supreme Court embraced a more muscular approach in enforcing the basic requirement under § 101 of the Patent Act that only certain types of inventions can be patented, impacting inventive activities ranging from biotech to high-tech to business methods. As a result, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, trial courts, and the Patent Office have responded by sharply restricting the scope of “patentable subject matter," invalidating issued patents and rejecting patent applications at record rates. -- This change has been both consequential and controversial. Inventions that once were patentable in key innovation industries, such as cutting-edge diagnostic tests made possible by the biotech revolution and highly complex computer software in the high-tech sector, are no longer eligible for patent protection. Some welcome this development, seeing it as freeing up basic tools of research and preventing abusive assertions of patents against infringers. Others have criticized this development, identifying lost incentives to invest millions in R&D necessary to produce technological innovation and lost value in existing patents given pervasive uncertainty in the patent system as to what is and is not protectable. -- The lack of certainty is something both sides of this important legal and policy debate have found troublesome. Many agree that the Supreme Court's current patent-eligibility jurisprudence is confusing and murky. The Court's legal test for assessing patentable subject matter has proven unpredictable in its application by courts, by patent examiners, and by the administrative review board at the Patent Office (the Patent Trial and Appeal Board). -- One proposed solution has been to simply abolish § 101, the provision that sets forth the requirement that only an invention comprising a “machine, manufacture, process, or composition of matter" is patentable. The argument is that this provision is an antiquated holdover from the first patent statutes that did not have the granular requirements that now exist in the modern Patent Act, ensuing that only novel, nonobvious, useful and fully disclosed inventions are patentable. This panel will consider whether such a radical move is warranted, whether the Supreme Court's patentable subject matter jurisprudence is on the right track, or perhaps whether any problems in patentable subject matter jurisprudence are fixable by the Court or by Congress. -- This panel was held on November 17, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. David J. Kappos, Partner, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP; Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law and Co-Director of Academic Programs, Senior Scholar, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; Mr. Mark A. Perry, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP; and Prof. Joshua D. Sarnoff, Professor of Law, DePaul College of Law. Moderator: Hon. Susan G. Braden, U.S Court of Federal Claims.
In his confirmation hearing, Justice Scalia told the Senators that, as a law school student, he had never really understood antitrust law; later, he learned that he shouldn't have understood it, because it did not make any sense then. It should come as no surprise, that in his subsequent time on the Court, Justice Scalia strove to rectify that problem, and succeeded through clearly written majority decisions that changed the direction of jurisprudence on monopolization (U.S. v. Trinko) and class certification in massive antitrust and other business class actions (Wal-Mart v. Dukes, Comcast v. Behrens), and powerful dissents. As a modern intellectual leader of the "Chicago school" of economics, Justice Scalia played an important role in shaping the Court's approach to antitrust law and hence development of the law in the lower courts. It is a good time to consider the impact of his legacy, including how lasting those decisions will be, whether and how the course of antitrust jurisprudence could change and who will take his place in the Court on these issues. -- This panel was held on November 17, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. Frank H. Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit; Ms. Deborah A. Garza, Partner, Covington & Burling LLP; and Prof. C. Scott Hemphill, Professor of Law, New York University School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Douglas H. Ginsburg, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
In addition to being a brilliant legal thinker, Justice Scalia was widely regarded as a masterful legal writer, perhaps the best of his generation. His gifted prose and frequent use of humor and sarcasm made Justice Scalia's opinions -- whether majority or dissent -- must-reads for lawyers, judges, professors, and law students alike. Commentators from across the philosophical spectrum admired Justice Scalia's writing skill. Just a year before his passing, for example, the New Republic, dubbed Scalia “the foremost living practitioner of performative legal prose." This panel discussion will examine the impact Justice Scalia's writing had on American jurisprudence. Aside from the force of his arguments, what impact did his writing style have on the opinions written by his colleagues on the Supreme Court and judges on lower courts, the briefs filed by practicing lawyers, and even the way law students learned the law? Our panelists will bring a variety of perspectives to this question: former clerk, judge, professors, and critics. -- This panel was held on November 17, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt Law School; Prof. Toni M. Massaro, Regents' Professor, Milton O. Riepe Chair in Constitutional Law and Dean Emerita, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law; Mr. Kannon Shanmugam, Partner, Williams & Connolly LLP; and Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Moderator: Hon. Joan L. Larsen, Michigan Supreme Court. Introduction: Hon. Rachel Brand, Member, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board and Senior Advisor to the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, United States Chamber of Commerce.
Until 1986, most conservative lawyers favored following the original intentions of the Framers of the Constitution rather than the original public meaning of the text of the laws they wrote. Justice Scalia changed all of that with a brilliant speech given at the Justice Department just days before he was nominated to the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia argued that it is the laws that Congress makes, and not the legislative history that accompanies them, that the courts must follow. He argued similarly in constitutional cases that we are bound by the texts that our dead ancestors enacted and not by their unenacted intentions and policy views. Since 1986, Justice Scalia's view has so thoroughly swept the field that few proponents of original intention and of following legislative history remain. The triumph of text over intent and over legislative history is one of Justice Scalia's legacies. -- This panel was held on November 17, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Thomas W. Merrill, Charles Evans Hughes Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; Prof. Michael S. Paulsen, Distinguished University Chair and Professor, University of St. Thomas School of Law; Prof. Saikrishna Prakash, James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law; and Prof. Lawrence B. Solum, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Moderator: Hon. Sandra Segal Ikuta, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Julius Caesar is Shakespeare’s classic depiction of the abuse of power, political assassination and intrigue – a plot that would rival any episode of House of Cards or Scandal. The play offers a valuable and timeless springboard for a discussion of the use of executive power in 21st century America – and its future under a Clinton or Trump presidency. -- The Shakespeare & the Law series features a staged reading of the abridged play performed by prominent judges, attorneys, journalists, political strategists and scholars, followed by a panel discussion that explores the implications of the work in the era of Obama, Clinton and Trump. Presented in partnership with the Federalist Society, McCarter & English LLP, and Foley Hoag LLP. -- This event took place at the Wimberly Theatre at the Boston Center of the Arts in Boston, MA on September 28, 2016. -- Participants include: David J. Barron, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals; Jennifer C. Braceras, Attorney and Editor of NewBostonPost; Martha Coakley, Former Attorney General of Massachusetts; Nancy Gertner, Retired Judge, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Michael S. Greco, Partner at K&L Gates and past present of the American Bar Association; Nathaniel M. Gorton, United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts; Jeff Jacoby, Op-Ed Columnist for The Boston Globe; Daniel J. Kelly, Chairman of the Boston Lawyers Division of the Federalist Society and a partner at McCarter & English; George A. O’Toole, Jr., United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts; Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of the Practice Groups of the Federalist Society; Carol Rose, Executive Director of the ACLU of Massachusetts; F. Dennis Saylor IV, United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts; Douglas P. Woodlock, United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts; and Rya W. Zobel, United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts.
On September 27, 2016, the Georgetown Student Chapter of the Federalist Society, in conjunction with the national office's Faculty Division, held an event on Supreme Court advocacy and the Affordable Care Act cases. -- Featuring: Prof. Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, Houston College of Law; Mr. Michael Carvin, Partner, Jones Day; Prof. Martin Lederman, Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; and Ms. Erin Murphy, Partner, Bancroft, PLLC. Moderator: Mr. Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Correspondent, New York Times. Introduction: Mr. Michael Munoz, President, Georgetown Student Chapter.
October 4th will mark the first day of oral arguments for the 2016 Supreme Court term. The Court's docket already includes major cases involving insider trading, the Fourth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, criminal law, IP and patent law, the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses, the Fair Housing Act, and voting rights. -- The full list of cases granted thus far for the upcoming term can be viewed on SCOTUSblog here. The panelists will also discuss the current composition and the future of the Court. -- This event was held on September 27, 2016, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. Thomas C. Goldstein, Goldstein & Russell PC; Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Georgetown Law Center; Ms. Carrie Severino, Judicial Crisis Network; and Hon. George J. Terwilliger, McGuireWoods LLP. Moderator: Mr. Robert Barnes, The Washington Post.
For over thirty years, the seminal Supreme Court decision in Chevron v. NRDC has provided the principles used to determine the extent to which a court reviewing agency action should defer to the agency’s interpretation of its own rules as well as fill in “blanks” in the text. For much of his career on the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia (and the Court) deferred to this decision. However, late in his tenure, Justice Scalia had begun to reconsider Chevron deference. For the Chevron example, in his opinions in King v. Burwell andUtility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, Justice Scalia criticized agencies’ assertions of unprecedented power. This panel will explore how judicial deference to agency decision-making has evolved since and whether it is time to revisit the doctrine of “Chevron deference.” How might Justice Scalia have come down on US v. Texas, net neutrality, or the EPA’s “Clean Power Plan”? Might his views have continued to evolve if he had remained on the Court? And what is the future of Chevron deference with the Roberts Court? Is a new balance between courts and agencies needed? -- This panel took place on September 17, 2016, during the Second Annual Texas Chapters Conference in Austin, Texas. The theme for the conference was "The Separation of Powers in the Administrative State". -- Welcome by Hon. Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney General. Introduction by Mr. Prerak Shah, Senior Counsel to the Attorney General. Panel One: Prof. Aditya Bamzai, Associate Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law; Prof. Ron Beal, Baylor University Law School; Hon. Charles J. Cooper, Partner, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC and former Assistant U.S. Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel; and Prof. Aaron Nielson, Brigham Young University Law School. Moderator: Hon. Edith Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Introduction: Ms. Karen Lugo, Director, Center for Tenth Amendment Action, Texas Public Policy Foundation.
