Federalist Society Event Audio: 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 www.federalistsociety.org/multimedia.

Regulatory Transparency Project

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
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

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Washington, DC Lawyers Chapter

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.

Featuring:

Mr. Miguel Estrada, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Introduction: Mr. Douglas R. Cox, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP

National Press Club
Washington, DC

Article I Initiative

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
Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National Review Institute
Moderator: Nate Kaczmarek, Deputy Director, Article I Initiative, The Federalist Society

Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC

Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group

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
Hon. George J. Terwilliger III, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP
Moderator: Hon. Richard J. Leon, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

National Press Club
Washington, DC

Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Group

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
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

National Press Club
Washington, DC

Fifth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

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.

Keynote Address
4:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.
Grand Ballroom

Hon. Mick Mulvaney, Director, Office of Management and Budget
Introduction: Hon. David M. McIntosh, President, Club for Growth and Vice Chairman, The Federalist Society

Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Fifth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

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.

Breakout Session:The Barriers to the American Innovation Economy
2:15 p.m. – 3:45 p.m.
Palm Court Ballroom

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
Mr. Bret Swanson, Visiting Fellow, Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology, American Enterprise Institute
Moderator: Hon. Kathleen Q. Abernathy, Former Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission

Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Fifth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

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.

Breakout Session:Judicial Deference and Congressional Action
2:15 p.m. – 3:45 p.m.
East Room

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
Mr. M. Edward Whelan, President, Ethics and Public Policy Center
Moderator: Hon. Thomas B. Griffith, United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Fifth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

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.

Luncheon Panel: Is the Modern Congress Doing More Harm Than Good?
12:45 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.
Grand Ballroom

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
Ms. Elizabeth B. Wydra, President, Constitutional Accountability Center
Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Fifth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

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.

Breakout Session: Influence of Individual Members of Congress on Agencies
10:45 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.
Palm Court Ballroom

Hon. James C. Miller, III, Senior Advisor, Husch Blackwell LLP
Mr. Alan C. Raul, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP
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

Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Fifth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

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.

Breakout Session: Congressional Oversight of Voting Rights
10:45 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.
Senate Room

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
Mr. John Tanner, Former Chief, United States Department of Justice Voting Section
Moderator: Mr. Will Consovoy, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC

Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Fifth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

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.

Breakout Session:The Unitary Executive through Presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump
10:45 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.
East Room

Mr. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis, Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School
Hon. Michael B. Mukasey, Of Counsel, Debevoise & Plimpton
Moderator: Mr. Benjamin Wittes, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution

Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Fifth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

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.

Plenary Panel: What is Congress Doing to Reassert its Power Over Agencies?
9:30 – 10:30 a.m.
Grand Ballroom

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 Societ
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

Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Fifth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

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.

Opening Address
9:00 – 9:30 a.m.
Grand Ballroom

Hon. Mike Lee, United States Senate, Utah
Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Inaugural Ohio Chapters Conference

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
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

Athletic Club of Columbus
Columbus, OH

Inaugural Ohio Chapters Conference

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
Hon. Dave Yost, Ohio Auditor of State
Moderator: Eric Murphy, Ohio State Solicitor
Introduction: Ben Flowers, President, Columbus Lawyers Chapter

Athletic Club of Columbus
Columbus, OH

Inaugural Ohio Chapters Conference

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.

Keynote Speaker:

J.D. Vance, Author, Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis
Introduction: Jedidiah Bressman, President, Ohio State University Student Chapter

Athletic Club of Columbus
Columbus, OH

Inaugural Ohio Chapters Conference

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
Hon. Matt Huffman, Ohio State Senate, District 12
Moderator: Hon. Larry Obhof, Ohio Senate President
Introduction: Matthew Byrne, President, Cincinnati Lawyers Chapter

Athletic Club of Colubmus
Columbus, OH

Article I Initiative

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
Professor Adam White, Research Fellow, The Hoover Institution and Adjunct Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC

DC Confidential: Inside the Five Tricks of Washington

Telecommunications & Electronic Media and Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Groups

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
Steven Schleimer, Senior Vice President for Government and Regulatory Affairs, Calpine Corp.
Moderator: Tony Clark, Former FERC Commissioner, Senior Advisor, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP

National Press Club
Washington, DC

Administrative Law & Regulation and Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Groups

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
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

National Press Club
Washington, DC

Administrative Law & Regulation and Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Groups

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.

Featuring:

Hon. R. Ted Cruz, United States Senator, Texas
Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

National Press Club
Washington, DC

2017 National Student Symposium

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.

