Necessary & Proper Podcast: Recent Episodes
The Federalist Society
Necessary & Proper is the official podcast of the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative. The Framers of the Constitution intended the legislature to be the most powerful branch of government. In its present state, as the government operates on a day to day basis, it is not. Were the Founders simply wrong about the inherent powers of the legislative branch? Has the institution of Congress developed practices that are not compatible with the text of the Constitution? Why are current Congressional leaders unable or unwilling to act as an effective check on the presidency? Why is Congress unable to pass a budget? Why has Congress ceded much of its authority to the executive branch and to administrative agencies? What does it mean to serve productively as a member of the House or Senate? These and other important questions are the focus of the Article I Initiative. Periodic releases from Necessary & Proper will feature experts who can shed light on what the Framers envisioned for the legislative branch and how it can be restored to its proper place in the constitutional order.
Congress is currently debating the Antisemitism Awareness Act. This proposed legislation aims to provide a clear definition of antisemitism for use in enforcing existing civil rights laws. Supporters argue that the bill is a crucial tool for combating rising antisemitism by filling a gap in current legal definitions. Opponents, however, contend that the bill could stifle free speech and limit criticism of Israel. Join the Federalist Society for a timely discussion on the legal and constitutional implications of this legislation, exploring the complexities of defining hate speech while upholding the principles of free expression.
Featuring:
William Creeley, Legal Director, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)
Prof. Eugene Kontorovich, Professor of Law and Director, Center for the Middle East and International Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School
(Moderator) Aharon Friedman, Special Counsel, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
The recent dismissal of the Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyrights by President Trump raises fundamental questions about the scope of the President’s removal authority and the constitutional status of these offices. Do these officials exercise executive power such that they must be removable at will? Or has Congress validly restricted removal in pursuit of independence?
This panel will examine the legal and historical foundations of both positions, tracing the development of the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office, their placement within the legislative branch, and the President’s authority to remove them—if any. The discussion will examine whether these offices lie within the President’s removal authority or whether Congress has validly constrained that power.
Our panel will consider the constitutional text, structural implications, and historical practice governing the removal of these unique officers.
Featuring:
Prof. Anne Joseph O'Connell, Adelbert H. Sweet Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law
Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute
[Moderator] Robert Rando, Partner, Patrick Doerr
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has traditionally regulated interstate and international communications and, as part of that, maintained a universal service fund that requires telecommunications carriers to contribute quarterly based on their revenues. In order to calculate these contribution amounts, the FCC contracts the help of the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC). The constitutionality of these delegations of power—to the FCC by Congress and to USAC by the FCC—were challenged in court by Consumers’ Research. On June 27, 2025, the Court ruled in favor of the FCC, rejecting the argument that the universal-service contribution scheme violates the nondelegation doctrine.
Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case, its decision, and what this means for the nondelegation doctrine going forward.
Featuring:
Sean Lev, Partner, HWG LLP
Moderator: Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute
On January 20th, 2025, President Trump established the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) by executive order. DOGE and its head, Elon Musk, hope to reduce the size and inefficiencies of the administrative state and return the federal bureaucracy to being accountable to the President and, ultimately, the people. While the scope and extent of this mission are still to be determined, one of DOGE’s early endeavors is to dramatically reduce the number of civil service employees determined to be unnecessary or wasteful. While many are vocal in their support of these actions, they are not without pushback, including several legal challenges.
What is DOGE, and are its structure and actions legal? Where does the power to remove civil servants rest? Are there limits to that power? What impacts will their removals have on the Executive Branch?
Featuring:
Ms. Kristine I. Simmons, Founder and Principal, Rose Communication & Coaching LLC
Prof. David A. Super, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Law and Economics, Georgetown University Law Center
Mr. Manuel Valle, Senior Managing Associate, Sidley Austin LLP
Mr. Hans A. von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
(Moderator) Hon. Ryan T. Holte, Judge, United States Court of Federal Claims; Jurist-In-Residence Professor of Law, The University of Akron School of Law
Among the points emphasized by the second Trump administration has been a major push for deregulation. President Trump has directed that there must be ten deregulatory actions for every one regulatory one, and put forward Presidential Memoranda and Executive Orders to that end. As some have noted, however, such deregulation can take significant time due to factors like the requirements for notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Interestingly, an April Presidential Memorandum seems to contemplate that potential hurdle for executive actions directing repeal of regulations contrary to ten specific recent Supreme Court decisions, including without notice and comment “where appropriate.”
This panel will seek to discuss the potential impact of this presidential memorandum, when deregulation may happen, incurring a need for notice & comment, and what the Judicial Branch might ultimately determine about the Executive Branch’s efforts to enforce their precedents in this manner.
Featuring:
John Lewis, Deputy Legal Director, Governing for Impact
Jonathan Wolfson, Chief Legal Officer and Policy Director, Cicero Institute
(Moderator) Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates, and Former OFCCP Director
Since taking office on January 20, 2025, President Trump has emphasized deregulation. Deregulatory efforts have focused both on undoing Biden-era policies in areas of interest (environmental regulation, SOGI issues, immigration, etc.) and on a broader effort to limit the scope of administrative power more broadly. In light of these strong changes, this panel will discuss the history of deregulation efforts in the Executive Branch, how those compare to the deregulatory efforts of the Trump Administration, and what these changes may mean both practically and more institutionally for the future of the Administrative State.
Featuring:
Prof. Bridget C.E. Dooling, Assistant Professor of Law, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University
Prof. Susan E. Dudley, Distinguished Professor, Regulatory Studies Center, George Washington University
Mr. William C. Hughes, Senior Counsel, Consensys Software
Prof. Richard J. Pierce Jr., Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School
(Moderator) Mr. Adam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Co-Director, C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School
Does the President control independent agencies? This panel will examine the Trump administration’s efforts to reassert presidential control over independent federal agencies, considering the constitutional, legal, and practical implications of such actions. Central to the discussion will be Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld the independence of certain regulatory bodies by limiting the President’s removal power, and the perspectives raised by legal cases such as Hampton Dellinger’s, which questioned the administration’s authority over the removal of agency officials. Proponents argue that increased presidential oversight enhances accountability, ensuring agencies align with elected leadership’s policies, while critics warn that such changes could erode agency independence and introduce political influence into regulatory decisions. The discussion will consider whether these changes promote efficient governance or threaten the integrity of federal oversight.
