FedSoc Events

Join us for a Texas-sized BBQ banquet featuring Austin BBQ. Dress in your Texas best! Attire is dressy, but cowboy boots and hats are welcome! *This event requires the purchase of a separate ticket.

Judicial Review has been criticized throughout American history as undemocratic, creating what has been known in the modern era as the counter-majoritarian difficulty. Is the Court in fact counter-majoritarian? To what degree? If so, is it a difficulty? What theories of constitutional interpretation best reconcile judicial review with democracy—originalism or living constitutionalism or something else?Featuring:Moderator: Hon. James Ho, The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitProf. Tara Leigh Grove, Vinson & Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas School of LawProf. Lawrence Sager, Alice Jane Drysdale Sheffield Regents Chair, University of Texas School of LawProf. Keith Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University

The United States is constitutionally not one, but fifty-one, democracies. How can they all fit together? The oldest issue in our republic is the relation between the federal and state governments: where does the democratic decision-making power of one leave off and the other begin? The question remains relevant today on such issues as the proper locus of decisions about abortion. But the relation of the states to one another is now also pressing as states deploy their authority to influence the democratic decision making of other states, on issues as disparate as gun and climate policy. Are the proper boundaries between our different democracies best policed by the judiciary or by democratic politics?Featuring:Moderator: Hon. Andrew Oldham, The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitProf. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law SchoolProf. Jud Campbell, Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of LawProf. Michael S. Greve, Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School

Many aspects of the United States governing structure have been criticized as inconsistent with democracy or at least with majority rule. Elections for the House of Representatives and state legislatures are subject to gerrymandering. The Senate represents large and small states equally and thus unequally weights the voters across the nation. The Electoral College, too, provides electoral advantages to some states over others. And the institutions themselves sometimes depart from majority rule, most notably in the United States Senate with its filibuster. Can these arrangements be justified, or should they be reformed?Featuring:Moderator: Hon. Patrick J. Bumatay, The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitProf. Sanford V. Levinson, W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair in Law, University of Texas School of LawProf. Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law, Capital University Law SchoolProf. Stephanie Barclay, Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Religious Liberty Initiative, Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Lori A. Ringhand, J. Alton Hosch Professor of Law & Josiah Meigs Distinguished Teaching Professor, University of Georgia School of Law

Democracy begins with elections. But the process for voting in our elections has been increasingly a matter of political contestation. This panel will consider these process issues, including the Voting Rights Act, campaign finance reform, early and mail in- balloting, and eligibility to vote, including that of felons and aliens. The panel will also consider the question of how the decision-making over these issues should be divided, between the courts and democratic legislatures as well as between the states and the federal government.Featuring:Moderator: Hon. Timothy M. Tymkovich, The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth CircuitAudrey Perry Martin, Partner, Gober GroupLee E. Goodman, Partner, WileyProf. Derek T. Muller, Ben V. Willie Professorship in Excellence, University of Iowa College of LawProf. Richard Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law

There has been much discussion about threats to democracy over the past year. But conceptions of democracy differ. What does democracy entail in our system? Is the U.S. a democracy, a republic, a democratic republic? What does democracy require and what genuinely threatens it? How do we address such threats?Featuring:Moderator: Hon. Edith H. Jones, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitProf. J. Joel Alicea, Co-Director, the Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition, and Assistant Professor of Law, The Catholic University of America Columbus School of LawProf. Bruce E. Cain, Charles Louis Ducommun Professor in the School of Humanities & Sciences, Director of the Bill Lane Center for the American West, Senior Fellow at the Woods Institute at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, Professor at the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability, Stanford UniversityProf. Daniel Lowenstein, Professor of Law Emeritus, UCLA LawProf. Stephen I. Vladeck, Charles Alan Wright Chair In Federal Courts, The University of Texas School of Law