The tension between economic liberty and the state’s power to regulate economic activity has long served as a source for landmark cases and controversies. Post-New Deal jurisprudence opened the floodgates to economic regulation. In Texas, entrepreneurs who have developed cutting-edge innovations have found themselves tangled in regulatory red tape. But one’s right to engage in economic activity free from unreasonable government interference has always been understood as being in lockstep with Texas’s independent spirit. However, critics maintain that consumer protection and maintaining a level playing field are also important goals in crafting their regulatory policies. This tension has given rise to cases and legislative battles in the Lone Star State that have garnered national attention. Will Texas continue to lead the way for entrepreneurs and innovators, and how will the regulatory state affect this trajectory? What is the proper balance between innovation and regulation? -- This panel took place on September 17, 2016, during the Second Annual Texas Chapters Conference in Austin, Texas. The theme for the conference was "The Separation of Powers in the Administrative State". -- Featuring: Mr. Arif Panju, Institute for Justice; Mr. Tim Sandefur, Goldwater Institute and author, The Right to Earn a Living; Mr. Prerak Shah, Office of Texas Attorney General; and Mr. Russell Withers, General Counsel, Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute. Moderator: Hon. Don Willett, Texas Supreme Court. Introduction: Ms. Diane Kozub, Former Assistant United States Attorney at United States Attorney's Office.
A growing number of Texas municipalities are passing so-called "nanny state" restrictions and regulations that may interfere with Texans’ personal liberties, property rights, and livelihood. Advocates of these types of regulations defend them by citing a theory of “local control,” which posits that government works best when it is closest to the people. Our republic is founded upon the notion that all powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people. Some say the notion of local control being anything other than a specific grant of authority from the state government is a misunderstanding of federalism. This could lead to "grassroots tyranny" in which individual liberties of Texans are encroached by local government. Should the Legislature enforce strict limits on municipalities or should it defer to the will of a geographical majority? How can the Legislature reassert its primacy as the state’s lawgiver and defender of individual liberty if existing statutes are overlooked by the courts? In short, this panel will discuss a theory of local control and determine whether the Texas Legislature has abdicated too much lawmaking authority to political subdivisions throughout the state. -- This panel took place on September 17, 2016, during the Second Annual Texas Chapters Conference in Austin, Texas. The theme for the conference was "The Separation of Powers in the Administrative State". -- Featuring: Hon. Phil King, Texas House of Representatives, District 61; Dean Andrew P. Morriss, Dean and Anthony G. Buzbee Dean’s Endowed Chair, Texas A&M University School of Law; and Hon. Don Zimmerman, Council Member, District 6, Austin. Moderator: Hon. Michael Massengale, First Court of Appeals, Texas. Introduction: Mr. Roger Borgelt, Principal and CEO, Borgelt Law. Introduction: Mr. Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President, The Federalist Society.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) gave the keynote address at our Second Annual Texas Chapters Conference. He discussed the life and legacy of Justice Antonin Scalia before turning his attention to Constitution Day and answering questions from attendees. -- This address took place on September 17, 2016, during the Second Annual Texas Chapters Conference in Austin, Texas. The theme for the conference was "The Separation of Powers in the Administrative State". -- Featuring: Hon. Ted Cruz, U.S. Senator, Texas. Introduction: Mr. Arthur Gollwitzer III, Partner, Michael, Best & Friedrich LLP.
On September 12, 2016, the Federalist Society at Berkeley Law hosted Heather Mac Donald and a panel of law enforcement professionals for a discussion on officer safety and community policing. The panelists reflected on their personal experiences in law enforcement and weighed in on the current crisis in police-community relations. -- Featuring: Kenton Rainey, Chief, BART Police Department; Scott Erickson, Founder, Americans in Support of Law Enforcement; Daryl Jackson, District Attorney Inspector; Harry Stern, Managing Principal, Rains Lucia Stern, PC; and Heather Mac Donald, Author, "The War on Cops". Moderator: Kevin Walker, Berkeley Law.
In August 2015 the President announced the Clean Power Plan, characterized by the Environmental Protection Agency’s website as “a historic and important step in reducing carbon pollution from power plants that takes real action on climate change.” Some six months later, on February 9, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed implementation of the Plan, pending further judicial review. Later this month, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear en banc argument in that case, West Virginia et al. v. EPA. The suing states and power companies assert that the EPA has overstepped its authority in the Clean Air Act, and have acted beyond the bounds of the U.S. Constitution. Our experts will debate the arguments made in the various briefs and expected at oral argument. -- Speakers: David Bookbinder, Founder, Element VI Consulting; David Doniger, Policy Director, Climate & Clean Air Program, Natural Resources Defense Council; Hon. Scott Pruitt, Attorney General, Oklahoma; and David B. Rivkin, Jr., Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP. Moderator: Adam J. White, Research Fellow, The Hoover Institution.
On July 22, 2016, Miguel Estrada of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP delivered the Annual Supreme Court Round Up at The Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. Introduction by Mr. Douglas R. Cox, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
Three former SEC Commissioners reflect on their tenures at the SEC and also provide their perspectives on several of today’s most important financial regulatory issues and questions. -- This panel was sponsored by the Federalist Society's Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Group on June 1, 2016, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. Paul S. Atkins, Chief Executive, Patomak Global Partners, LLC (SEC Commissioner 2002-2008); Hon. Annette L. Nazareth, Partner, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (SEC Commissioner 2005-2008); and Hon. Troy A. Paredes, Founder, Paredes Strategies LLC (SEC Commissioner 2008-2013). Moderator: Jeffrey T. Dinwoodie, Associate, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.
United States Senator Dan Sullivan of Alaska delivered this address during the Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on May 17, 2016. Introduction by Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.
The slogan "Personnel is policy" reflects the principle that hiring the right people is one of the most important things that employers do. An employer with an innovative approach to bringing on board the best people has a critical edge over her competition. But the rise of interpretations of federal employment law that basically give the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") veto power over nearly any employment decision means that many creative ideas about hiring will be stillborn. Notably, the EEOC interprets federal civil rights law not just to prohibit employers from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, and age, but also on practices that have a "disparate impact" on members of such groups even if the practice is not actually discriminatory. Because virtually any job qualification has a disparate impact on members of some such group, this interpretation confers extraordinary powers on the EEOC. Disparate impact is widely believed to have led many employers to abandon paper and pencil tests of cognitive ability. More recently, employers have been discouraged from using the Internet to recruit because racial minorities were thought to lack access to the internet relative to members of other racial and ethnic groups. Further, the EEOC also has put pressure on employers to abandon the use of credit and criminal background checks because of their alleged disparate impact on racial minorities. This panel will discuss how the metastasis of disparate impact has strangled innovative hiring strategies in these areas as well as others and other perverse consequences of disparate impact's growth. -- This panel was presented during the Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on May 17, 2016, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. Gail Heriot, United States Commission on Civil Rights, and Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law; Mr. James Scanlan, Attorney at Law; and Mr. James Sharf, Sharf & Associates. Moderator: Mr. John Irving, Of Counsel, Kirkland & Ellis.
As Congress debates controversial patent legislation that some say will undermine patent rights, has the U.S. Supreme Court been steadily eroding the scope and enforceability of patents for the past decade? The Supreme Court has made it easier to invalidate patents because an invention is “obvious,” not specific enough, or an “abstract idea.” The Court has also made it more difficult for patent owners to stop or “enjoin” ongoing infringement of their rights and riskier to assert their rights in court. Is the Supreme Court striking the right balance or is it undermining an important property right? -- This panel was presented during the Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on May 17, 2016, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law; Mr. Michael R. Huston, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law and Co-Director of Academic Programs and Senior Scholar, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; and Mr. Jeff Wall, Sullivan & Cromwell. Moderator: Hon. Randall R. Rader, The George Washington University.
American technological innovation has given birth to entire new segments of economic activity. The sharing economy alone has given rise to a new class of entrepreneurs, where web platforms enable companies like AirBnB and Uber to allow the peer-to-peer sharing of houses, cars ... even lawn mowers. Connectivity and big data is driving the Internet of Things revolution, where ideas once only seen in science fiction movies (think self-driving cars) may soon become an everyday reality. And all of these innovations have been made possible thanks to the Internet, which, until recently, has benefitted from a light regulatory touch. -- Unfortunately, federal and state agencies have not always welcomed innovation and disruption, even when it enhances overall consumer welfare. What can be done to embrace innovation and American leadership? What role should the state and federal governments play as new economies continue to take shape? What role should the FTC play? How will the FCC's current Net Neutrality rules impact growth? These and other issues will be explored. -- This panel was presented during the Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on May 17, 2016, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. Krishna Juvvadi, Senior Counsel, Uber Technologies, Inc.; Mr. Clark Neily, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice; Prof. John O'Neill, Director, School of Hospitality Management, Penn State; and Mr. Peter Pitsch, Associate General Counsel and Executive Director of Communications Policy, Intel Corporation. Moderator: Hon. Maureen Ohlhausen, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission.
United States Senator Deb Fischer of Nebraska delivered this address at the Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on May 17, 2016. Intoductions by Hon. Maureen Ohlhausen, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission and Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.
What regulatory approach best fosters commercial innovation? Traditionally, it had been thought that ex post, decentralized approaches that exploit private attorney generals like the common law were best, but many business interests today advocate ex ante, centralized, public sector approaches like federal statutes or federal rulemakings that preempt the common law. This panel will explore which attributes of regulation best serve innovation: ex ante or ex post? Decentralized or centralized? Public sector or private sector? -- This panel was presented during the Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on May 17, 2016, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School; Prof. Brian Galle, Georgetown University Law Center; Prof. Michael S. Greve, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; and Mr. Adam Thierer, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University. Moderator: Hon. Rachel Brand, Chairman, Litigation Practice Group.
Overlapping jurisdiction of federal regulatory agencies can lead to confusion and sometimes even contradictory requirements for private actors, and turf battles among agencies. Further, questions arise about the legitimacy of regulations promulgated by an agency that does not appear to have primary responsibility for an area, when the agency that has that primary responsibility has failed or declined to act.