Banquet Dinner
7:00 p.m. -10:00 p.m.
Lerner Hall, Roone Arledge Auditorium

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

Columbia Law School
New York, New York

2017 National Student Symposium

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.

Panel 4: Universities and the First Amendment
4:00 p.m. - 5:45 p.m.
Jerome Greene Hall 104

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
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

Columbia Law School
New York, New York

2017 National Student Symposium

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.

Panel 3: Religious Liberty after the USCCR Report
2:00 p.m. -3:45 p.m.
Jerome Greene Hall 104

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
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

Columbia Law School
New York, New York

2017 National Student Symposium

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.

Debate: ABA Model Rule 8.4
11:15 a.m. -12:30 p.m.
Jerome Greene Hall 104

Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
Mr. Robert N. Weiner, Partner, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
Moderator: Hon. Lavenski Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit

Columbia Law School
New York, New York

2017 National Student Symposium

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.

Panel 2: Campaign Finance and Free Speech
9:30 a.m. -11:00 a.m.
Jerome Greene Hall 104

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
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

Columbia Law School
New York, New York

2017 National Student Symposium

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.

Panel 1: Privacy and Freedom of the Press
6:30 p.m. -8:00 p.m.
Jerome Greene Hall 104

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
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

Columbia Law School
New York, New York

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.

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

2017 Annual Florida Chapters Conference

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.

Combating Federal Overreach
2:15 p.m. – 3:45 p.m.

Amit Agarwal, Solicitor General, Florida
Andrew Brasher, Solicitor General, Alabama
Scott Keller, Solicitor General, Texas
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

Disney's Boardwalk Inn
Lake Buena Vista, FL

Views and opinions expressed by the Federalist Society and its speakers are not necessarily shared with Disney's BoardWalk Inn and Walt Disney World® Resort.

2017 Annual Florida Chapters Conference

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.

Luncheon Address
12:00 noon – 2:00 p.m.

Hon. Mike Lee, U.S Senator, Utah
Introduction: Jesse Panuccio, Acting Associate Attorney General / Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice

Disney's Boardwalk Inn
Lake Buena Vista, FL

Views and opinions expressed by the Federalist Society and its speakers are not necessarily shared with Disney's BoardWalk Inn and Walt Disney World® Resort.

2017 Annual Florida Chapters Conference

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.

Government Ethics and Corruption
10:30 a.m. – 12:00 Noon

Mr. Nick Cox, Florida Statewide Prosecutor
Renee Flaherty, Institute for Justice
Todd Graves, Graves Garrett
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

Disney's Boardwalk Inn
Lake Buena Vista, FL

Views and opinions expressed by the Federalist Society and its speakers are not necessarily shared with Disney's BoardWalk Inn and Walt Disney World® Resort.

2017 Annual Florida Chapters Conference

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.

Florida and the Future of Trade Policy
9:00 a.m. – 10:15 a.m.

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
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

Disney's Boardwalk Inn
Lake Buena Vista, FL

Views and opinions expressed by the Federalist Society and its speakers are not necessarily shared with Disney's BoardWalk Inn and Walt Disney World® Resort.

2017 Annual Florida Chapters Conference

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.

Address
6:00 p.m. – 6:30 p.m.

Hon. Marco Rubio, U.S. Senator, Florida
Introduction: William W. Large, President, Florida Justice Reform Institute

Disney's Boardwalk Inn
Lake Buena Vista, FL

Views and opinions expressed by the Federalist Society and its speakers are not necessarily shared with Disney's BoardWalk Inn and Walt Disney World® Resort.

2017 Annual Florida Chapters Conference

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.

The Legacy of Justice Scalia
4:30 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.

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
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

Disney's Boardwalk Inn
Lake Buena Vista, FL

Views and opinions expressed by the Federalist Society and its speakers are not necessarily shared with Disney's BoardWalk Inn and Walt Disney World® Resort.

2017 Annual Western Chapters Conference

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
2:00 pm - 3:00 pm

David A. Cortman, Senior Counsel and Vice President of U.S. Litigation, Alliance Defending Freedom
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

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Simi Valley, CA

Views and opinions expressed by the Federalist Society are not necessarily shared by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

2017 Annual Western Chapters Conference

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
12:00 Noon – 1:45 pm

Hon. Clint Bolick, Arizona Supreme Court
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 Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Simi Valley, CA

Views and opinions expressed by the Federalist Society are not necessarily shared by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

2017 Annual Western Chapters Conference

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
10:30 a.m. – 12:00 Noon

Thomas F. Ahearne, Foster Pepper and Counsel to Plaintiffs, McCleary v. State
Paul Avelar, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
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
Introduction: Carrie Ann Donnell, Legal Programs Director, Goldwater Institute

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Simi Valley, CA

Views and opinions expressed by the Federalist Society are not necessarily shared by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

2017 Annual Western Chapters Conference

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
9:05 a.m. – 10:20 a.m.