George Soros has contended that “there is no connection between the election of reform-minded prosecutors and local crime rates.” When considering some of the largest metropolitan cities on the west coast, such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle, do the violent crime and homicide statistics support this claim? Progressive prosecutors have introduced a range of policies, such as eliminating cash bail, decriminalizing misdemeanor drug possessions, refraining from trying minors as adults, and shifting emphasis on police misdeeds rather than criminal offenses. Do the efforts to reverse tough-on-crime policies have a direct correlation to the rising crime rates in big cities? What is the proper role of a prosecutor? Should prosecutors be practicing more restraint? Does bail reform affect recidivism rates? The panelists will discuss these questions and share their insights on these questions.Featuring:Mr. Cully Stimson, Deputy Director, Edwin Meese III Center, Manager, National Security Law Program, and Senior Legal Fellow, Senior Advisor to the President The Heritage Foundation Mr. McGregor W. Scott, Partner, King & Spalding LLP, Former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California ConfirmedMs. Lauren-Brooke Eisen, Senior Director, Brennan Center for JusticeModerator: Hon. Danielle J. Forrest, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Many western states are making significant structural changes to their campaign and election laws. Innovations like ranked-choice voting and new campaign financial disclosures rules are taking hold in many states, including California, Washington, Arizona, and Alaska. These changes are having real impact on the ground, as evidenced by the recent primary election in Alaska, where ranked-choice voting resulted in a Democrat being elected to Congress for the first time in five decades.Other legislative changes across the west address political speech and its funding sources, including Alaska’s recently enacted ban on so-called “dark money;” Arizona’s Proposition 211 measure, which was passed in the recent election; and Oregon’s consideration of introducing a similar measure on the ballot in 2024. In addition to significant policy debates over the merits of these policies, lawyers are challenging their constitutionality based on First Amendment speech and association grounds. The panel will begin by framing the policy debate, followed by a discussion of the current status of various election-related reforms, including litigation pushing state and federal constitutional challenges to these changes. Featuring:Mr. Daniel Suhr, Senior Attorney, Liberty Justice CenterMr. Kory Langhofer, Managing Partner, StatecraftProf. Richard Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of LawMr. Scott Kendall, Of Counsel, Cashion Gilmore & LindemuthProf. Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of LawHon. Terry Goddard, Shareholder, Goddard Law PLC, Former Arizona Attorney GeneralModerator: Hon. Patrick J. Bumatay, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

The rising cost of housing and the regulatory state are some of the major issues affecting real property law in the western states. This panel will examine three critical areas regarding government regulation of real property law: short-term rentals, rezoning for multi-family homes, and environmental regulations in the building of new homes. For short-term rentals, panelists will walk through the laws and regulations concerning eligibility to obtain short-term rental permits in order to list one’s home on websites such as Airbnb and VRBO. As for rezoning for multi-family homes, the panel will examine the effects that government regulations have on a possible solution to a housing shortage. The panelists will also analyze how federal and state environmental regulations affect the costs of new housing or improvements to existing housing, and what they mean for stakeholders and the overall community. Featuring:Mr. Eric Grant, Partner, Hicks ThomasMs. Jennifer L. Hernandez, Partner, Holland & KnightMr. Chris Carr, Partner, Paul HastingsMs. Karrin Taylor Robson, Founder & President, Arizona StrategiesModerator: Hon. Lawrence VanDyke, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Featuring:The Honorable Andrew Bailey, Attorney General, State of MissouriAttorney General Bailey will offer remarks on Missouri v. Biden and the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs returned the abortion question–whether and how to regulate abortion services–to the States. Many states, including Missouri, now have laws on the books that restrict or prohibit abortion. Dobbs doesn’t end the legal wrangling over abortion—it begins a new chapter that will unfold as litigation arises challenging these state laws. What constitutional challenges could Missouri see to its legislation in coming months and years?Featuring:Moderator: Barbara A. Smith, Partner and Co-Chair, Appellate and Supreme Court Group, Bryan Cave Leighton PaisnerJ. Andrew Hirth, Founder, TGH Litigation LLCJesus A. Osete, Attorney, Appellate and Supreme Court Group, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP

Our distinguished panel of judges discussed the unique roles of both appellate judges and trial court judges. Topics that were explored include judicial philosophy, the use of originalism in both state and federal courts, the differences in the roles of a trial court judge and an appellate court judge, and the importance of state constitutions in protecting individual liberty. Panelists also discussed their path to the bench.Featuring:Moderator: Hon. Duane Benton, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth CircuitHon. Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., Senior Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of MissouriHon. Matthew T. Schelp, Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of MissouriHon. Cristian M. Stevens, Judge, Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District of MissouriHon. John Torbitzky, Judge, Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District of Missouri

This panel explored the concept of whether what has come to be called “inclusive language," including some of the examples referenced in Kelly Frickleton’s recent Kansas City Counselor article, is something that lawyers have an ethical duty to use under Rule 4-8.4 of the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.4 of the Kansas Rules, or perhaps under some other provision. We explored not only the “whether,” but also the “why." We also explored the question of whether the imposition of any penalty on a lawyer for failing to use this language would be constitutional.Featuring:Moderator: Karen Donnelly, Partner, Copilevitz Lam & RaneyTed Frank, Director of Litigation and Senior Attorney, Hamilton Lincoln Law InstituteKelly Frickleton, Associate, Bartimus Frickleton Robertson Rader P.C.Edward D. Greim, Partner, Graves Garrett LLC