Featuring:
Prof. Jed Shugerman, Professor, Boston University School of Law
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School
(Moderator) Prof. Aram Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, The George Washington University Law School
Presidents have used executive orders to direct the executive branch since the founding, but over the years the modern Presidency has drastically expanded its use of executive orders. Executive Orders have always been an important means of moving the Executive Branch into alignment with the President’s interpretation of the law consistent with his duty of faithful execution and a primary way President’s exercise their executive discretion under law. Yet all power is subject to expansion and abuse. In January 2014, for example, then-President Obama announced his “pen and phone” strategy: “I’ve got a pen to take executive actions where Congress won’t, and I’ve got a telephone to rally folks around the country on this mission.”
Subsequent administrations have similarly relied on presidential authority to govern by way of Executive Orders, leading to significant litigation challenging the breadth of such authority. This panel will examine the use of executive orders and the “pen and phone” strategy throughout our nation’s history, especially from a separation of powers perspective. This broad power is not expressly identified in either the Constitution or statute, but it has long been accepted as inherent to presidential power over the federal government, federal agencies, foreign affairs, and our military. This panel will discuss the impact of executive orders, what precedent they set for future administrations in the robust exercise of executive authority, and how the “unitary executive” theory plays into that analysis.
This webinar will be the first of four webinars previewing the Thirteenth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on the topic of Theories of Presidential Power.
Featuring:
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
Prof. Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School
Moderator: Beth Williams, Board Member, U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
After the U.S. Supreme Court in Morrison v. Olson (1988) and U.S. v. Lopez (1995) held two federal statutes were unconstitutional as those statutes were beyond the power of Congress to enact, some claimed it was the dawn of a new federalism revolution. However, such challenges to federal power did not seem to continue.
Now, a new case McNutt v. DOJ, once again directly challenges whether a federal statute is beyond Congress’s power to enact. This time, the challenge is to the federal ban on at-home distilling. This case raises substantial issues concerning the scope of Congress’s power and how much decision-making authority the Constitution left for states to decide.
This FedSoc Forum will provide an update on what has occurred so far and discuss the important issues raised by this case.
Featuring:
Thomas Berry, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
Michael Pepson, Regulatory Counsel, Americans for Prosperity Foundation
Eric J. Segall, Ashe Family Chair Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law
Moderator: Theodore Cooperstein, Appellate Counsel, Theodore Cooperstein PLLC
In 2025, antitrust and consumer protection remain hot topics in the legal world as a new Congress and Administration begin. Join this FedSoc Forum as we discuss possible antitrust and Federal Trade Commission reforms in the 119th Congress.
Featuring:
Adam Cella, Chief Counsel for the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust, House Committee on the Judiciary
Thomas DeMatteo, Chief Counsel, Senate Judiciary Committee
Daniel Flores, Senior Counsel, Committee on Oversight and Reform, U.S. House of Representatives
Lynda Garcia, Chief Counsel to Senator Cory A. Booker, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee at United States Senate
Moderator: Svetlana Gans, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
For many years, legal scholars have declared that the nondelegation doctrine is dead. Professor Cass Sunstein once quipped that the nondelegation doctrine had only “one good year” and more than 200 “bad ones.” But that has changed recently. In 2024, the en banc Fifth Circuit held that the Federal Communications Commision’s (FCC) Universal Service Fund is unconstitutional on nondelegation grounds. It was one of the only times since 1935 that a court has done so, and it appears that 2024 (and beyond) may turn out to be good years for the nondelegation doctrine.
Contrary to the FCC’s argument, the en banc Fifth Circuit concluded that the Universal Service Fund operates as a tax, which only Congress has the power and authority to require. Regardless of the public policy that it seeks to advance, Congress cannot delegate this power to the FCC or to any other executive branch agency. The nondelegation doctrine has not been entirely dead for the last hundred years; courts often construe statutes so as not to invalidate them under the nondelegation doctrine. The en banc Fifth Circuit rejected that approach.
Does the canon in the common law of agency, mentioned by the Fifth Circuit, known as delegata potestas non potest delegari (Latin for “delegated power may not be delegated”), have any impact on the original meaning of the nondelegation doctrine? Assuming the nondelegation doctrine is valid, what are the standards that courts should look to when determining whether a statute is sufficiently intelligible? Do words like “in the public interest” or instructions for the agency to “provide reasonable regulations” provide sufficient guidance to agencies? What kind of principles can be applied that are also judicially enforceable?
If the Supreme Court affirms the Fifth Circuit, what will be the impact on other statutes? To discuss these important questions and others, Jeff Beelaert, a partner at Stein Mitchell, and Trent McCotter, a partner at Boyden Gray, will join us.
Featuring:
Jeffrey Beelaert, Partner, Stein Mitchell
Trent McCotter, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC
Moderator: Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute
The development of standing jurisprudence has been inextricably intertwined with the growth of the administrative state over the past 60 years and the bevy of new statutory rights, privileges, obligations, constraints, and interbranch dynamics that came with it. Over the past three terms, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued numerous opinions that are rich with standing doctrine. Three new voices in administrative law--all recent law school graduates--will address recent developments in standing jurisprudence, focusing on State standing, associational standing, and post-TransUnion common law analogues.
Featuring:
Eric Bush, Law Clerk to the Hon. Justin Walker, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Shiza Francis, Associate, Shutts and Bowen LLP
Aaron Watt, Law Clerk to the Hon. Brian Miller, Eastern District of Arkansas
[Moderator] Prof. Aram Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, The George Washington University Law School
Chevron v. NRDC (1984) and subsequent precedents held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This “Chevron Deference” has been a topic of great debate, with many calling for it to be overturned, while others argue it is a vital part of how Courts address the complexity of law and agency actions.
In two cases this term (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce) the Court considered challenges to that precedent. Oral argument was heard in both cases on January 17th, 2024.