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
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

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Simi Valley, CA

Views and opinions expressed by the Federalist Society are not necessarily shared by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

Article I Initiative

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

National Press Club
Washington, DC

International Law in the Trump Era: Expectations, Hopes, and Fears

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?
12:30 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.

Hon. John B. Bellinger, III,former Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State and the National Security Council
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)

Georgetown University Law Center
Washington, DC

International Law in the Trump Era: Expectations, Hopes, and Fears

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
10:45 a.m. - 12:15 p.m.

Hon. Brian H. Hook, Former Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations
Hon. Lawrence Korb, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense
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

Georgetown University Law Center
Washington, DC

International Law in the Trump Era: Expectations, Hopes, and Fears

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?
9:00 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.

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
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

Georgetown University Law Center
Washington, DC

19th Annual Faculty Conference

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
9:00 am - 10:45 am
3rd Floor, Embarcadero Room

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
Prof. Aaron Saiger, Fordham University School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Michael W. McConnell, Stanford Law School

Parc 55 San Francisco - A Hilton Hotel
San Francisco, CA

19th Annual Faculty Conference

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
4:30 pm - 6:15 pm
4th Floor, Cyril Magnin III

Prof. Jennifer Mason McAward, Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Alexander Tsesis, Loyola University of Chicago School of Law
Prof. David Upham, University of Dallas
Moderator: Prof. Randy Barnett, Georgetown University Law Center

Parc 55 San Francisco - A Hilton Hotel
San Francisco, CA

19th Annual Faculty Conference

This panel was held on January 5, 2017 during the 19th Annual Faculty Conference in San Francisco, CA.

Young Legal Scholars Paper Presentations
2:15 pm - 4:15 pm
4th Floor, Cyril Magnin III

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”
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

Parc 55 San Francisco - A Hilton Hotel
San Francisco, CA

19th Annual Faculty Conference

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
12:00 pm - 2:00 pm
3rd Floor, Market Street Room

Prof. Renee Lettow Lerner, George Washington University Law School
Prof. Suja Thomas, University of Illinois College of Law
Moderator: Prof. Joshua Kleinfeld, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law

Parc 55 San Francisco - A Hilton Hotel
San Francisco, CA

19th Annual Faculty Conference

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
8:30 am
3rd Floor, Embarcadero Room

Hon. Lee Liberman Otis, The Federalist Society
AALS President Kellye Y. Testy, Dean, University of Washington School of Law
Prof. Steven G. Calabresi, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law [on the late Justice Antonin Scalia]

Panel: Corpus Linguistics and Legal Interpretation
8:45 am - 10:15 am
3rd Floor, Embarcadero Room

Justice Thomas Lee, Utah Supreme Court
Mr. Stephen Mouritsen, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
Prof. Lawrence Solan, Brooklyn Law School
Moderator: Prof. Kurt T. Lash, University of Illinois College of Law

Parc 55 San Francisco - A Hilton Hotel
San Francisco, CA

Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group

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
Joseph Savage, Partner, Goodwin Proctor
Moderator: Stuart S. Taylor, Contributing Editor, National Journal

National Press Club
Washington, DC

2016 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Showcase Panel IV: ROUNDTABLE: Areas of Constitutional Doctrine Transformed
2:45 p.m. – 4:45 p.m.
State Room

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
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

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2016 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Ninth Annual Rosenkranz Debate & Luncheon
12:30 p.m. – 2:30 p.m.
Grand Ballroom

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
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

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2016 National Lawyers Convention

“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?

Professional Responsibility & Legal Education: Using Judicial Processes for Political Purposes
11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Chinese Room

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
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

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2016 National Lawyers Convention

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 Commissionand 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.

Environmental Law & Property Rights: Justice Scalia's Property Rights Jurisprudence
11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
East Room

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
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

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2016 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Administrative Law & Regulation: The Evolution of Justice Scalia's Views on Administrative Law
11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
State Room

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
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

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2016 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Showcase Panel III: Transforming Statutory Interpretation
9:00 a.m. – 10:45 a.m.
Grand Ballroom

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
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

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2016 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture
5:30 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.
Grand Ballroom

Lecture: Hon. Ben Sasse, U.S. Senate, Nebraska
Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2016 National Lawyers Convention

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.