Among the myriad items in the 2016 omnibus appropriations bill were two curious provisions: a prohibition on the Internal Revenue Service from spending funds to write new regulations governing 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations, and a prohibition on the Securities and Exchange Commission from spending funds to write regulations that would require companies to report political contributions and donations to tax exempt organizations. Both edicts are responses to intense advocacy for these agencies to undertake the respective rulemakings, following refusal by the Federal Election Commission to expand disclosure. Moreover, advocates of campaign finance regulation continue to seek new political regulations at the Federal Communications Commission and for the Department of Justice to undertake broader inquiries. As a whole, one might call these efforts “administrative hopscotch”—seeking regulation or enforcement from an agency when another with unequivocal jurisdiction refuses to act. Is expanding the jurisdictions of federal agencies to such extent that they may regulate the same activity a constitutional problem? Practically speaking, what does this mean for innovators when they must comply with repetitive or diverse red tape? Furthermore, what happens when the regulations conflict, as already seen between certain IRS and FEC provisions? -- Ideally, this panel would feature former commissioners from executive agencies who have faced these efforts. They could briefly discuss what they considered the appropriate regulatory purview of their agency, their thoughts on administrative overlap, and whether or not administrative hopscotch is a real problem. The FEC circumvention is ongoing and intense, with media scrutiny and support of hopscotch by its more active commissioners. However, it is likely there are many examples that would make for good discussion and an important panel. -- This panel was presented during the Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on May 17, 2016, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. Paul S. Atkins, Patomak Global Partners and former Commissioner, Securities and Exchange Commission; Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Cass & Associates and former Commissioner and Vice-Chairman, US International Trade Commission; and Hon. Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law, Capital University Law School and former Commissioner, Federal Election Commission. Moderator: Hon. Laurence H. Silberman, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit.
Modern statutes and executive orders are intended to ensure that new regulations do more good than harm—that is, to produce more benefits than costs. Despite these nominal protections, some say the accumulation of regulations threaten the nation’s economic growth and well-being. As a result, the 114th Congress is considering various regulatory reform proposals designed to help ensure that new regulations make Americans better off and that existing regulations are evaluated and modified as necessary. Some of the proposals would enhance economic analysis of regulations, while others seek structural reform including stronger legislative control and judicial review of the administrative rulemaking. While none of these bills has been enacted, several of them have bipartisan support and some have passed one house. Which proposals are best, and why? Are there proposals yet to be made that would be better yet? -- This panel was presented during the Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on May 17, 2016, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Welcome & Address: Hon. Heidi Heitkamp, United States Senate, North Dakota. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society. -- Panel Featuring: Hon. Susan E. Dudley, Director of the Regulatory Studies Center, The George Washington University; Mr. Michael Fitzpatrick, Senior Counsel and Head of Regulatory Advocacy, General Electric Company; and Hon. Jeffrey A. Rosen, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Moderator: Mr. Adam White, Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution.
Political correctness in the classroom can be seen as a consequence of a lack of political diversity in the university. How does political correctness affect research, and teaching? Is political correctness all that bad, or does it have a proper place in academia? Professors Pam Karlan, Richard Sander, and Nicholas Rosenkranz discuss. -- This panel was presented at the Stanford Intellectual Diversity Conference on Friday, April 8, 2016, at Stanford Law School. -- Featuring: Prof. Pamela S. Karlan, Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, Stanford Law School; Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; and Prof. Richard H. Sander, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law. Moderator: Prof. Zachary Price, Associate Professor of Law, UC Hastings College of the Law.
Why make a big deal out of intellectual diversity in academia, anyway? What are its advantages? What are its disadvantages? Is it a goal worth pursuing at the expense of others? Dean Larry Kramer and Professor Michael McConnell debate these points and others. -- This panel was presented at the Stanford Intellectual Diversity Conference on Friday, April 8, 2016, at Stanford Law School. -- Featuring: Dean Larry Kramer, President, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; Lecturer in Law and Former Dean, Stanford Law School and Prof. Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School. Moderator: Prof. Bernadette Meyler, Carl and Shelia Spaeth Professor of Law, Stanford Law School. Introduction: Mr. Michael Rubin, Co-President, Stanford Student Chapter.
The proper education of America’s youth is arguably the most important social responsibility the university has. But does a lack of intellectual diversity in school create pedagogical issues? Our panel of current and former law students weighs in. --
This panel was presented at the Stanford Intellectual Diversity Conference on Friday, April 8, 2016, at Stanford Law School. -- Featuring: Dr. R. Sohan Dasgupta, University of California, Berkeley; Mr. Roland Nadler, Fellow, Center for Law and Biosciences, Stanford Law School; and Mr. Ilan Wurman, Associate, Winston & Strawn LLP. Moderator: Mr. Jud Campbell, Executive Director and Research Fellow, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School. Introduction: Mr. Jonathan Mondel, Co-President, Stanford Student Chapter.
To foster meaningful discourse on intellectual diversity in academia, it is important to begin with the facts. Is there a lack of intellectual diversity in academia? How big is the problem? Professors Jim Lindgren, James Phillips, and Jon Shields review some of the latest research on the subject. -- This panel was presented at the Stanford Intellectual Diversity Conference on Friday, April 8, 2016, at Stanford Law School. -- Opening Remarks -- Dean M. Elizabeth Magill, Richard E. Lang Professor of Law and Dean, Stanford Law School and Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society. Introduction: Mr. Jonathan Mondel, Co-President, Stanford Student Chapter and Mr. Michael Rubin, Co-President, Stanford Student Chapter -- Recent Research in Intellectual Diversity -- Prof. James T. Lindgren, Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law; Prof. James C. Phillips, Former Visiting Professor, BYU Law School; and Dr. Jon A. Shields, Associate Professor, Claremont McKenna College. Moderator: Prof. G. Marcus Cole, William F. Baxter-Visa International Professor of Law, Stanford Law School.
After nearly 30 years of serving as an intellectual titan and conservative champion on the nation's highest court, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away on February 13, 2016. This banquet was held in honor of his tremendous legacy as one of the greatest and most influential justices. -- The Honorable Paul Clement delivered the keynote address at the 2016 National Student Symposium Banquet on February 27, 2016. Mr. Clement clerked for Justice Scalia and is currently a partner at Bancroft PLLC. Mr. Clement also served as the 43rd Solicitor General of the United States from June 2005 until June 2008, and has argued more Supreme Court cases since 2000 than any lawyer in or out of government. Mr. Clement was introduced by Mr. Jack Lund, Symposium Chair, University of Virginia School of Law Student Chapter.
Equality of opportunity is supposed to be a fundamental American principle. But it is not being realized today – in large part due to our failing education system. Despite being better funded, American public schools consistently lag those of comparable countries. The disparity is especially stark in inner-city and minority school districts, where poor children are most in need of quality education. Is school choice the solution? What role should the federal government play in education? And what legal issues are implicated by reform efforts? -- This panel was presented at the 2016 National Student Symposium on Saturday, February 27, 2016, at the University of Virginia School of Law. -- Featuring: Hon. Clint Bolick, Arizona Supreme Court; Mrs. Cynthia Brown, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress; Dr. William Galston, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution; and Prof. Amy Wax, Robert Mundheim Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School. Moderator: Hon. Jennifer W. Elrod, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Introduction: Ms. Abby Hollenstein, 1L Committee Co-Chair, University of Virginia School of Law Student Chapter.
Most agree that society should take care of its neediest members. The question is how this should be accomplished. Our current federal safety net was designed for a different era and is becoming increasingly outdated, ineffective, and expensive. How can we reform it to be both successful and fiscally sustainable? To what degree does our current entitlement system stretch well beyond the actual needs of those in poverty? And to what extent should we rely on state governments and civil society instead of a one-size-fits-all national approach? -- This panel was presented at the 2016 National Student Symposium on Saturday, February 27, 2016, at the University of Virginia School of Law. -- Featuring: Mr. Christopher DeMuth, Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute; Dr. William Galston, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution; Prof. Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law; and Prof. David Super, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Moderator: Prof. John Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law. Introduction: Mr. Thomas Sanford, Vice President for Special Events, University of Virginia School of Law Student Chapter.
Immigration restrictions keep millions of people stuck in impoverished countries – preventing them from improving their lives by moving somewhere else. However, some restrictions are clearly necessary to protect national security. And many say that our current laws do not go anywhere near far enough, arguing that additional restrictions are needed to prevent wage depression and the overburdening of our already-strained safety net. One way or another, immigration restrictions have an enormous impact on poverty, both domestically and abroad. But are such restrictions constitutional? This debate will address that question, along with the complex policy issues involved with the topic. -- This panel was presented at the 2016 National Student Symposium on Saturday, February 27, 2016, at the University of Virginia School of Law. -- Featuring: Prof. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, Chapman University School of Law and Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Amul R. Thapar, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Introduction: Mr. Nicholas Rotz, University of Virginia School of Law Student Chapter.
It is oddly controversial to identify the breakdown of the family unit as a central cause of poverty. The empirical evidence confirming a strong correlation is overwhelming: higher divorce rates, increasing out-of-wedlock births, lower percentages of married couples, and higher rates of abortion are all associated with poverty. How has the law impacted these trends, and what can be done to reverse them? -- This panel was presented at the 2016 National Student Symposium on Saturday, February 27, 2016, at the University of Virginia School of Law. -- Featuring: Prof. Mary Anne Case, Arnold I. Shure Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School; Ms. Kay Hymowitz, Senior Fellow, The Manhattan Institute; Prof. W. Bradford Wilcox, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Virginia; and Mr. Robert Woodson, Founder and President, Center for Neighborhood Enterprise. Moderator: Hon. A. Raymond Randolph, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Robert Smith, 1L Committee Co-Chair, University of Virginia School of Law Student Chapter. Welcome: Mr. Dan McBride, President, University of Virginia School of Law Student Chapter.