On June 28, 2024, a 6-3 Court issued its decision overturning Chevron, in a decision that may notably change the nature of the administrative state and the role of judges in reviewing agency actions moving forward.
Join us for a courthouse steps program where we will discuss and break down the decision and the potential future impacts of this sea change in administrative law.
Featuring:
Prof. Ronald M. Levin, William R. Orthwein Distinguished Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis School of Law
John J. Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
(Moderator) Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School
Congress’s impeachment power has been used dozens of times since the republic’s founding, mostly for relatively low- and mid-level executive and judicial officers involving clear instances of bribery or other felonies. Its attempted use to remove Supreme Court justices, presidents, and now cabinet secretaries is more controversial, and since the 1990s, in arguably partisan or overtly political ways. The impeachment inquiry into President Biden and the House vote to impeach Homeland Security Department Secretary Mayorkas (which recently failed a snap Senate vote) may be seen as tit-for-tat for the two impeachment trials of President Trump. Is that a false equivalence? Regardless of who threw the first partisan stone, are recent uses of the Impeachment power a good development or arguable abuses? What does it portend for the future? Our distinguished panel of scholars will discuss the power itself, recent impeachment proceedings, and the potential implications for the future.
Featuring:
Prof. Michael J. Gerhardt, Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, UNC School of Law
Prof. Keith E. Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University
(Moderator) Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
In his recent book Why Congress, Dr. Phillip Wallach covers the past, present, and future of the Legislative branch to help measure its modern level of dysfunction and offer suggestions for future restoration. The book traces how Congress was designed to operate, how it has met the challenges of decades past, and the trends that have contributed to increased polarization and decreased power. Having established how we got where we are, Dr. Wallach articulates three potential paths forward for Congress: continued dysfunction, increased power for the Executive branch, or a revival of the forms that ensured it will function as designed in the past.
Join the author and our panel of guest experts for an enlightening discussion!
Featuring:
Prof. Bridget Dooling, Assistant Professor of Law, The Ohio State University - Moritz College of Law
Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Dr. Philip A. Wallach, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
(Moderator) Mr. Joel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP
On March 28, 2023, Representatives Harriet Hageman and Chip Roy joined the Georgetown University Chapter of the Federalist Society for a discussion moderated by David Hoppe. Topics ranged from the representatives' careers prior to joining Congress to the proper role of Congress in the federal government, and the event concluded with audience Q&A.
Featuring:
- Hon. Harriet Hageman, U.S. Representative, Wyoming
- Hon. Chip Roy, U.S. Representative, 21st District of Texas
- Moderator: David Hoppe, President, Hoppe Strategies
On March 23, 2023, the Center for Constitutional Design at Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law and the Federalist Society's Arizona State University Student Chapter and Article I Initiative co-hosted a debate about whether the legislative power can be delegated.
The debate featured Professor James Stoner and Professor Michael Rappaport, and was moderated by Arizona State Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick.
Featuring:
- Prof. Michael Rappaport, Hugh & Hazel Darling Professor of Law and Director, Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism, University of San Diego School of Law
- Prof. James Stoner, Hermann Moyse, Jr., Professor and Director, Eric Voegelin Institute, Department of Political Science, Louisiana State University
- [Moderator] Hon. Clint Bolick, Justice, Arizona Supreme Court
- [Introduction] Prof. Stephanie Lindquist, Foundation Professor of Law and Political Science and Director, Center for Constitutional Design, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University
The University of Richmond chapter of the Federalist Society hosted this panel discussion on "The Major Questions Doctrine, Chevron Deference & the Future of the Regulatory State" on Tuesday, March 21, 2023.
Featuring:
- Prof. Joel B. Eisen, Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law
- Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
- Jonathan Wolfson, Chief Legal Officer and Policy Director, Cicero Institute
In November 2022, the District of Columbia City Council passed the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 (RCCA) that significantly reformed the D.C. Criminal Code to "modernize and overhaul" the District's criminal laws including a reduction in penalties for many violent offenses.
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser initially vetoed the bill citing concerns about some of the changes, but the Council overrode her veto in early 2023. Because D.C. government is not autonomous from the federal government, the legislation requires Congressional approval.
The U.S. House voted to nullify the bill, and the Senate is slated to vote on whether to block the bill this week. Should the Senate vote to block the D.C. bill, it could be the first time in almost 3 decades that Congress has nullified a D.C. law.
If the Senate votes to nullify the law, the bill will go to President Biden to sign or to veto. While many had anticipated he would veto the resolution, President Biden indicated in a March 2 tweet that he would sign the resolution should it pass.
On March 6, D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson wrote a letter to the Senate attempting to withdraw the legislation. Such a withdrawal has not been attempted before. The Senate is still slated to take the issue to a vote later this week.
As the Senate vote approached, we hosted a webinar featuring an opening address from U.S. Senator Bill Hagerty, followed by a discussion of the bill and what may come next.
Opening Address Featuring:
Hon. Bill Hagerty, United States Senator, Tennessee
Discussion Featuring:
Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Heritage Foundation
On October 17, 2022, the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project and Capitol Hill Chapter hosted part III in a lecture series on the administrative state. This discussion covered the major questions doctrine and how Congress may respond to the Supreme Court's decision in West Virginia v. EPA.
Arguably unenforced for some time, recent federal court cases have once again raised the specter of nondelegation doctrine. In so doing, cases such as West Virginia v. EPA at the Supreme Court, and the 5th Circuit's decision in Jarkesy v. SEC, arguably throws into question the status quo under which administrative agencies have heretofore operated.
This final event in the co-sponsored luncheon series on the administrative state investigated the impact such cases may have on Congress in terms of lawmaking delegation, and forecasted what Congress can expect if SCOTUS continues to enforce the nondelegation doctrine while moving away from former deference doctrines.
Featuring:
- Sarah Binder, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, Brookings Institution
- Daniel Flores, Senior Counsel, Committee on Oversight and Reform, House of Representatives
- Moderator: Hon. Trevor McFadden, Judge, United States District Court, District of Columbia
This second event of a co-sponsored series on the Administrative State focused on the role of the administrative state in policymaking. Through its various roles and capacities, the Administrative state can have great leeway to create policy that has similar effects to rules and laws created through the legislative process but comes to be via different means. Agencies can make rules, issue guidance documents that often carry significant weight, interpret statutes, and enforce their rules. All these can contribute to agencies making policies that have the force of law.