International & National Security Law: Justice Scalia’s Jurisprudence and National Security
3:15 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Grand Ballroom

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
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

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2016 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Free Speech & Election Law: Originalism and the First Amendment
3:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
State Room

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
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

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2016 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Telecommunications & Electronic Media: Justice Scalia's Telecommunications Legacy
12:30 p.m. – 2:45 p.m.
Chinese Room

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
Mr. Richard E. Wiley, Chairman Emeritus, Wiley Rein LLP
Moderator: Hon. Don Willett, Texas Supreme Court

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2016 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Financial Services & E-Commerce: Has the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Helped Consumers?
12:30 p.m. – 2:45 p.m.
State Room

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
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 Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2016 National Lawyers Convention

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 Helleris 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.

Civil Rights: The Second Amendment: Enforcing the Heller Decision
12:30 p.m. – 2:45 p.m.
East Room

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
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

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2016 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Address
12:00 noon – 12:30 p.m.
Grand Ballroom

Hon. Ted Cruz, U.S. Senate, Texas
Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

2016 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Address
11:15 a.m. – 12:00 noon
Grand Ballroom

Hon. Nikki Haley, Governor, South Carolina
Introduction: Mr. Alan Gocha, Principal, ETC Capital
Introduction: Mr. Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President, The Federalist Society

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2016 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Showcase Panel II: Rules Versus Standards in Constitutional and Statutory Interpretation
9:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.
Grand Ballroom

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
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

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2016 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Annual Dinner
7:00 p.m.
Gaylord National

Hon. Clarence Thomas, U.S. Supreme Court
Introduction: Mr. Eugene Scalia, Partner, Gibson & Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society

2016 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Religious Liberties: Is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) the Future of Religious Liberty?
3:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
State Room

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
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

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2016 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Criminal Law: Justice Scalia and the Criminal Law
3:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
East Room

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
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

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2016 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Federalism & Separation of Powers: Justice Scalia on Federalism and Separation of Powers
3:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Grand Ballroom

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
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 Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2016 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Labor & Employment Law: The Battle for the Gig Economy
1:45 p.m. – 3:15 p.m.
Grand Ballroom

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
Mr. Bill Samuel, Director of Government Affairs, AFL-CIO
Moderator: Hon. Thomas M. Hardiman, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2016 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Intellectual Property: Courts vs. Congress: What is a Patentable Invention?
1:45 p.m. – 3:15 p.m.
State Room

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
Prof. Joshua D. Sarnoff, Professor of Law, DePaul College of Law
Moderator: Hon. Susan G. Braden, U.S Court of Federal Claims

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2016 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Corporations, Securities & Antitrust: Justice Scalia's Contributions to Antitrust Law
1:45 p.m. – 3:15 p.m.
East Room

Hon. Frank H. Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Ms. Deborah A. Garza, Partner, Covington & Burling LLP
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

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2016 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Litigation: How Justice Scalia's Writing Style Affected American Jurisprudence
11:45 a.m. – 1:30 p.m.
East & State Rooms

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
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

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2016 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Showcase Panel I: Justice Scalia: Text Over Intent and the Demise of Legislative History
9:45 a.m. – 11:30 a.m.
Grand Ballroom

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
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

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Boston Lawyers Chapter

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
Rya W. Zobel, United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts

Wimberly Theatre at the Boston Center for the Arts
Boston, MA

Georgetown Student Chapter

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
Ms. Erin Murphy, Partner, Bancroft, PLLC
Moderator: Mr. Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Correspondent, New York Times
Introduction: Mr. Michael Munoz, President, Georgetown Student Chapter

Georgetown Law Center
Washington, DC

Co-Sponsored by the Faculty Division and the Practice Groups

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
Hon. George J. Terwilliger, McGuireWoods LLP
Moderator: Mr. Robert Barnes, The Washington Post

National Press Club
Washington, DC

Second Annual Texas Chapters Conference

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
9:00 - 9:15 a.m.
Amphitheater 204

Hon. Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney General
Introduction: Mr. Prerak Shah, Senior Counsel to the Attorney General

Panel One: Justice Scalia and the Evolution of Chevron Deference
9:15 a.m. - 10:45 a.m.
Amphitheater 204

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
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

AT&T Executive Education and Conference Center
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX

Second Annual Texas Chapters Conference

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".