Free markets have exponentially improved the well-being of humanity and lifted more people out of poverty than any government program. But severe inequalities persist, and gaps have widened in the past thirty years. Is this a problem in and of itself? Or only to the extent it is caused by unfairly distorting the market with the help of government – so-called “crony capitalism" – as opposed to the inherently unique capabilities of each individual? How should the law be structured to ensure a level playing field? -- This panel was presented at the 2016 National Student Symposium on Friday, February 26, 2016, at the University of Virginia School of Law. -- Welcome and Opening Remarks: Dean Paul Mahoney, Dean, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law, and Arnold H. Leon Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law. Introduction: Mr. Dan McBride, President, University of Virginia School of Law Student Chapter. -- Panel I: Capitalism and Inequality -- Featuring: Dr. Yaron Brook, Executive Director, The Ayn Rand Institute; Prof. Thomas Edsall, Adjunct Professor of Journalism, Columbia Graduate School of Journalism; Prof. Jason Johnston, Henry L. and Grace Doherty Charitable Foundation Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law; and Prof. Steven Teles, Associate Professor of Political Science, Johns Hopkins University. Moderator: Hon. Jerry E. Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
How should federalism affect “moral” issues like abortion, traditional marriage, and state RFRA laws? What about the intersection of equal protection and religious liberties? Should pro-life state attorneys general, for example, file lawsuits against abortion providers like Planned Parenthood? Is religious faith and morality inherently in tension with fidelity to the rule law? -- This debate was part of the 2016 Annual Western Chapters Conference at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA on January 30, 2016. -- Featuring: Prof. John Eastman, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman University and Prof. Marci Hamilton, Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University. Moderator: Hon. Carlos Bea, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Joel Ard, Member, Foster Pepper PLLC.
Some states have criticized Washington overreach on a number of energy and environmental issues, from fracking, the sale of public lands, utility regulation, and clean air and water regulation. Many state attorneys general have banded together to challenge alleged overreach in the environmental arena, including litigation against the EPA’s coal-fired power plant regulation plans. What are the proper federalism models for environmental regulation? What role should the courts and state attorneys general play? A panel of experts will discuss. -- This panel was part of the 2016 Annual Western Chapters Conference at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA on January 30, 2016. -- Featuring: Mr. Anthony L. (Tony) François, Senior Staff Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation; Prof. Richard Frank, Director, California Environmental Law and Policy Center, UC Davis School of Law; Prof. Donald J. Kochan, Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development; Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman University; and Prof. Justin Pidot, Sturm College of Law, University of Denver. Moderator: Hon. Milan D. Smith, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. Introduction: Ms. Jennifer Perkins, Assistant Solicitor General, AG Opinions and Ethics at Arizona Attorney General's Office.
Former California Governor Pete Wilson delivered the Keynote Address at the 2016 Annual Western Chapters Conference on January 30, 2016, at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA. Thomas F. Gede of Morgan Lewis introduced the Governor.
Sometimes federalism is invoked because we believe the best way to preserve freedom is to devolve to the local level. With the federal government’s reach extending into more facets of daily life like education policy, labor & employment policies, and healthcare, calls for state and local governments to stand against Washington are increasing. Yet at times, local government can serve as an even greater restraint on individual rights. From regulations governing entrepreneurship and the sharing economy, the minimum wage, asset forfeiture, and policing, state and local government at times may intrude on individual freedom even more than the federal government. State initiatives on “right to try” (now law in 24 states) and marijuana regulation also lead to federalism questions, putting conservatives and libertarians at odds. How do we strike the proper federalism balance? How should principles of federalism inform the federal government’s response to state initiatives? -- This panel was part of the 2016 Annual Western Chapters Conference at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA on January 30, 2016. -- Featuring: Mr. Adam Freedman, Author, A Less Perfect Union and The Naked Constitution; Ms. Christina Sandefur, Executive Vice President, The Goldwater Institute; and Prof. Adam Winkler, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Sandra Segal Ikuta, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Stephen M. Duvernay, Benbrook Law Group.
James Madison wrote that our system of federalism provides “a double security…to the rights of the people.” In other words, the 50 states serve as shields for individual rights that the federal government fails to protect. States can harness these tools to protect important rights. The intro will set the stage for the day’s theme, building on the Founders’ concept of federalism, tying it to Reagan’s ascendancy and the framework of the Reagan Revolution, and touching on the concepts of states’ powers. -- This address was part of the 2016 Annual Western Chapters Conference at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA on January 30, 2016. -- Featuring: Hon. Scott Pruitt, Attorney General, Oklahoma.
Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society.
Mark Behrens, co-chair of the Washington, DC-based Public Policy Group of Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., will discuss Nevada’s poor ranking in a recent U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform survey of the fairness of state legal climates. He will also discuss the comments on Nevada courts included in the American Tort Reform Foundation’s annual Judicial Hellholes report, along with a recent point of light from the Nevada Supreme Court. Mr. Behrens will discuss Nevada’s efforts for judicial reform together with strategies Nevada lawyers may use to promote a fair and restrained judiciary. -- Assemblyman Erv Nelson is a partner at the Las Vegas firm of Cram Valdez Brigman & Nelson and Vice-Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the Nevada State Assembly. In his role as a legislator, he was deeply involved in efforts to enact Judicial Reform legislation in Nevada. Mr. Nelson will discuss Nevada’s efforts to affect Judicial Reform, including legislation that may be proposed in the future. -- The Las Vegas Lawyers Chapter hosted this event on January 28, 2016. --
Speakers: Mr. Mark Behrens, Co-chair, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP and Hon. Erven T. Nelson, Nevada Assemblyman. Introduction: Mr. Matthew Saltzman, Shareholder, Kolesar & Leatham.
This panel will discuss whether we have Federal overreach in this environmental law area, such as current interpretations of the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Power Plan, etc., and what the appropriate roles for the Federal Government and Florida are in the context of environmental law. -- This panel was part of the 2016 Annual Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's Boardwalk Inn in Lake Buena Vista, FL on January 22-23, 2016. -- Featuring: Mr. Avi Garbow, General Counsel, United States Environmental Protection Agency; Mr. Matthew Z. Leopold, Of Counsel, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA and former General Counsel, Florida Department of Environmental Protection; Prof. Erin Ryan, Professor, Florida State University College of Law; and Mr. Patrick Strawbridge, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC. Moderator: Hon. Edward L. Artau, Florida 15th Judicial Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Gregory Munson, Shareholder, Gunster.
This panel was part of the 2016 Annual Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's Boardwalk Inn in Lake Buena Vista, FL on January 22-23, 2016. -- Featuring: Mr. Mark Wilson, President and CEO, Florida Chamber of Commerce. Interviewer: Mr. Jesse Panuccio, Former Executive Director, Florida Department of Economic Opportunity.
Tim Cerio, General Counsel to Governor Rick Scott of Florida, delivered this address at the 2016 Annual Florida Chapters Conference on Saturday, January 23, 2016, at Disney's Boardwalk Inn in Lake Buena Vista, FL. He was introduced by Judge Ed Scales of the Florida Third District Court of Appeal.
This panel will move beyond the Obamacare discussion and address what the current problems in health care and whether there are proven and scalable solutions to these problems. The panel will also discuss what the legal barriers to those solutions are and what the appropriate Federal/Florida role in Healthcare is. -- This panel was part of the 2016 Annual Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's Boardwalk Inn in Lake Buena Vista, FL on January 22-23, 2016. -- Featuring: Mr. John Goodman, Senior Fellow, Independent Institute; Mr. Avik Roy, Senior Fellow, The Manhattan Institute; and Dr. Antonia C. Novello, MD, MPH, Dr.PH, VADM (Ret.), 14th Surgeon General of the United States. Moderator: Ms. Christa Calamas, Staff Director, Florida House of Representatives Health and Human Services Committee. Introduction: Mr. Daniel Woodring, Principal Attorney, Woodring Law Firm.
This panel will address the religious rights of persons and corporate entities in the context of the same sex marriage rulings, threats to not-for-profit status, cake baking, and other current areas of uncertainty. The panel will also discuss appropriate Federal/Florida roles and possible distinctions between protection under the law and civil disobedience in the context of religious liberty. -- This panel was part of the 2016 Annual Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's Boardwalk Inn in Lake Buena Vista, FL on January 22-23, 2016. -- Featuring: Prof. Carl H. Esbeck, R.B. Price Professor Emeritus of Law/Isabelle Wade & Paul C. Lyda Emeritus of Law, University of Missouri School of Law; Prof. William P. Marshall, William Rand Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law; and Prof. Michael P. Moreland, Mary Ann Remick Senior Visiting Fellow and Concurrent Professor of Law at University of Notre Dame. Moderator: Hon. Timothy Osterhaus, Florida First District Court of Appeal. Introduction: Dr. Nathan Adams, Holland & Knight LLP.
This panel was part of the 2016 Annual Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's Boardwalk Inn in Lake Buena Vista, FL on January 22-23, 2016. -- Featuring: Hon. Charles T. Canady, Florida Supreme Court and Hon. William H. Pryor, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Moderator: Dean R. Alexander Acosta, Dean, Florida International University College of Law. Introduction: Mr. Morgan Streetman, Founder and Principal, Streetman Law.
In recent years there has been a debate across the ideological spectrum about the reach and role of criminal law and punishment in the United States. This panel will explore the growth of criminal laws, the role of prosecutorial discretion, recent dialogue and actions around incarceration, and the appropriate federal/Florida roles in these arenas. -- This panel was part of the 2016 Annual Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's Boardwalk Inn in Lake Buena Vista, FL on January 22-23, 2016. -- Featuring: Prof. Ellen Podgor, Gary R. Trombley Family White-Collar Crime Research Professor and Professor of Law, Stetson Law School; Mr. William N. Shepherd, Partner, Holland & Knight LLP; Prof. John Stinneford, Professor of Law and Assistant Director, Criminal Justice Center at Levin College of Law, University of Florida; and Mr. Kenneth W. Sukhia, Owner, Sukhia Law Group PLC and former U.S. Attorney. Moderator: Hon. Stephanie Ray, Florida First District Court of Appeal. Introduction: Mr. Daniel Woodring, Principal Attorney, Woodring Law Firm.