Some argue that this policy-making by non-elected individuals serving in the administrative state is improper and usurps elected officials' authority. Others contend this is a valuable and necessary part of the Administrative State's ability to operate as authorized, and that the policy-making capacity of the Administrative State is a net benefit.
Panelists David Fotouhi, a current partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP who spent four years serving with the EPA, and Richard Peirce, a professor of Law at George Washington University who focuses on the Administrative State, discussed the policy-making power of the Administrative State, and the practical ways in which that power can often be applied. Judge Lisa Branch moderated.
Featuring:
- David Fotouhi, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
- Richard Pierce, Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School
- Moderator: Hon. Lisa Branch, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
On Friday, November 11, 2022, Senator Mike Lee of Utah addressed the Federalist Society's National Lawyers Convention.
Featuring:
- Hon. Michael S. Lee, United States Senate, Utah
This first luncheon in a series on how the administrative state functions in modern American government featured former "regulations czar" Paul J. Ray, who served as President Trump's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator (OIRA). As OIRA Administrator, Ray oversaw the review of hundreds of regulations, and led efforts on regulatory reform.
The luncheon also featured Boris Bershteyn, a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, and Flom, LLP. Mr. Bershteyn served as acting Administrator of ORIA in 2012 and 2013. He was also General Counsel of the Office of Management and Budget starting in 2011.
Moderating this event was Hon. Stephen Alexander Vaden from the United States Court of International Trade. Before joining the bench, Judge Vaden served as General Counsel of the United States Department of Agriculture. During his nearly four-year tenure as head of the Office of General Counsel, the Department won two cases before the United States Supreme Court, relocated and reorganized the agencies that comprise the Department to better serve rural America, engaged in substantial regulatory reform, developed new regulations to allow for the legal sale of hemp and the labeling of bioengineered products, and implemented the 2018 Farm Bill.
Featuring:
- Boris Bershteyn, Partner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, and Flom, former acting OIRA Administrator
- Paul J. Ray, Director, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation, former OIRA Administrator
- Moderator: Hon. Stephen Alexander Vaden, United States Court of International Trade
The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits anyone who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States after swearing an oath to support the Constitution from ever holding public office again. In light of this Disqualification Clause, some have called for participants in the riot that occurred on January 6, 2021 to be barred from future elections.
Who has the authority to enforce this provision, the states or Congress? Normally states cannot add requirements for holding public office, but is this different, or is enforcement left to Congress itself through its ability to expel members?
These questions took on new relevance on September 6, 2022, when New Mexico Judge Francis Mathew ordered that Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin be removed from office effective immediately for his participation in the January 6 riot under the Disqualification Clause. While this decision is likely to be appealed, it could have serious implications for members of Congress and/or former President Donald J. Trump.
Listen to a discussion on these important issues between James Bopp, Jr., who represented Congressman Madison Cawthorn against challenges to his office under the Disqualification Clause, and Pressly Millen, who represented the challengers to Congressman Cawthorn. That challenge was mooted after Congressman Cawthorn failed to win his primary, leaving the underlying questions unanswered. Joining Mr. Bopp and Mr. Millen will be Kory Langhofer, who successfully represented Congressman Andy Biggs before the Arizona Supreme Court on a Disqualification Clause challenge, and moderator Devin Watkins, an Attorney at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Featuring:
- James Bopp, Jr., General Counsel, James Madison Center for Free Speech
- Kory Langhofer, Managing Partner, Statecraft
- Pressly M. Millen, Partner, Womble Bond Dickinson
- Moderator: Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Recently we were saddened to hear of the passing of Senator Orrin Hatch. In his honor, we hope you will enjoy revisiting remarks that Senator Hatch gave during the 2015 Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention. That year's Convention was focused on "The Role of Congress," and Senator Hatch eloquently discussed Congress's place in the Constitution's separation of powers as well as the importance of prudence in effective governance. The Senator was introduced by Leonard Leo, then Executive Vice President of the Federalist Society.
Lee Liberman Otis, Senior Vice President and Director, Faculty Division at the Federalist Society, eulogized Senator Hatch here: https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/n-memoriam-orrin-hatch.
Featuring:
- Hon. Orrin Hatch, Former United States Senator, Utah
- Leonard A. Leo, Former Executive Vice President, The Federalist Society
On March 24, 2022, Judge Stephen Schwartz joined the Federalist Society's Notre Dame Student Chapter to discuss the historical, theoretical, and practical reasons why law students should care about the Court of Federal Claims. Professor David P. Waddilove then provided a response and moderated an audience Q&A.
Featuring:
- Judge Stephen Schwartz, Judge, United States Court of Federal Claims
- Prof. David P. Waddilove, Associate Professor, Notre Dame Law School
Some experts argue that the first and most important place for congressional reform is its power of the purse. With regular order a distant memory, annual budget proceedings failing to live up to the basic framework of the 1974 Budget Act, the ever-expanding role of the president in spending decisions, and regular threats of federal government shutdowns, some fear the legislative branch has lost its ability to oversee and control our nation's finances.
Senator James Lankford joined us to discuss these issues and some of his specific solutions including the recently passed bipartisan "Taxpayers Right-to-Know Act" and his proposed "End Government Shutdowns Act." Thereafter, our panel of experts discussed those ideas and much more.
Featuring:
- Hon. James Lankford, United States Senator from Oklahoma
- G. William Hoagland, Senior Vice President, Bipartisan Policy Center
- Matthew B. Lawrence, Associate Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law
- Molly Reynolds, Senior Fellow - Governance Studies, Brookings Institution
- Moderator: Ilya Shapiro, Vice President and Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
The Evansville Lawyers Chapter hosted 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
An expert panel discusses the impact that changes proposed in HR 4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021, may have on drawing voting districts and litigating redistricting cases.