Panel Three: Texas and Regulation
3:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Amphitheater 204

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
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

AT&T Executive Education and Conference Center
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX

The Right to Earn a Living: Economic Freedom and the Law

Second Annual Texas Chapters Conference

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".

Panel Two: Local Control or Abdication of Individual Rights?
1:15 p.m. - 2: 45 p.m.
Amphitheater 204

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
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

AT&T Executive Education and Conference Center
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX

Second Annual Texas Chapters Conference

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".

Address
11:00 a.m. - 11:45 a.m.
Amphitheater 204

Hon. Ted Cruz, U.S. Senator, Texas
Introduction: Mr. Arthur Gollwitzer III, Partner, Michael, Best & Friedrich LLP

AT&T Executive Education and Conference Center
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX

University of California - Berkeley Student Chapter

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
Heather Mac Donald, Author, "The War on Cops"
Moderator: Kevin Walker, Berkeley Law

Boalt Hall, Berkeley Law
Berkeley, CA

Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group

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
David B. Rivkin, Jr., Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP
Moderator: Adam J. White, Research Fellow, The Hoover Institution

National Press Club
Washington, DC

Washington, DC Lawyers Chapter

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.

Featuring:

Mr. Miguel Estrada, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Introduction: Mr. Douglas R. Cox, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Group

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)
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

National Press Club
Washington, DC

Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

United States Senator Dan Sullivan of Alaska delivered this address during the Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on May 17, 2016.

Featuring:

Hon. Dan Sullivan, United States Senate, Alaska
Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

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
Mr. James Sharf, Sharf & Associates
Moderator: Mr. John Irving, Of Counsel, Kirkland & Ellis

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

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
Mr. Jeff Wall, Sullivan & Cromwell
Moderator: Hon. Randall R. Rader, The George Washington University

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

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
Mr. Peter Pitsch, Associate General Counsel and Executive Director of Communications Policy, Intel Corporation
Moderator: Hon. Maureen Ohlhausen, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

United States Senator Deb Fischer of Nebraska delivered this address at the Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on May 17, 2016.

Featuring:

Hon. Deb Fischer, United States Senate, Nebraska
Intoduction: Hon. Maureen Ohlhausen, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

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
Mr. Adam Thierer, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University
Moderator: Hon. Rachel Brand, Chairman, Litigation Practice Group

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

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
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

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

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
Hon. Jeffrey A. Rosen, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Moderator: Mr. Adam White, Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Stanford Intellectual Diversity Conference

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.

Political Correctness on Campus

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
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

Stanford Law School
Stanford, CA

Stanford Intellectual Diversity Conference

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.

Keynote Conversation

Dean Larry Kramer, President, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; Lecturer in Law and Former Dean, Stanford Law School
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

Stanford Law School
Stanford, CA

Stanford Intellectual Diversity Conference

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.

Student Perspectives on Intellectual Diversity in Academia

Dr. R. Sohan Dasgupta, University of California, Berkeley
Mr. Roland Nadler, Fellow, Center for Law and Biosciences, Stanford Law School
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

Stanford Law School
Stanford, CA

Stanford Intellectual Diversity Conference

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
Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society
Introduction: Mr. Jonathan Mondel, Co-President, Stanford Student Chapter
Introduction: 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
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

Stanford Law School
Stanford, CA

2016 National Student Symposium

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.

Banquet
Omni Charlottesville Hotel

Mr. Paul Clement, Partner, Bancroft PLLC and Former Solicitor General of the United States 2005-2008
Introduction: Mr. Jack Lund, Symposium Chair, University of Virginia School of Law Student Chapter

University of Virginia School of Law
Charlottesville, VA

2016 National Student Symposium

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.

Panel IV: Education Reform and Equality of Opportunity
Caplin Auditorium

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
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

University of Virginia School of Law
Charlottesville, VA

2016 National Student Symposium

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.

Panel III: The Safety Net and Poverty
Caplin Auditorium

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
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

University of Virginia School of Law
Charlottesville, VA

2016 National Student Symposium

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.

Debate: Immigration Restrictions and the Constitution
Caplin Auditorium

Prof. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, Chapman University School of Law
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

University of Virginia School of Law
Charlottesville, VA

2016 National Student Symposium

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.