Since before the Revolution, American legal and political traditions have supported many forms of multiculturalism, through institutions such as freedom of association, religious liberty, parental rights, freedom of speech, private property, federalism, often open immigration policy, and the like. And those traditions have likewise imposed constraints on such multiculturalism. What can those traditions tell us about today’s multiculturalism debates? -- This panel took place during the 18th Annual Faculty Conference at the Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel in New York, NY on January 9, 2016. -- Featuring: Prof. Mary Anne Case, University of Chicago Law School; Prof. John C. Eastman, Chapman University School of Law; Prof. Richard W. Garnett, University of Notre Dame Law School; and Ms. Heather Mac Donald, Manhattan Institute. Moderator: Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Georgetown University Law Center.
This panel will consider to what extent the disproportionate increase in income among the very wealthy is due not to market forces but to rent seeking and government policies that are the product of rent seeking. It will also discuss possible solutions. -- This panel took place during the 18th Annual Faculty Conference at the Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel in New York, NY on January 8, 2016. -- Featuring: Prof. David Snyder, American University Washington College of Law; Prof. Ilya Somin, George Mason School of Law; and Prof. James Stern, William & Mary Law School. Moderator: Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Case Western Reserve University School of Law.
This panel was part of the 18th Annual Federalist Society Faculty Conference held on January 8, 2016 at the Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel New York, NY. -- Featuring: Prof. Tara Leigh Grove, William & Mary Law School: “When Can a State Sue the United States?”; Prof. Jeremy Kidd, Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law: “Neither Savior Nor Bogeyman: What Lies Behind the Door of Third-Party Litigation Finance?”; Prof. Randy Kozel, University of Notre Dame Law School & Prof. Jeffrey Pojanowski, University of Notre Dame Law School: “Discretionary Dockets”; Prof. Ozan Varol, Lewis & Clark Law School: "Structural Rights"; and Mr. Ilan Wurman, Winston & Strawn: "Constitutional Administration". Commenters: Prof. James Lindgren, Northwestern University School of Law and Prof. Thomas Lee, Fordham University School of Law. Moderator: Prof. Saikrishna Prakash, University of Virginia School of Law.
The FCC derives its legal authority almost entirely from statutes that predate the Internet--primarily from the 1934 Communications Act, which was designed for the regulation of a national telephone monopolist, and the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which was designed to incrementally deregulate the communications industry as the vestiges of that national monopoly gave way to competition. Over the past 20 years, the Internet has become the foundation of the communications industry, playing a role similar to that of the monopoly-provided telecommunications services that the FCC has traditionally regulated. There is unquestionably more competition today than there was in 1934, but perhaps not as much as was hoped in 1996. The FCC’s Open Internet Order, in which the FCC brought Internet Service Providers within the regulatory framework initially created in 1934, presents a compelling example of an agency struggling to find a new role in a changed industry – struggling to imbue old statutes with broad grants of power to govern what the FCC, but perhaps not Congress, believes are issues properly within its ambit. In doing so, the Order thrusts the FCC into current debates about the scope of the administrative state, the potential revival of the major questions doctrine, and the potential demise of Chevron. Framed by these issues, this debate will consider whether the FCC’s Open Internet Order fits within the agency’s statutory authority. -- This debate took place during the 18th Annual Faculty Conference at the Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel in New York, NY on January 8, 2016. -- Featuring: Prof. Adam Candeub, Michigan State University School of Law; Prof. Justin (Gus) Hurwitz, Nebraska College of Law; Mr. Geoffrey Manne, International Center for Law and Economics; and Prof. James Speta, Northwestern University School of Law. Moderator: Prof. Daniel Lyons, Boston College Law School.
When Chevron was first decided it was generally welcomed on the right side of the political spectrum as a principled method constraining judicial discretion and permitting the executive to exert policy control over the administrative state. But as the administrative state continues to grow, some now see Chevron as removing an important check on government power and an abdication of the judiciary’s authority to say what the law is. Some members of the Supreme Court are now open to reconsidering judicial deference to agency action, at least in certain areas, such as determining their own jurisdictions and interpreting their own regulations. The panel will consider the extent to which the new skepticism toward Chevron in particular and judicial deference to agencies in general is justified. -- This panel took place during the 18th Annual Faculty Conference at the Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel in New York, NY on January 8, 2016. -- Welcome: Dean Blake D. Morant, President, Association of American Law Schools & Dean and Robert Kramer Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School and Dean Kellye Y. Testy, President Elect, Association of American Law Schools & Toni Rembe Dean & Professor of Law, University of Washington School of Law. Introduction: Hon. Lee Liberman Otis, Senior Vice President & Faculty Division Director, The Federalist Society -- Panel: The New Chevron Skeptics -- Featuring: Prof. Michael Herz, Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Pojanowski, University of Notre Dame Law School; Prof. Peter Strauss, Columbia Law School; and Prof. Christopher Walker, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. Moderator: Prof. John McGinnis, Northwestern University School of Law.
As ISIS, al Qaeda and its offshoots, and other groups spread terror across the globe, it is vital to establish a strong framework for the international law and policy of counterterrorism. This includes understandings and cooperation on surveillance, detention, counterterrorism finance, and the law of espionage. These subjects will be addressed by panelists with both real world and academic experience. -- This panel was presented by the American Branch of International Law Association, the International Law Students Association, and the Federalist Society's International & National Security Law Practice Group at the 2015 International Law Weekend at Fordham University School of Law on November 6, 2015. -- Featuring: Prof. Jamil N. Jaffer, Adjunct Professor of Law and Director, Homeland & National Security Law Program at George Mason University School of Law, former Chief Counsel & Senior Advisor at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and former Associate Counsel to President George W. Bush; Mr. Matthew Heiman, Vice President, Chief Compliance and Audit Officer, Tyco International; former Attorney Advisor, U.S. Department of Justice National Security Division; former Legal Advisor, Coalition Provisional Authority, Ministry of Justice, Iraq; Mr. Adam R. Pearlman, Associate Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Department of Defense (appearing in his personal capacity and not as a representative of the Department of Defense); Co-Editor of The American Bar Association's publication The U.S. Intelligence Community Law Sourcebook; and Prof. Peter Margulies, Professor of Law, Roger Williams Law School. Moderator: Mr. Vincent Vitkowsky, Partner, Seiger Gfeller & Laurie LLP, member of the Executive Committee of ABILA, and Chairman of the Federalist Society's International & National Security Law Practice Group.
On November 14, 2015, during the Federalist Society's 2015 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC, Professor Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz of the Georgetown University Law Center interviewed USA Today Columnist, Daily Beast Columnist, and FOX News Contributor Ms. Kirsten Powers. -- Note: There were technical issues with Prof. Rosenkranz's microphone at the beginning of the video during his introduction, but the issues were resolved by the time the interview begins.
The Eighth Annual Rosenkranz Debate was held on November 14, 2015, during The Federalist Society's 2015 National Lawyers Convention. RESOLVED: The Constitution is designed for a moral and religious people and it's wholly unsuited for the government of any other. -- Featuring: Prof. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University and Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University School of Law. Moderator: Hon. William H. Pryor Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalsit Society.
Many attorneys see a judgeship as the pinnacle of professional achievement in the legal world. It could be the visibility of judges, their unquestioned decision-making authority, the absence of clients, life tenure, or some other aspect of being a judge. Our panel of judges will discuss the realities of a career on the bench. The panelists will share their thoughts on topics as diverse as the role of the judiciary, judicial philosophy, stare decisis and precedent, opinions and dissents, the judicial appointment process, the state of the legal profession, and much more. -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Saturday, November 14, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit; Hon. Alex Kozinski, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit; Hon. Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit; Hon. Jerry Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit; and Hon. David Stras, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of Minnesota. Moderator: Hon. David B. Sentelle, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.
The Supreme Court has instructed in clear terms that the duty of the Federal prosecutor in a criminal prosecution "is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done." Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). Yet the news pages are filled with examples of Federal prosecutorial overreach. In its term just ended, the Supreme Court reversed six of seven criminal convictions that reached it, several all involving some form of over criminalization that can lead to prosecutorial overreach. And large categories of prosecutorial overreach never reach the Supreme Court, from dozens of convictions of "insider trading" by non-insiders (now found not to be a crime by the Second Circuit); to civil forfeitures of property of legitimate small businesses never charged with a crime; to multi-billion dollar settlements of the thinnest of charges with large banks, pharmaceutical companies, and individuals that cannot take any risk of a criminal conviction; to what one jurist has described as an “epidemic of Brady violations abroad in the land." -- The panel will explore whether prosecutorial overreach has become epidemic. It will also explore potential remedies ranging from reducing the number of crimes, to sentencing reform, plea bargain reform, civil forfeiture reform, and more. Finally, it will ask who should take action to control prosecutorial overreach? Should it be the state bars? Should the courts be more aggressive? Or, is the task primarily one for Congress? If so, what are the most promising avenues of reform? -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Saturday, November 14, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. Alex Kozinski, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit; Mr. John G. Malcolm, Director, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation; Hon. George J. Terwilliger III, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP; and Ms. Darpana M. Sheth, Constitutional Litigator, Institute for Justice. Moderator: Hon. Keith R. Blackwell, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of Georgia. Introduction: Mr. John J. Park, Jr., Of Counsel, Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP.