Featuring:
- Mark Braden, Of Counsel, BakerHostetler
- Jeffrey M. Wice, Adjunct Professor of Law, New York Law School; Director, N.Y. Census and Redistricting Institute
- Moderator: Maya Noronha, Visiting Fellow, Independent Women's Law Center
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:
- Bob Barr, President and CEO, Liberty Strategies LLC
With Democrats holding power in both houses of Congress and the White House, how will congressional oversight and investigations affect private industry and the Biden administration during the 117th Congress? What should we expect if Republicans take back one or both houses of Congress in the midterm elections? What should private entities expect from congressional investigations, and what effect will recent court decisions such as Mazars have on industry? A panel of current and former congressional investigators discuss these issues and more, as well as how recent investigations and judicial decisions will affect the structural relationship between Congress and the Executive Branch in the years ahead.
Featuring:
- Ashley Callen, Deputy Staff Director, House Oversight and Reform Committee
- Daniel Goshorn, Chief Investigative Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on Finance
- Allison Murphy, Former Chief Oversight Counsel of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, Majority Staff; Partner in the Government, Regulatory & Internal Investigations Practice Group, Kirkland & Ellis
- Christopher Armstrong, Former Chief Oversight Counsel, Senate Committee on Finance; Partner, Holland & Knight LLP
- Moderator: Michael D. Bopp, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
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:
- 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
The For the People Act was introduced in the House of Representatives in 2019 as H.R. 1, the symbolic designation marking it as the top priority of the new Democratic House majority. Described by its author, Representative John Sarbanes, as addressing "voter access, election integrity and security, campaign finance, and ethics for the three branches of government," the 570 page bill passed the House later that year, but was never voted on in the Republican-controlled Senate.
The measure was reintroduced in the 117th Congress as H.R. 1 in the House and S. 1 in the Senate, but with still more provisions expanding it to over 800 pages. Proponents supporting passage have cited the importance of expanding voter access and fighting "voter suppression." Opponents argue that the bill significantly restricts free speech by changing campaign finance rules, creates the potential for widespread voter fraud by relaxing necessary voting integrity safeguards, and constitutes a federal takeover of state-run elections.
The House passed the bill on a near party-line vote (1 Democrat voted "no"), and its fate now lies with the 50-50 divided Senate. Senate Republicans can block a vote with the filibuster, and H.R. 1 has been cited frequently as a reason to abolish the filibuster. But at least one Senate Democrat, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, has stated that he will not vote for the bill in its current form, depriving the legislation--for now--of even a simple majority.
Mr. Bradley A. Smith, Chairman and Founder of the Institute for Free Speech and one of the nation's foremost experts on campaign finance law, joined the Federalist Society to discuss some of the more important provisions and implications of H.R.1/S. 1, the For the People Act.
Featuring:
- Bradley A. Smith, Chairman and Founder, Institute for Free Speech
On May 17, as part of their annual Executive Branch Review Conference, the Federalist Society's Practice Groups hosted an expert panel on the non-delegation doctrine.
Whether as the result of hyper-partisanship or as a residue of the constitutional design for lawmaking, government by executive "diktat" is lately increasing. Many of these executive actions appear to have dubious — if any — statutory authority, but the courts have been reticent to validate objections along these lines. The U.S. Supreme Court has indicated a willingness to revisit and possibly to reinvigorate the non-delegation doctrine (with 5 Justices adhering to that view publicly), or at least to put some teeth into its supposedly constraining intelligibility principle. To do so, the Court first will have to grapple with whether Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution contains a non-delegation principle at all.
Featuring:
- Prof. Nicholas Bagley, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
- Prof. Philip Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
- Prof. Jennifer Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School
- Prof. Nicholas Parrillo, William K. Townsend Professor of Law, Yale Law School
- Moderator: Hon. Neomi Rao, United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
The Federalist Papers Book Club ran weekly on Tuesday evenings for 10 one-hour sessions beginning January 26th 2021. This session covers Federalist numbers 62, 63, 65, and 66, which discuss the United States Senate.
The recommended edition of The Federalist is edited by Carey and McClellan, published by Liberty Fund. It comes in paper and online versions.
The Federalist by Publius (AKA Madison, Hamilton, and Jay) contains 85 essays. The recommended reading pace was 9 to 10 essays per week. The sessions focus only on selected essays, however.
Slides are available at https://fedsoc.org/federalist-papers-book-club.
Featuring:
- Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University
The Federalist Papers Book Club ran weekly on Tuesday evenings for 10 one-hour sessions beginning January 26th 2021. This session covers Federalist numbers 52, 55, 56, and 57, which discuss the House of Representatives.
The recommended edition of The Federalist is edited by Carey and McClellan, published by Liberty Fund. It comes in paper and online versions.
The Federalist by Publius (AKA Madison, Hamilton, and Jay) contains 85 essays. The recommended reading pace was 9 to 10 essays per week. The sessions focus only on selected essays, however.
Slides are available at https://fedsoc.org/federalist-papers-book-club.
Featuring:
- Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University
The Federalist Papers Book Club ran weekly on Tuesday evenings for 10 one-hour sessions beginning January 26th 2021. This session covers Federalist numbers 47, 48, and 51, which discuss the Constitution's separation of governmental powers.
The recommended edition of The Federalist is edited by Carey and McClellan, published by Liberty Fund. It comes in paper and online versions.
The Federalist by Publius (AKA Madison, Hamilton, and Jay) contains 85 essays. The recommended reading pace was 9 to 10 essays per week. The sessions focus only on selected essays, however.
Slides are available at https://fedsoc.org/federalist-papers-book-club.
Featuring:
- Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University
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
After living in relative obscurity since its passage in 1996, the Congressional Review Act caught the nation's attention in 2017 when a Republican-led Congress and newly-elected President Trump used it to overturn 14 "midnight" regulations issued at the end of the Obama administration. Some prominent Democratic lawmakers opposed the CRA's framework as well as its individual uses in 2017. Will roles be reversed in 2021 regarding Trump administration "midnight" regulations? Can they be completely reversed?
In this live podcast, experts review the overriding purposes of the CRA and do a deep dive into its technical elements, such as the law's expedited congressional procedures, the types of actions it covers, the number of votes needed to overturn an action, and the consequences of disapproval.