Panel II: The Family
Caplin Auditorium

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
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

University of Virginia School of Law
Charlottesville, VA

2016 National Student Symposium

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
Caplin Auditorium

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
Caplin Auditorium

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
Prof. Steven Teles, Associate Professor of Political Science, Johns Hopkins University
Moderator: Hon. Jerry E. Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

University of Virginia School of Law
Charlottesville, VA

2016 Annual Western Chapters Conference

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.

Federalism and Religious Liberty

Prof. John Eastman, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman University
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

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Simi Valley, CA

2016 Annual Western Chapters Conference

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.

Federalism, the Environment, Land Use, and Energy Independence

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
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

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Simi Valley, CA

2016 Annual Western Chapters Conference

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.

Keynoted Address

Gov. Pete Wilson, Former Governor of California ('91-'99)
Introduction: Mr. Thomas F. Gede, Principal, Morgan Lewis Consulting LLC and of counsel, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Simi Valley, CA

2016 Annual Western Chapters Conference

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.

Preserving Freedom: Federal vs. State Power

Mr. Adam Freedman, Author, A Less Perfect Union and The Naked Constitution
Ms. Christina Sandefur, Executive Vice President, The Goldwater Institute
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

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Simi Valley, CA

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.

Introduction

Hon. Scott Pruitt, Attorney General, Oklahoma
Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Simi Valley, CA

Las Vegas Lawyers Chapter

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 L.L.P.
Hon. Erven T. Nelson, Nevada Assemblyman
Introduction: Mr. Matthew Saltzman, Shareholder, Kolesar & Leatham

Fogo de Chao Churrascaria Restaurant
Las Vegas, NV

2016 Annual Florida Chapters Conference

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.

Federalism and Environmental Law

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
Mr. Patrick Strawbridge, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC
Moderator: Hon. Edward L. Artau, Florida 15th Judicial Circuit
Introduction: Mr. Gregory Munson, Shareholder, Gunster

Disney's Boardwalk Inn
Lake Buena Vista, FL

2016 Annual Florida Chapters Conference

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.

A Conversation on Free Enterprise and Economic Development

Mr. Mark Wilson, President and CEO, Florida Chamber of Commerce
Interviewer: Mr. Jesse Panuccio, Former Executive Director, Florida Department of Economic Opportunity

Disney's Boardwalk Inn
Lake Buena Vista, FL

2016 Annual Florida Chapters Conference

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.

Address by Tim Cerio

Mr. Tim Cerio, General Counsel to Governor Rick Scott
Introduction: Hon. Edwin A. Scales III, Florida Third District Court of Appeal

Disney's Boardwalk Inn
Lake Buena Vista, FL

2016 Annual Florida Chapters Conference

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.

Federalism and Healthcare

Mr. John Goodman, Senior Fellow, Independent Institute
Mr. Avik Roy, Senior Fellow, The Manhattan Institute
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

Disney's Boardwalk Inn
Lake Buena Vista, FL

2016 Annual Florida Chapters Conference

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.

Federalism and Religious Liberties

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
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

Disney's Boardwalk Inn
Lake Buena Vista, FL

2016 Annual Florida Chapters Conference

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.

A Conversation on Judging

Hon. Charles T. Canady, Florida Supreme Court
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

Disney's Boardwalk Inn
Lake Buena Vista, FL

2016 Annual Florida Chapters Conference

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.

Crime & Punishment

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
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

Disney's Boardwalk Inn
Lake Buena Vista, FL

18th Annual Faculty Conference

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.

Panel: American Multiculturalism: Its Force and Limits From 1776 to Today
9:00 am - 10:45 am

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
Ms. Heather Mac Donald, Manhattan Institute
Moderator: Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Georgetown University Law Center

Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel
New York, NY

18th Annual Faculty Conference

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.

Panel: Upward Redistribution, Government Policy, and Rent Seeking
4:30 pm - 6:00 pm

Prof. David Snyder, American University Washington College of Law
Prof. Ilya Somin, George Mason School of Law
Prof. James Stern, William & Mary Law School
Moderator: Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Case Western Reserve University School of Law

Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel
New York, NY

18th Annual Faculty Conference

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.

Young Legal Scholars Paper Presentations
2:15 pm - 4:15 pm
Central Park West

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"
Mr. Ilan Wurman, Winston & Strawn: "Constitutional Administration"
Commenter: Prof. James Lindgren, Northwestern University School of Law
Commenter: Prof. Thomas Lee, Fordham University School of Law
Moderator: Prof. Saikrishna Prakash, University of Virginia School of Law

Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel
New York, NY

18th Annual Faculty Conference

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.