The Constitution specifically vests power in Congress to grant authors and inventors exclusive rights in their writings and inventions. The first Congress passed laws setting forth the requirements and procedures for granting patents and copyrights. In these early days, copyrights were granted for registered works, and Thomas Jefferson himself examined patents as a member of President George Washington's cabinet. As IP laws developed, however, they gave substantial deference to both the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), and the Copyright Office, on matters of reviewing, granting, limiting, and defining IP rights. These agencies have come to wield significant influence over the U.S. IP regime. Recently, and notwithstanding its delegations of power, Congress has been particularly active in passing new patent and copyright legislation. Sometimes Congress specifies how the law shall be interpreted and administered, and other times it delegates this to the relevant agencies, or to the courts. By considering specific examples, this panel will examine the role of Congress, Congressional delegation, and executive agencies in crafting and administering our modern intellectual property systems. -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Saturday, November 14, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Sandra Aistars, Clinical Professor, George Mason School of Law and Sr. Scholar and Director, Copyright Policy & Research, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property; Prof. John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law; Prof. David S. Olson, Associate Professor, Boston College Law School; and Prof. Arti K. Rai, Elvin R. Latty Professor of Law and co-Director, Duke Law Center for Innovation Policy. Moderator: Hon. Thomas B. Griffith, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit.
Environmental law and policy raise profound questions about Congress's role and responsibilities. Many environmental regulatory statutes leave the Environmental Protection Agency with broad discretion. Although these grants of discretion create flexibility and take advantage of EPA expertise, they also invite congressional passivity, create administrative problems, and increase special-interest pressures on the EPA and Congress alike. Congressional-EPA relations matter now more than ever because many major federal environmental laws are now more than 40 years old. The EPA is using currently enabling language from old environmental organic acts to regulate global climate change and other cutting-edge problems. What are the proper relations between Congress and the EPA? If these relations are out of alignment, can Congress realign them and how? Panelists will explore these questions with examples ranging from hydrofracturing through clean water and clean air regulation. -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Saturday, November 14, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Eric R. Claeys, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law; Mr. Matt Leggett, Policy Counsel on Energy, Environment, and Agriculture, U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee; Prof. Nicholas A. Robinson, University Professor on the Environment, and Kerlin Professor Emeritus, Pace University School of Law; and Prof. David Schoenbrod, Trustee Professor of Law, New York Law School. Moderator: Hon. Steven M. Colloton, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Over the years, and especially recently, it appears as though members of Congress primarily need to avoid offending constituents if they wish to stay in office. There are few rewards for genuine political leadership or the hard-nosed political deals that are oftentimes crucial to good governance. “Passing the buck" to the Executive branch, usually in the form of the Administrative State or even to the Judiciary seems less effective but more prudent. Are the incentives for members of Congress deleterious to its overall function? Is it possible to effectively change them? -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Saturday, November 14, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. Howard L. Berman, Former U.S. Representative, California’s 28th Congressional District, Senior Advisor, Covington & Burling LLP; Prof. James W. Ceaser, Professor of Politics, University of Virginia; Prof. Michael S. Greve, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law; Prof. Frances E. Lee, Professor, University of Maryland; Prof. Richard H. Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law; and Mr. Matthew L. Wiener, Executive Director, Administrative Conference of the United States. Moderator: Hon. Frank H. Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.
On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society established this annual lecture in Barbara's memory because of her enormous contributions as an active member, supporter, and volunteer leader. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals. In 2015, Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas delivered the lecture. He was introduced by Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President of the Federalist Society.
Most would agree that the world is unsettled, with hotspots in the Middle East, North Korea, the South China Sea, and the Ukraine, to name but a few. Terrorism has complicated international relations. But exactly when, and how, should America act to maintain order? Is a muscular and expeditionary style of engagement to be favored over quiet diplomacy? Is more and faster better than less and slower? How contextual should the answers to these questions be? -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 13, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Colin Dueck, Associate Professor, George Mason University School of Policy, Government, and International Affairs; Mr. Benjamin H. Friedman, Research Fellow in Defense and Homeland Security Studies, Cato Institute; Mr. François-Henri Briard, Supreme Court Attorney (France), Delaporte, Briard & Trichet; and Hon. Mike J. Rogers, Former U.S. House of Representatives, Michigan. Moderator: Mr. Brian H. Hook, former Assistant Secretary of State.
Supporters of mandated disclosure of the source of speech (or of money used to pay for speech) claim it can provide important information to the public and the legal system. But opponents say it violates privacy rights and can also deter the sources from speaking or contributing. -- This debate also applies to reporters' confidential sources. In both situations, disclosure (of who contributed or spent, or who a confidential source was) may provide useful information to voters, prosecutors, civil litigants, judges, or jurors. In both situations, requiring disclosure of the source may deter people from contributing to controversial campaigns or organizations, or from talking to journalists. Politically, people tend to react differently to these reactions – confidentiality of contributors tends to be more supported by conservatives, while confidentiality of journalists' sources tends to be more supported by liberals. But structurally, are these issues similar? This panel will consider both these questions together. -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 13, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. Andrew M. Grossman, Associate, BakerHostetler; Mr. Stephen Klein, Pillar of Law Institute; Mr. Paul S. Ryan, Senior Counsel, Campaign Legal Center; and Hon. Hans von Spakovsky, Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation. Moderator: Hon. Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Michigan. Introduction: Mr. Manuel Klausner, Co-Founder, Trustee, and Legal Advisor, Reason Foundation and General Counsel, Individual Rights Foundation.
Senator Orrin Hatch delivered this address at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 13, 2015. He was introduced by Mr. Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President of The Federalist Society.
Many observers of the U.S. financial system increasingly believe that the United States will soon experience another financial crisis – the only questions are when and how bad will it be? With that expectation in mind, the panel could address the following issues: What are the likely early indicators that another crisis is in the offing? What economic conditions are the likely causes of that crisis (rising housing prices, the reemgence of shadow banking, other consequences of Dodd-Frank, crises emanating from other countries, etc.)? What might ignite that crisis? Who will likely be blamed for causing the next crisis and who or what should be blamed? What might be the political/legislative response(s) to the next crisis? What, if anything, can be done to mitigate the consequences of the next financial crisis and possibly even steer the U.S. economy away from future financial crises? -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 13, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. Phil Gramm, Senior Advisor, US Policy Metrics and Former United States Senator; Mr. Frank Medina, Senior Counsel & Director of Research, Better Markets; Ms. Karen Shaw Petrou, Managing Partner, Federal Financial Analytics, Inc.; and Prof. J.W. Verret, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Edith H. Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
If we accept the premise that government, and government power, is growing, then the stakes for elective office have never been higher. With the levers of power at stake, are we seeing an increase in the use of the criminal justice system to attack legitimate political activity? Or are we perhaps seeing the proper policing of increased fraud and abuse by those in the political sphere? In a media climate in which a mere investigation can be fatal to a political campaign or career, what actions are political and what actions are criminal, and who should decide? -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 13, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. Todd P. Graves, Partner, Graves Garrett LLC; Mr. Edward T. Kang, Partner, Alston & Bird LLP; Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law; and Mr. Peter R. Zeidenberg, Partner, Arent Fox LLP. Moderator: Hon. Raymond W. Gruender, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Introduction: Mr. John G. Malcolm, Director, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation.
Criminal justice and policing reform are much in the news lately, sparked by events that garner national media coverage. This panel will assess the need for reform, and the road forward. How do media narratives about policing square with the empirical evidence? What are the most effective methods of policing, and how can they best be promoted? What is the proper way to balance police activity and the crime rate? In the current atmosphere, is legitimate police activity chilled? Must law enforcement officers responding to calls pause to consider their potential personal liability? -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 13, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. Arthur Loevy, Partner, Loevy & Loevy; Mr. Tim Lynch, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, The Cato Institute; Dr. David B. Muhlhausen, Research Fellow in Empirical Policy Analysis, Center for Data Analysis, The Heritage Foundation; Mr. Michael P. Tremoglie, Former Philadelphia Police Officer; and Mr. Robert L. Woodson, Sr., Founder and President, Center for Neighborhood Enterprise. Moderator: Hon. David Stras, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of Minnesota. Introduction: Hon. Gail Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law.
Clearly, we live in a very different society from that of the founding period. Size of both population and territory, speed of communication, and America's role in the world are but three examples of many differences. Equally clear is that these changes require adaptation, even if the original design was perfect. But how true have those changes been to the structure and spirit of that design? Have the required changes in practice been consciously or unconsciously used as a way to alter the original conception? What has been lost that would be valuable today? Are there better ways to adjust the Congressional role to major changes in society? Hypothetically, how would Congress handle a greatly increased volume of work in the unlikely event that the size of the government was halved, and could it do so without excessive reliance on the Administrative State? Is Congress dysfunctional today? If so, how can we improve it? -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 13, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. Christopher C. DeMuth, Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute; Prof. Neal E. Devins, Sandra Day O'Connor Professor of Law, Cabell Research Professor, Professor of Government, and Director, Institute of Bill of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School; Prof. David Mayhew, Sterling Professor of Political Science, Yale University; Prof. Gillian E. Metzger, U.S. Constitutional Law Scholar and Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; and Prof. Neomi Rao, Associate Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Jerry Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.
This panel of current and former state Attorneys General will examine the relationship between the federal and state governments, vertical separation of powers, as well as the regulatory regime within states. Many state AG offices are litigating more, and more important cases, than ever before. A recent spate of lawsuits has pitted a fair number of states against the federal government, challenging underlying federal authority for discreet actions taken. Meanwhile, laws and regulations by state government actors, including business licensing and other regulations governing business and employment, are being challenged by others, often defended by state Attorneys General. The panel will discuss and debate these and other emerging challenges. -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 13, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. Adam Laxalt, Attorney General, State of Nevada and Hon. William H. Pryor Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Moderator: Mr. Adam J. White, Counsel, Boyden Gray & Associates. Introduction: Mr. Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President, The Federalist Society.