Featuring:
- Todd F. Gaziano, Chief of Legal Policy and Strategic Research & Director, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation
- [Moderator] Susan Dudley, Director, GW Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, George Washington University
In this presentation co-sponsored by the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative and Columbia Student Chapter, Professor Christopher J. Walker discusses the proper the role of Congress in the modern administrative state.
Featuring:
- Christopher J. Walker, John W. Bricker Professor of Law; Director, Washington, DC, Summer Program, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
On November 17, 2020, the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative and the Little Rock Lawyers Chapter co-hosted a webinar on Supreme Court nominations and the perils of court-packing.
Featuring:
- Dan McLaughlin, Senior Writer, National Review Online
- Introduction: Chad Pekron, Lead Counsel – Appellate, Walmart
On November 2, 2020, the Federalist Society's Illinois Student Chapter hosted Logan Beirne for a discussion of the history of presidential power.
Logan Beirne is a Clinical Lecturer in Law and a Faculty Fellow at the Information Society Project at Yale Law School. He is also the Chief Executive Officer of Matterhorn Transactions, Inc., a legal information services company that provides transaction term language and market trend analytics across the US, UK, and Canada.
Featuring:
- Logan Beirne, Clinical Lecturer in Law and Faculty Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
On October 29, the Penn and Temple Student Chapters of the Federalist Society hosted former officemates and leading scholars of presidential power 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:
- 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] Craig Green, Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law
To celebrate Constitution Day, the Rutgers Law School chapter of the Federalist Society hosted Dr. Colleen Sheehan, one of the nation's leading Madison scholars, to discuss the constitutional thought of James Madison and his role as the "Father of the Constitution."
Dr. Sheehan is the Director of Graduate Studies at the Arizona State School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership. She is author of the Cambridge Companion to The Federalist, co-edited with Jack Rakove (Cambridge, 2020), The Mind of James Madison: The Legacy of Classical Republicanism (Cambridge, 2015), James Madison and the Spirit of Republican Self-Government (Cambridge, 2009), and Friends of the Constitution: Writings of the "Other" Federalists, 1787-88 (with Gary L. McDowell, Liberty Fund, 1998).
Featuring:
- Dr. Colleen Sheehan, Director of Graduate Studies, Arizona State School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership.
Recently we were saddened to learn of the passing of Senator Tom Coburn. In this episode we bring you some highlights from a panel he participated in at the Federalist Society’s 2015 National Lawyers Convention. The panel was titled, Agency Rule: How Congress Can Reclaim its Legislative Authority. Senator Coburn spoke about a range of topics including Congressional leadership, limited government, federal debt, and the importance of debate. We hope you enjoy Senator Coburn’s reflections.
Senator Tom Coburn, Former United States Senator, Oklahoma.
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
Description: On January 16 Penn State Law's Federalist Society Chapter co-hosted an impeachment dicussion featuring Professors Heidi Kitrosser and Keith E. Whittington. Kitrosser is a Robins Kaplan Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School and Whittington is a William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics at Princeton University. We hope you enjoy it!
Featuring:
- Keith Whittingon, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics at Princeton University
- Heidi Kitrosser, Robins Kaplan Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School
Jason Foster of Good Government Now shares his experiences as counsel to four congressional committees in the U.S. House and Senate, where he directed fact-finding inquiries to inform their oversight and legislative functions.
Can Congress enforce subpoenas they issue? Dr. William Murphy, Founder and President of Good Government Now, joins the Article I Initiative podcast to discuss their proposed rule changes that would enhance Congressional oversight and investigative powers.
A discussion of National Security and Executive Power, recorded on October 10 at the Georgetown Law Center.
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 begins 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.
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 begins 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.
This episode was hosted and recorded on October 15, 2019 by the Temple University Beasley School of Law Student Chapter.
Recorded at University of St. Thomas School of Law on September 19, this event focused on the benefits and drawbacks of the electoral college.
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
The strictures of the Appointments Clause are receiving renewed attention in the courts, including the Supreme Court. A year ago, the High Court ruled that the SEC’s administrative law judges must be appointed in conformity with this clause, and it has placed another Appointments Clause case on the docket for its next term. In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Court held that rulemaking was a significant government power such that rulemakers must be appointed in conformity with the Clause, but it had no reason to address whether rules must be issued by principal officers or could also be issued by inferior officers.
On behalf of nine vaping retailers, Pacific Legal Foundation is challenging the FDA’s "Deeming Rule" issued by a career employee, Leslie Kux. A new research study of HHS rules over a 17-year period, also by PLF, found that nearly two-thirds of HHS regulations were issued by non-Senate-confirmed staff. Within FDA, 98% of its rules (1,860 of them) were issued by civil service employees in career positions like that held by Ms. Kux. In the pending litigation, FDA argues that Ms. Kux was also an inferior officer when she issued rules, and that inferior officers may lawfully issue such binding rules, even if no supervisor may subsequently change them without a new rulemaking process.
The speakers examine a variety of topics related to the subdelegation of rulemaking power, including the creation of offices by department heads and who within those offices can lawfully exercise rulemaking power.
Featuring:
Todd F. Gaziano, Chief of Legal Policy and Strategic Research and Director, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation
Prof. Anne Joseph O'Connell, Adelbert H. Sweet Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
[Moderator] Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School
Visit our website – articleiinitiative.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
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?
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 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 Article I Initiative 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
What is the proper balance between Congressional oversight and Executive privilege? As it becomes clear that Congress is not satisfied with the Mueller Report on its face, and it will seek to conduct follow-up inquiries on its own, it has requested an unredacted copy of the Mueller Report, and its supporting documentation, and several witnesses who were interviewed during the investigation, including the former White House Counsel. Historically, Congress and the Executive have resolved their differences on disclosure requirements and moved forward, without significant resort to the Judiciary. What will and should be the role of the courts in any upcoming litigation? Could a final court ruling enhance rather than limit the power of the Executive? These and other questions will be discussed by our experts.