Luncheon Debate: Resolved: The FCC does not have the legal authority to implement net neutrality
12:00 pm - 2:00 pm

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
Prof. James Speta, Northwestern University School of Law
Moderator: Prof. Daniel Lyons, Boston College Law School

Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel
New York, NY

18th Annual Faculty Conference

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 towardChevron 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
8:45 am

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
8:45 am - 10:15 am

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
Prof. Christopher Walker, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
Moderator: Prof. John McGinnis, Northwestern University School of Law

New York, NY
January 8, 2016

International & National Security Law Practice Group

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
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

Fordham University School of Law
New York, NY

2015 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Interview with Kirsten Powers
12:30 p.m. – 2:15 p.m.
Grand Ballroom

Ms. Kirsten Powers, USA Today Columnist, Daily Beast Columnist, and FOX News Contributor
Interviewed by: Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Georgetown University Law Center and Federalist Society Board of Directors

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

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.

2015 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Eighth Annual Rosenkranz Debate
4:00 p.m. – 5:15 p.m.
State Room

Prof. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University
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

Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2015 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Special Session: Life on the Bench
2:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
State Room

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
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 Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2015 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Professional Responsibility: Prosecutors Run Amok?
11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Chinese Room

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
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 Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2015 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Intellectual Property: The Role of Congress and Executive Agencies in 21st Century IP Regimes
11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
State Room

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
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

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2015 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Environmental Law: The Role of Congress in Environmental Law
11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
East Room

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
Prof. David Schoenbrod, Trustee Professor of Law, New York Law School
Moderator: Hon. Steven M. Colloton, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2015 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Showcase Panel III: ROUNDTABLE: Can Changes in Incentives Significantly Address Congressional Dysfunction?
9:00 a.m. – 10:45 a.m.
Grand Ballroom

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
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

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2015 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture
5:30 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.
Grand Ballroom

Hon. Tom Cotton, United States Senate, Arkansas
Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2015 National Lawyers Convention

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.

International: When Should America Act to Maintain International Order?
3:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Grand Ballroom

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
Hon. Mike J. Rogers, Former U.S. House of Representatives, Michigan
Moderator: Mr. Brian H. Hook, former Assistant Secretary of State

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2015 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Free Speech: A Right to Speak Anonymously? Political Contributors and Reporters’ Confidential Sources
3:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
State Room

Mr. Andrew M. Grossman, Associate, BakerHostetler
Mr. Stephen Klein, Pillar of Law Institute
Mr. Paul S. Ryan, Senior Counsel, Campaign Legal Center
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

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2015 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Address
2:30 p.m. – 3:15 p.m.
Grand Ballroom

Hon. Orrin Hatch, U.S. Senate, Utah
Introduction: Mr. Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President, The Federalist Society

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2015 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Financial Services: Explaining the Next Crisis
12:00 noon – 2:15 p.m.
Chinese Room

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.
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

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2015 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Criminal Law: Free Speech, Anti-Corruption, and the Criminalization of Government Affairs
12:00 noon – 2:15 p.m.
State Room

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
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

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2015 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Civil Rights: Ferguson, Baltimore, and Criminal Justice Reform
12:00 noon – 2:15 p.m.
East Room

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
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

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2015 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Showcase Panel II: The Living Congress: Adaptation or Decline?
10:15 a.m. – 12:00 noon
Grand Ballroom

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
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

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2015 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Special Session: Overreach in the States
9:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.
Grand Ballroom

Hon. Adam Laxalt, Attorney General, State of Nevada
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

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2015 National Lawyers Convention

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.

The Role of Congress and the State: A Governor's Perspective
7:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.
Omni Shoreham Hotel - Regency Ballroom

Hon. Sam Brownback, Governor, State of Kansas
Hon. Nathan Deal, Governor, State of Georgia
Hon. Pete Ricketts, Governor, State of Nebraska
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

Omni Shoreham Hotel
Washington, DC

2015 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Telecommunications: Broadband Re-regulation: The Battle Returns to the Courts
3:45 p.m. – 5:15 p.m.
East Room

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
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

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2015 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Religious Liberties: Examination of the Obama Administration’s Protection of Religious Liberty
3:45 p.m. – 5:15 p.m.
State Room

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
Mr. Adam J. White, Counsel, Boyden Gray & Associates
Moderator: Hon. Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2015 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Federalism: Deference Meets Delegation: Which is the Most Dangerous Branch?
3:45 p.m. – 5:15 p.m.
Grand Ballroom