This panel was held during the 2015 National Lawyers Convention Annual Dinner on Thursday, November 12, 2015, at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. Sam Brownback, Governor, State of Kansas; Hon. Nathan Deal, Governor, State of Georgia; Hon. Pete Ricketts, Governor, State of Nebraska; and Hon. Scott Walker, Governor, State of Wisconsin. Moderator: Mr. William Kristol, Editor, The Weekly Standard. Introduction: Hon. David M. McIntosh, President, Club for Growth and Vice Chairman, The Federalist Society.
Panelists will examine the impact of the FCC's Open Internet Order and reclassification of broadband as a public utility and explore possible alternative regulatory regimes. What will the courts do? What should Congress do? What should a new Administration make its first broadband priorities? With the convergence of technologies, should the current platform-specific regulation be replaced with a more flexible, service-based regulatory scheme? How could such regulations impact developing business models and evolving technologies? How is the US faring against the rest of the world in the quest for broadband leadership? -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, November 12, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. Earl W. Comstock, Partner, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC; Mr. Miguel A. Estrada, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP; Ms. Roslyn Layton, Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; and Mr. Robert Quinn, Senior Vice-President – Federal Regulatory and Chief Privacy Officer, AT&T. Moderator: Hon. David B. Sentelle, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. Introduction: Ms. Kelly A. Donohue, Partner, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP.
With the U.S. Supreme Court cert grant in the Little Sisters of the Poor case, religious liberties is once again in the legal and media spotlight. What is the recent record of the government in protecting religious liberty? Our panel will discuss everything from the contraceptive mandate and its exemptions to ministerial hiring, RLUPA, the faith-based initiative, the Planned Parenthood controversy, and everything in between. -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, November 12, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Dr. Stanley Carlson-Thies, Founder & Senior Director, Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance; Mr. William P. Marshall, William Rand Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law; Mr. William L. Saunders, Senior Vice President of Legal Affairs, Americans United for Life; and Mr. Adam J. White, Counsel, Boyden Gray & Associates. Moderator: Hon. Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." Critics argue that, given this mandate, too much of the lawmaking power is exercised by unelected people in unaccountable agencies. These bureaucracies make “law" by both formal and informal regulation, and oftentimes both enforce their own laws and adjudicate their own enforcement actions. Some have even been given self-funding mechanisms, which removes them from even the check of Congress's appropriation power. Proponents of such delegation argue that administrative agency staff have expertise in myriad substantive areas that legislators could never obtain, and that what critics describe as a lack of accountability is actually insulation from political pressure and influence. They assert that delegations of lawmaking power are permissible if Congress provides an “intelligible principle" setting the boundaries within which the agencies are permitted to operate. The Supreme Court has, under this standard, upheld such broad grants of power to the agencies as legislative direction to regulate “in the public interest," for the “public convenience, interest, or necessity," to do what is “just and reasonable," or to prevent “unfair methods of competition." In other words, critics assert, the “intelligible principle" limitation on delegations of lawmaking power is no limitation at all. The last time the Court struck down an act of Congress because it delegated lawmaking power was in the 1935 case of Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, and that case involved a double delegation, first to the executive and then to a committee of private businesses. -- The phenomenon of agency officials making most of the nation's laws expanded when the Court decided, in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, (1984) to start deferring to agency interpretation of ambiguous statutes. Several members of the Court have started to question this state of affairs, and this past term, in three separate opinions, Justice Thomas called on the Court to revisit both Chevron deference and the demise of the non-delegation doctrine. Others fear an over-empowered, unelected judiciary. One response to reliance on Chevron deference was offered by Chief Justice Roberts in the King v. Burwell case. There, the Chief (writing for a 5-4 majority) declined to defer to the agency's interpretation of the statute, and instead applied Chevron deference to the Court's own interpretation. This panel will address the present state of affairs and the possible roads forward. -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, November 12, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, Chapman University School of Law; Hon. C. Boyden Gray, Boyden Gray & Associates and former U.S. Ambassador to the European Union; Mr. Neal K. Katyal, Hogan Lovells and former Acting U.S. Solicitor General; and Mr. David B. Rivkin, Jr., Partner, BakerHostetler. Moderator: Hon. Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit.
Our nation's private sector labor law is a product of the New Deal and the industrial age. In its first edition, the 1935 Wagner Act, employee rights to organize were recognized and employer unfair labor practices were defined. Twelve years later, the pendulum swung and union unfair labor practices were added to the Act. To address corruption, the 1959 Landrum-Griffin Act was enacted to require labor organizations, employers, and labor relations consultants to file annual reports, and union members were granted a Bill of Rights. The NLRA was last amended in 1974, addressing the health care industry. -- Over the past 80 years, our nation's economy, indeed, the global economy, has changed significantly. While some efforts have been made over the last four decades to amend federal labor law, none have succeeded. To fill the vacuum, the National Labor Relations Board has stepped in as what some would describe as a quasi-legislature, issuing decisions and rules reflecting the Board's political majority's bias to circumvent Congressional deadlock. -- Should labor law be viewed as a vehicle to restore organized labor's density of 60+ years ago or to ensure employee rights to join or not join a labor union? Or, should labor law be overhauled to ensure labor unions' presence globally and to empower organized labor to affect or determine global work standards and business models generally? And, should labor law be politically aligned with one party? Is labor law about the American citizen/worker or about organized labor's institutional survival? -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, November 12, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law. Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law; Hon. John N. Raudabaugh, Reed Larson Professor of Labor Law, Ave Maria School of Law; Mr. Bill Samuel, Director of Government Affairs, AFL-CIO; and Mr. Mark Schneider, General Counsel, Int'l Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Moderator: Hon. Joan L. Larsen, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of Michigan.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has recently increased its use of administrative proceedings, before Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), to seek civil penalties, as an alternative to proceeding in an Article III court. Other federal regulatory and enforcement agencies use ALJs for various purposes at various rates. Although no single set of rules governs all ALJs, they typically differ from Article III courts in important ways, bringing their use under recent criticism. As two examples, ALJs do not enjoy life tenure and they are sometimes employed by and answerable to the agency itself. Our panel will discuss the pros and cons of the use of ALJs at the SEC and other agencies. -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, November 12, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center; Mr. Stephen J. Crimmins, Shareholder, Murphy & McGonigle PC; Prof. Todd E. Pettys, H. Blair and Joan V. White Chair in Civil Litigation, University of Iowa College of Law; and Prof. Tuan Samahon, Villanova University School of Law. Moderator: Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Commissioner, International Trade Commission.
Lawmakers are quick to complain about government agencies exceeding their authority. While some complaint is justified, Congress itself contributes to the problem. From delegating too much discretion to agencies, to not taking action to rein them in, Congress has contributed enormously to today's Administrative Leviathan. The judiciary also plays a major role. Judicial deference to agency interpretations permits agencies to develop rules that are neither supported by Congressional findings, nor grounded in statutory text. As we have seen recently, even when Congress has the will to reassert its legislative authority, as by opposing a rule, obstacles can prevent it, such as a Presidential veto. The biggest losers in this state of affairs are the American people. Contrary to Constitutional design, Americans have significant laws imposed upon them not by their representatives, but by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. What remedies can Congress employ to rein in the Administrative State/Executive Branch overreach? How can it stop contributing to the problem? Is judicial deference to agencies compatible with Congress's over-delegation to them? Does this combination properly respect Congressional lawmaking responsibility? This panel will explore the current state of these trends that are undermining separation of powers and our representative democracy. -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, November 12, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. Tom Coburn, Former United States Senator, Oklahoma; Mr. Christopher C. DeMuth, Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute; Prof. Jonathan Turley, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law, The George Washington University Law School; and Prof. Michael Uhlmann, Claremont Graduate University. Moderator: Hon. A. Raymond Randolph, U.S Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. Introduction: Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Partner, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.
It has been ten years since John Roberts was appointed as the 17th Chief Justice of the United States. During his confirmation hearing, Chief Justice Roberts promised to be a Justice who would "call balls and strikes." In his first decade on the Court, he has written for the Court in some of most consequential cases in recent history and dissented in others. He has been both applauded and criticized by both ends of the political spectrum. He also has begun to craft his legacy as Chief Justice and leader not only of the Supreme Court but of the entire federal judiciary. This panel will present a range of views on the first ten years of the Roberts Court. The panelists bring a variety of perspectives: practitioner, journalist, academic, and Senate staff at the time of his confirmation. They will discuss the substance of the Roberts Court's opinions, what legacy the Chief Justice is crafting, whether he is succeeding in shaping the Court into a "Roberts Court," and whether his jurisprudence is consistent with what was expected at the time he was appointed. -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, November 12, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. Michael A. Carvin, Partner, Jones Day; Ms. Jan Crawford, Political Correspondent and Chief Legal Correspondent, CBS News; Mr. Steven J. Duffield, Former Chief Counsel, Senator Jon Kyl; and Prof. Michael S. Paulsen, Distinguished University Chair and Professor, University of St. Thomas School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Carlos T. Bea, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Introduction: Hon. Rachel Brand, Member, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board and Senior Advisor to the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, United States Chamber of Commerce.
Assistant to the President and White House Counsel Neil Eggleston delivered this address at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, November 12, 2015. He was introduced by Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups at The Federalist Society.
What was the founders' conception of the role of Congress? Was that conception clearly understood? To what degree was that conception followed during our nation's early years and to what degree did early Congresses follow the Constitution? To what degree were members of Congress representing their districts and to what degree were they representing national interests? In what ways did the Senate and the House originally operate differently? Originally, the prevailing view was that “the laws that free men live under are the laws that have been hauled up." In other words, we are ruled by the laws that we and our neighbors made. Was this ever true? -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, November 12, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Akhil R. Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale University; Dr. Louis Fisher, Scholar in Residence, the Constitution Project; Prof. Tara J. Helfman, Associate Professor of Law, Syracuse University College of Law; and Dr. Gordon Lloyd, Robert and Katheryn Dockson Professor of Public Policy, Pepperdine University School of Public Policy. Moderator: Hon. James L. Buckley, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit (ret.) and former U.S. Senator.