On May 6th the Article I Initiative partnered with the Jacksonville Lawyers Chapter to host Congressman John Rutherford of Florida’s 4th Congressional District to share his thoughts and reflections on the current state of the Legislative Branch, whether Congress is living up to the Founder’s original vision, and how his chamber can overcome the current partisan climate to better serve their constituents.
On April 15th, 2019, the Federalist Society’s Article I Initiative and the University of Kentucky Student Chapter hosted Congressman Andy Barr who addressed the audience on the legality of the Executive Branch's designation of a national emergency on the nation's southern border.
Featuring:
Hon. Andy Barr, Congressman, Kentucky's 6th District
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.
Welcome again to Necessary & Proper. Today we bring you the great discussion we had from the closing panel of the 2019 Legislative Branch Review Conference, held on the Hill in February in partnership with the Federalist Society's Georgetown Student Chapter. The panel reflected on the history of bipartisan Congressional investigations and shared their expectations for how civil, united, and fact-based they expect the oversight of the 116th Congress will be. We hope you find this podcast interesting and enjoyable.
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
Welcome again to Necessary & Proper. Today we bring you the great discussion we had from the afternoon panel of the 2019 Legislative Branch Review Conference, held on the Hill in February in partnership with the Federalist Society's Georgetown Student Chapter. The panel speculated on what a world without Chevron deference doctrine could look like, and if it would be desirable. We hope you find this podcast interesting and enjoyable.
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
In this episode we bring you the great discussion we had from the opening panel of the 2019 Legislative Branch Review Conference, held on the Hill in February in partnership with the Federalist Society's Georgetown Student Chapter. The panel asked, "Can the Other Branches Help Restore Congress?", exploring how and if executive and judicial efforts could stoke the legislative ambition Madison expected. We hope you find it interesting and enjoyable.
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
The Hon. James L. Buckley and Robert Gasaway recently joined us to discuss the current state of the legislative branch and reflect on a host of Article I and federal government reform proposals ranging from term limits to eliminating grants-in-aid to state and local governments. We hope you enjoy the conversation!
On this episode, we bring you an event from last December with our Charleston, South Carolina Lawyers Chapter. Their guest was former Congresswoman Sue Myrick and her wide-ranging remarks covered various congressional reform efforts, from former members and other groups, discussion of the current political environment, and much more.
Featuring:
Former Rep. Sue Myrick, U.S. Representative for North Carolina's 9th Congressional District
On December 11, 2018, the Federalist Society's Capitol Hill Chapter and Article I Initiative cosponsored a panel on "The New Congress and Congressional Oversight." As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers. Featuring:
Introduction: Nathan Kaczmarek, The Federalist Society's Article I Initiative
Steve Castor, US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Prof. John C. Yoo, University of California at Berkeley School of Law
Moderator: Amanda Neely, US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
On December 10, 2018, Senator Jon Kyl (AZ) spoke at an event co-sponsored by the Article I Initiative and the DC Young Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society. Senator Kyl reflected on his time in the Senate and the role of Congress. We hope you enjoy his remarks
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
On October 17, the Student Chapter at the University of Virginina School of Law hosted a debate on immigration covering child separation policy, DACA, the proposed border wall, and Article I powers. This discussion featured the views of David Bier of the CATO Institute and Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation. We hope you enjoy it.
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.
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? Listen to these topics by our expert panel, including Stephen Claeys (Wiley Rein), Daniel McCarthy (Modern Age), Brian Pomper (Akin Gump), and our moderator Molly Boyl Fromm (Financial Services Committee, U.S. House).
On October 4, the Georgetown Chapter held an event titled "Is the Nondelegation Doctrine Really Dead?: A Post-argument Discussion of Gundy v. United States". This panel was moderated by Professor Evan Bernick (Georgetown) and the panelists were Todd Gaziano (Pacific Legal Foundation) and Amanda Shanor (American Civil Liberties Union). We hope you enjoy this podcast!
On today's episode, we bring you a discussion held at the Georgetown University Law School chapter on Federalism and Marijuana Policy. Moderated by Prof. Randy Barnett of Georgetown, Paul Larkin of the Heritage Foundation and Ilya Shapiro of the CATO Insitute debate this subject.
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?
On September 20, our distinguished panel weighed these important considerations and offered their views, composed of: Professor Garrett Epps, Professor Todd Zywicki, and Moderator Todd B. Tatelman.
This episode features audio from a Constitution Day Debate held by our Augusta Lawyers Chapter on the Commerce Clause. Professors John Baker and Thomas Crocker discuss this subject and are moderated by Hon. J. Randal Hall. What are and should be the limits of congressional power under the Constitution? We hope you enjoy the exchange.
Elise Bean of the Levin Center discusses her recent book, Financial Exposure: Carl Levin's Senate Investigations Into Finance and Tax Abuse, sharing how Congressional oversight investigations can be a powerful tool for uncovering facts, building bipartisan consensus, and fostering change. The conversation also highlights several interesting cases from her time as chief counsel of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
On September 24, the Federalist Society Student Chapter at Northern Kentucky Law School hosted Congressman Thomas Massie for an address involving several Article I topics, including the committee process, the two-party system, the Department of Education, and the Liberty Caucus. We hope you enjoy his remarks!
Recorded August 22, this podcast brings together two speakers well-versed in regulation and regulatory reform. Professor Thom Lambert is the Wall Chair in Corporate Law and Governance at the University of Missouri School of Law and the author of How to Regulate: A Guide for Policymakers. Ken Davis is a senior attorney and former Deputy Attorney General for Virginia. Mr. Davis wrote a review on Professor Lambert's book which prompted several months of debate on their differing approaches to reform and the fundamental assumptions that undergird the current regulatory system, culminating in this Teleforum. We hope you enjoy this lively exchange!
Recorded in June, this podcast offers a balanced representation of the competing interests between the Executive and Legislative Branches in Congressional Oversight. Morton Rosenberg, retired Congressional Research Service Senior Legal Analyst and author of When Congress Comes Calling: A Study on the Principles, Practices, and Pragmatics of Legislative Inquiry, explains the history of and authority for Congressional demands for information from Executive Branch agencies. Washington attorney William Moschella, a former Congressional Staff Counsel who later became President George W. Bush’s Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legislative Affairs - the office responsible for DOJ’s responses to Congressional inquiries - offers insight into the considerations accompanying such responses. Chair of the Federalist Society Administrative Law and Regulation Practice Group Eileen O'Connor moderates the discussion. We hope you enjoy it!