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
Mr. David B. Rivkin, Jr., Partner, BakerHostetler
Moderator: Hon. Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2015 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Labor & Employment: 80th Anniversary of the National Labor Relations Act & Congressional Action
2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.
Grand Ballroom

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
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 Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2015 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Corporations: Constitutionality of Administrative Law Judges at the Securities and Exchange Commission and Elsewhere
2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.
East Room

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
Prof. Tuan Samahon, Villanova University School of Law
Moderator: Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Commissioner, International Trade Commission

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2015 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Administrative Law: Agency Rule: How Congress Can Reclaim its Legislative Authority
2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.
State Room

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
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

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2015 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Litigation: Ten Years of the Roberts Court
12:00 noon – 1:45 p.m.
East & State Rooms

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
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

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2015 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Address
11:30 a.m. – 12:00 noon
Grand Ballroom

Mr. Neil Eggleston, Assistant to the President and White House Counsel
Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups at The Federalist Society

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2015 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Showcase Panel I: The Original View of Congress
9:30 a.m. – 11:15 a.m.
Grand Ballroom

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
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

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2015 National Lawyers Convention

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.

Opening
9:00 a.m. – 9:30 a.m.
Grand Ballroom

Hon. Michael S. Lee, United States Senate, Utah
Introduction: Mr. Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President, The Federalist Society

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2015 Texas Chapters Conference

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.

Interview: The 2008 Financial Crisis

Keith Hennessey, former Assistant to President George W. Bush for Economic Policy and Director of the U.S. National Economic Council
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

September 19, 2015
Dallas, TX

2015 Texas Chapters Conference

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.

Welcome

Hon. Margaret Spellings, President, George W. Bush Presidential Center and former United States Secretary of Education

Panel: The War on Terror

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
Hon. Larry D. Thompson, former Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice
Moderator: Mr. John Rizzo, former Acting General Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency

September 19, 2015
Dallas, TX

Co-Sponsored by the Faculty Division and the Practice Groups

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
Mr. Ed Whelan, President of Ethics & Public Policy Center
Moderator: Mr. Adam Liptak, The New York Times

September 30, 2015
Washington, DC

Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group

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
Hon. Ajit V. Pai, Federal Communications Commission
Moderator: Alexander Okuliar, Partner, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

September 2, 2015
Washington, DC

Washington, DC Lawyers Chapter

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.

Featuring:

Mr. Miguel Estrada, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Introduction: Mr. Douglas R. Cox, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Third Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

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.

Plenary Panel: Congressional Oversight
2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.
Promenade Room

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
Mr. Adam J. White, Boyden Gray & Associates
Moderator: Hon. Todd F. Gaziano, Pacific Legal Foundation

June 18, 2015
Washington, DC

Third Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

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.

Luncheon Panel: The Incentives behind Congressional Delegation
12:30 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.
State Room

Prof. Jack M. Beermann, Boston University School of Law
Prof. Gillian E. Metzger, Columbia Law School
Prof. Neomi J. Rao, George Mason University School of Law
Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, The Federalist Society

June 18, 2015
Washington, DC

Third Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

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.

Plenary Panel: Should Federal Law Enjoy a Presumption of Constitutionality?
11:20 – 12:20 p.m.
East Room

Hon. David M. McIntosh, Club for Growth
Mr. Clark Neily, Institute for Justice
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

June 18, 2015
Washington, DC

Third Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

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.

Costs and Benefits vs. Smoke and Mirrors
9:40 – 11:10 a.m.
East Room

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
Hon. Eugene Scalia, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher
Moderator: Hon. Susan E. Dudley, The George Washington University

June 18, 2015
Washington, DC

Third Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

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.

The Clean Power Plan: A Bridge too Far?
9:40 – 11:10 a.m.
Promenade Room

Mr. David Doniger, Natural Resources Defense Council
Mr. Mark W. DeLaquil, Baker & Hostetler LLP
Mr. Robert M. Sussman, Sussman & Associates
Mr. Misha Tseytlin, West Virginia Attorney General's Office
Moderator: Ms. Elana Schor, Politico

June 18, 2015
Washington, DC

Third Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

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.

The Telecommunications Act: Can it Rein in the FCC?
9:40 – 11:10 a.m.
Senate Room

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
Mr. David B. Quinalty, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Moderator: Mr. Scott Belcher, Telecommunications Industry Association

June 18, 2015
Washington, DC

Third Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

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.

Welcome & Opening Address
9:00 – 9:30 a.m.
East Room

Hon. Mitch McConnell, U.S. Senate, Majority Leader
Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

June 18, 2015
Washington, DC