Senator Mike Lee opened the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on November 12 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. Senator Lee discussed the role of Congress.
On September 19, 2015, The Federalist Society hosted the 2015 Texas Chapters Conference at the George W. Bush Presidential Center in Dallas, Texas. In this session, Keith Hennessey, former Assistant to President George W. Bush for Economic Policy and Director of the U.S. National Economic Council, was interviewed about The 2008 Financial Crisis. Interviewer: Marc Kesselman, former General Counsel of the Department of Agriculture and former Deputy General Counsel of Office of Management and Budget. Introduction: William Peterson, Beck Redden LLP and President, Houston Lawyers Chapter.
On September 19, 2015, The Federalist Society hosted the 2015 Texas Chapters Conference at the George W. Bush Presidential Center in Dallas, Texas. President of the George W. Bush Presidential Center and former United States Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings welcomed the attendees at the start of the conference. The following panel featured a retrospective on the War on Terror and the Rule of Law. -- Featuring: Hon. Michael Chertoff, former Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; Hon. William Haynes, II, former General Counsel, Department of Defense; Hon. Michael Mukasey, former Attorney General, Department of Justice; and Hon. Larry D. Thompson, former Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice. Moderator: Mr. John Rizzo, former Acting General Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency.
October 5th will mark the first day of the 2015 Supreme Court term. Thus far, the Court's docket includes major cases involving the death penalty, affirmative action, unions, civil asset forfeiture, and more. -- Notable cases include Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez, which concerns pre-certification mootness; Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, which concerns class certification where statistical methods are used to establish liability and damages; Spokeo v. Robins, which concerns Article III standing and statutory damages; Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, which concerns affirmative action in admissions; Evenwel v. Abbott, which concerns redistricting law; Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which concerns teacher unions; and Kansas v. Gleason, Kansas v. Carr, Montgomery v. Louisiana, Foster v. Humphrey, and Hurst v. Florida, which all concern the death penalty. -- In addition to these cases and others, which may include abortion and contraceptive mandate questions, the panelists will discuss the current composition and the future of the Court. -- Featuring: Prof. Gail Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law; Mr. John Elwood, Partner at Vinson & Elkins; Mr. Neal K. Katyal, Partner at Hogan Lovells; Prof. John F. Stinneford, Professor of Law and Assistant Director, Criminal Justice Center at Levin College of Law, University of Florida; and Mr. Ed Whelan, President of Ethics & Public Policy Center. Moderator: Mr. Adam Liptak, The New York Times.
With the adoption of the Open Internet Order, the Federal Communications Commission has potentially waded into areas that have historically been within the Federal Trade Commission’s jurisdiction. How are privacy, consumer protection, and technology policy issues currently being handled by the agencies – do their actions complement each other or are they creating regulatory tension and uncertainty? If there is a turf war going on, will Congress step in or will the courts decide? How does it impact competition policies and consumer protection? Join FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai and FTC Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen as they engage in a moderated discussion about these and other issues relating to the respective roles of their agencies. -- Featuring: Hon. Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Federal Trade Commission and Hon. Ajit V. Pai, Federal Communications Commission. Moderator: Alexander Okuliar, Partner, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.
On July 10, 2015, Miguel Estrada of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP delivered the Annual Supreme Court Round Up at The Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. Introduction by Mr. Douglas R. Cox, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
After delegating significant power to the administrative state, is Congress properly discharging its oversight role? Are there tools available to Congress that are underutilized? Would a proper annual budget process help? Are Congress’ oversight hearings meaningful, well-run, and properly focused? Should Congress be requesting more information from agencies through other avenues? -- This panel was presented on June 18, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC during the Third Annual Executive Branch Review Conference. -- Featuring: Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Case Western Reserve University School of Law; Mr. Michael D. Bopp, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher; Prof. Sally Katzen, New York University School of Law; and Mr. Adam J. White, Boyden Gray & Associates. Moderator: Hon. Todd F. Gaziano, Pacific Legal Foundation.
In administrative law the focus has primarily been on how to constrain executive discretion. It may, however, be equally important to consider how to constrain the delegations that create that discretion—not just by telling Congress to “do its job,” but by thinking about how to shift the incentives that members have for delegation. This panel will consider what Congress gains by delegating policymaking authority to the executive. The conventional view holds that delegations only expand the power of the executive, ignoring the myriad reasons that Congress chooses to delegate its power. Members of Congress may realize a variety of benefits from delegation, including control over how agencies exercise their discretion. Panelists will discuss the reasons why Congress delegates so broadly and consider what legal and political solutions might curb such delegations.-- This panel was presented on June 18, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC during the Third Annual Executive Branch Review Conference. -- Featuring: Prof. Jack M. Beermann, Boston University School of Law; Prof. Gillian E. Metzger, Columbia Law School; and Prof. Neomi J. Rao, George Mason University School of Law. Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, The Federalist Society.
Does the judiciary owe Congress presumptive deference in reviewing and considering challenges to federal statutes? If so, what standards should courts impose on those making such challenges? -- The historical practice of such presumptive deference, the canon of constitutional avoidance, has been reflected in decades of judicial decisions upholding much Congressional legislation. However, some believe that, in light of courts' observance of the canon of constitutional avoidance, Congress correspondingly enacts legislation without taking care that such legislation is actually constitutional. -- In recent years, Congress is increasingly likely to pass acts that run to hundreds or even thousands of pages. The bills are typically drafted by staffers, sometimes hastily written and amended at the last moment, and often not read by legislators before votes are cast. Some bills are passed at the midnight hour, sometimes with provisions for expedited judicial review of the bill's constitutionality, as if Congress is leaving wholly to the judiciary the assessment of a law's constitutionality. -- Some now assert that, given how Congress enacts legislation, courts should rethink the canon of constitutional avoidance. -- Our panel will consider this question and the proper applicability of the canon of constitutional avoidance. -- This panel was presented on June 18, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC during the Third Annual Executive Branch Review Conference. -- Featuring: Hon. David M. McIntosh, Club for Growth; Mr. Clark Neily, Institute for Justice; and Mr. M. Edward Whelan III, Ethics and Public Policy Center. Moderator: Hon. Thomas B. Griffith, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The economics profession has long proffered Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) as the best tool for making balanced and efficient governmental decisions on spending and regulation. Though some critics object to the tool, presidents from both parties for over four decades have endorsed the BCA paradigm as the preferred way to make sound regulatory decisions, and Congress is considering legislation that would require agencies to support major regulatory initiatives with BCA. -- But is BCA a silver bullet for improving policy decisions? If not, what procedural and analytical changes might improve its usefulness as a policy development tool? This diverse panel of legal and policy experts will explore these questions and examine the appropriate role for congressional and judicial oversight, the proper scope of BCA, and when analysis should be conducted and by whom. -- This panel was presented on June 18, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC during the Third Annual Executive Branch Review Conference. -- Featuring: Hon. C. Boyden Gray, Boyden Gray & Associates; Mr. Michael A. Livermore, University of Virginia School of Law; Mr. Richard D. Morgenstern, Resources for the Future; and Hon. Eugene Scalia, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher. Moderator: Hon. Susan E. Dudley, The George Washington University.
The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed new regulations for CO2 emission reductions from existing power plants. The proposal requires states to implement the Agency’s Clean Power Plan. Proponents argue that it is an essential measure to protect vital natural resources; opponents argue that it will be massively costly and logistically difficult to implement (particularly given the timeframes required in the proposed regulations), and that it robs the states of their sovereign power. Our panel of experts will discuss the underlying legal authority for EPA’s proposal, the appropriate federalism model for regulation of CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act, and the policy implications. -- This panel was presented on June 18, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC during the Third Annual Executive Branch Review Conference. -- Featuring: Mr. David Doniger, Natural Resources Defense Council; Mr. Mark W. DeLaquil, Baker & Hostetler LLP; Mr. Robert M. Sussman, Sussman & Associates; and Mr. Misha Tseytlin, West Virginia Attorney General's Office. Moderator: Ms. Elana Schor, Politico.
The communications and technology sectors have seen an explosion of growth and innovation over the last decade, and yet the primary body of law governing these areas, The Communications Act, has not been updated since the days of dial-up internet. In 2013, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (Mich.) and Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (Oreg.) announced that they would commence efforts to “update the law to better meet the dynamic needs of the 21st century.” In January, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (S. Dak.) announced similar plans. -- Our panel will discuss recent efforts to update the Communications Act for the modern internet age. What should a new framework look like? With the convergence of technologies, should the current platform-specific regulation be replaced with a more flexible, service-based regulatory scheme? Should special considerations still apply in certain services? How could such regulations impact developing business models and evolving technologies? Should the scope of the FCC’s jurisdiction remain the same? These and other issues will be explored. -- This panel was presented on June 18, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC during the Third Annual Executive Branch Review Conference. -- Featuring: Mr. Jonathan Adelstein, President & CEO, PCIA - The Wireless Infrastructure Association; Ms. Kelly Cole, National Association of Broadcasters; Ms. Grace Koh, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce; and Mr. David B. Quinalty, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Moderator: Mr. Scott Belcher, Telecommunications Industry Association.
The theme of the Third Annual Executive Branch Review Conference, what role does and should Congress play vis-a-vis the administrative state, will be developed in a series of addresses, debates and panel discussions. Experts will discuss incentives for Congressional action and inaction, reducing delegation from Congress to the agencies through more precise statutory language, the tools of Congressional oversight, and more. The conference will also include breakout sessions by selected practice groups to provide detailed discussion about executive branch activities in particular areas of the law. -- Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell delivered the opening address on June 18, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.