On June 11, 2018, the Article I Initiative and the Federalist Society's DC Young Lawyers Chapter 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.
On June 6, 2018, the Article I Initiative and the Federalist Society Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group co-hosted a luncheon at the Mayflower Hotel, titled "Founding Principles as Pillars of Our Foreign Policy". Following an address by Congressman Gallagher, we welcomed the perspectives of Prof. Henry Nau, Prof. Jeremy A. Rabkin, and Mr. Ilya Shapiro. The panel covered a wide range of foreign policy topics and discussed the role of the modern Congress.
On June 6, 2018, the Article I Initiative and the Federalist Society Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group co-hosted a luncheon at the Mayflower Hotel, titled "Founding Principles as Pillars of Our Foreign Policy". Congressman Mike Gallagher opened with an address where he reflects on the views of the founders, discusses the current state of congress, and shares how Wisconsin has had a particular impact on American foreign policy.
On March 29, 2018, the New York University Federalist Society Student Chapter hosted a panel titled "The Balance between the President and Congress: Congressional Government?" as a part of their "Beyond Trump: Threats to the Presidency" conference. This recording includes remarks from Professor Michael McConnell, Professor Gillian Metzger, Professor Trevor Morrison, and Adam White.
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.
Part five of our six part series highlighting panels and speeches from our March Conference features an address by Senator Mike Lee, covering a history of Congress' trade powers and a procedural solution to restore the balance of powers intended by the Founders.
The final episode of our six part series highlighting panels and speeches from our March Conference features reflections and recommendations on Congress as a whole by moderator and General Counsel & Parliamentarian for the House Committee on Ways and Means Machalagh Carr, Professor at the Cornell Law School Josh Chafetz, Professor at the New York Law School David Schoenbrod, and former Chief of Staff for the Speaker of the House David Hoppe.
Part four of our six part series highlighting panels and speeches from our March Conference features a discussion on Senate reform proposals by our moderator Daniel Flores, Hudson Institute Distinguished Fellow Christopher DeMuth, Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University Senior Fellow Matt Glassman, and R Street Institute Senior Fellow James Wallner.
Part three of our six part series highlighting panels and speeches from our March Conference features former Arizona Senator Jon Kyl who enagages in a moderated discussion with Susan Dudley on the gradual deterioration of the constitutional structure and consequences of this growing imbalance for issues such as international affairs, judicial nominations, and congressional leadership.
Part two of our six part series highlighting panels and speeches from our March Conference features Oklahoma Senator James Lankford and his remarks on the current Budget and Authorization process and his proposed rules changes to post cloture debate time for executive nominees.
This is the first episode in a six part series featuring live discussions from our Restoring Article I conference on March 22, 2018. This panel featured insights from former Congressman and current Club for Growth President David McIntosh, former Congressman Tom Davis, and Congressman Barry Loudermilk.
Christopher Scalia discusses the book he recently edited with Ed Whelan, Scalia Speaks, which is a collection of Justice Antonin Scalia's speeches. A speech the Justice delivered to Congress in 2011 is the focus of the conversation.
This is the final episode in our series highlighting the best live panels the Initiative hosted in Washington D.C. in 2017. The recording is of our December 15 panel featuring discussion with Michael Bopp, Machalagh Carr, Hon. Neil Eggleston, and our Moderator, Amanda Neely.
This is the second episode of from our three part series highlighting the best live panels the Initiative hosted in Washington D.C. in 2017. This recording is from November 22 and features a panel discussion with former Congressman Chris Shays and Weekly Standard Senior Writer Jay Cost.
This is the first in a three part series highlighting the best live panels the Initiative hosted in Washington D.C. in 2017. This recording is from September 22 and features a panel discussion with David Hoppe and Prof. Frances Lee on the Congressional budget process.
The Article I Initiative partnered with the Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group and the Regulatory Transparency Project for a discussion with David Schoenbrod, New York Law School Professor and author of DC Confidential: Inside the Five Tricks of Washington. Hon. Susan Dudley, Director of the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center, moderated the conversation, engaging Professor Schoenbrod's argument that Congress created a "regulatory mess" by commanding agencies to impose duties needed to protect the public. He contends that in doing so, legislators got credit for protecting voters but shifted to the agencies blame for the burdens of protection.
Professor Schoenbrod also alleges that these same legislators later lobbied not to impose these unpopular burdens while simultaneously blaming the agencies for failing to deliver the statutorily-required protection. In recent years some members of Congress have sought on several occasions to address these problems with various bills including the "Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny" or REINS Act. Professor Schoenbrod rejects the idea that the problem originated in the agencies and offers his own alternative solutions.
Chris Connelly, hill veteran and current Chief of Staff for Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler, (MO-4), joined us to offer his thoughts on the role of a Chief of Staff in the U.S. House of Representatives, how Congress has changed in the last 20 years, and suggested reforms.
Adam J. White, Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, and Director of the Center for the Study of the Administrative State at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School, offered his analysis of the administrative state and discussed possible legislative solutions.
Christopher DeMuth, Distinguished Fellow at the Hudson Institute, discusses the current state of the 115th Congress and outlines many of its historical challenges. He also analyzes what he calls Congress' "dilemma of fiscal restraint."
Former Congressional Research Service (CRS) analyst Kevin Kosar offers his inside perspective on how Congress has changed over the last couple decades and how CRS and the Congress could be more effective.
Professor David Schoenbrod of New York Law School on his new book, DC Confidential: Inside the Five Tricks of Washington. Schoenbrod outlines how Congress attempts to shift blame for unpopular policy decisions while still taking credit for popular ones, how this practice harms Americans, and the solution he calls the Honest Deal Act. Plus, what honeybees and train stations have to do with legislative dysfunction.
Welcome to Necessary & Proper! Get acquainted with what the Federalist Society’s Article I Initiative is all about and what you can expect from N&P.