The panel is sponsored by our Civil Rights practice group and will focus on the issues in, and potential outcome of, Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College. One of the most closely anticipated cases of the coming Supreme Court term involves a challenge to the use of racially preferential undergraduate student admissions practices at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. This panel will examine the issues raised by those cases, the possible outcomes, and their likely impact on the future of higher education and beyond. Will these cases mark the end of race-as-a-factor in holistic admissions practices? If so, will universities comply with the Court’s decision, or will they evade it? And what will be the ramifications in other sectors, such as the workplace? Is a color-blind society possible in our time?Featuring:Mr. Michael A. Carvin, Partner, Jones DayHon. Gail L. Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law; Member, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; Former Civil Rights Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the JudiciaryProf. Eric Segall, Ashe Family Chair Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of LawModerator: Hon. Kevin C. Newsom, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

The 2022 National Lawyers Convention will take place November 10-12, 2022 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference is "The Current State of the Legal Profession." The conference will conclude with the annual Hon. Robert H. Bork Memorial Lecture, featuring remarks by Judge A. Raymond Randolph.Featuring:Hon. A. Raymond Randolph, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

The reach of bar associations, including the ABA, extends further than many realize. From evaluating judges, accrediting law schools, disciplining lawyer speech outside of work, to taking political positions, bar associations play a major role in our profession and in American life. Should bar associations focus just on legal practice? Should they continue to be involved in staking out policy positions? What about the ABA’s role in accrediting law schools? Are there any limits on their regulatory power?Featuring:Mr. William Adams, Jr., Managing Director, Accreditation and Legal Education, American Bar Association; Former Dean, Western State College of LawProf. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt Law SchoolHon. Theodore B. Olson, Partner Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP; Former U.S. Solicitor GeneralMr. Daniel Thies, Shareholder, Webber & Thies PCModerator: Hon. David R. Stras, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

The 2022 National Lawyers Convention will take place November 10-12, 2022 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference is "The Current State of the Legal Profession." The final day of the conference will feature the fourteenth annual Rosenkranz Debate.RESOLVED: The U.S. Constitution limits the role of state courts and executives in redistricting under Article I, Section 4, Clause I.Featuring:Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law SchoolProf. John Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, Berkeley Law, University of CaliforniaModerator: Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Professor of Law, Georgetown Law

The Biden Administration began with executive orders on an environmental policy agenda, directing a “whole of government” approach to climate change and environmental justice. These policies called for all federal agencies to prioritize regulatory action on equity and climate across numerous economic sectors. And they have, pushing out an economy-transforming regulatory agenda as Congress has remained largely deadlocked on most of the Administration’s priorities. More recently, some of the Administration’s allies have been calling on President Biden to exercise “emergency powers” to address climate change.At the same time, the Supreme Court started and ended its last term by telling the administrative state that it cannot simply act in place of Congress. Relevant here, in West Virginia v. EPA, the Court rejected EPA’s claim that it had statutory authority under the Clean Air Act to devise emissions caps. The Court adopted the “major questions doctrine” to explain that executive branch agencies cannot rely on general statutory authority to justify particularly sweeping actions. And the Court faces similar considerations of agency authority in a pending challenge to the federal assertions of jurisdiction over private property under the Clean Water Act, with a decision expected by the end of the year.This panel will explore the consequences of West Virginia v. EPA and other recent Supreme Court decisions for these “whole of government” approaches and what these new limits may mean for future challenges to environmental regulations on climate and environmental justice, and other efforts to use emergency powers to achieve regulatory goals not otherwise expressly authorized in statute. A distinguished panel of experts will discuss a range of interesting topics.Featuring:Mr. Sean Donahue, Partner, Donahue & Goldberg LLPProf. Lisa Heinzerling, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law CenterMr. Derrick Morgan, Executive Vice President, The Heritage FoundationMs. Lindsay See, Solicitor General, West VirginiaModerator: Hon. Lawrence VanDyke, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Under the Constitution, two branches of government are formally involved in the selection of federal judges. The President makes the nomination and Senators provide their advice and consent. Yet, the third branch of government often plays a role in that process: federal judges can influence the selection of other judges. This influence can manifest itself in several ways. First, judges can reach understandings with the executive branch to take senior status if the President nominates a specific person to fill the vacancy. Second, rather than taking senior status at a date certain, judges can condition their status change upon the appointment of their successor. Third, judges who reach such an understanding, and who are not satisfied with the President’s ultimate nomination, can rescind their decision to take senior status. Fourth, in the District of Columbia, one federal judge actually chairs the committee that can nominate judges for the District’s regional courts over the President’s authority. This panel will explore the ethical issues of federal judges choosing other judges.Featuring:Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law HoustonMr. David Lat, Founder, Original Jurisdiction; Founder, Above the LawMr. Rob Luther III, Of Counsel, Jones Day, Former Associate Counsel to the PresidentMr. Michael Fragoso, Republican Leader for Nominations, U.S. Senate Committee on the JudiciaryModerator: Hon. Stephen Alexander Vaden, U.S. Court International Trade

In June 2022, the Supreme Court decided the much-anticipated case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, requiring courts to follow the text, history and tradition of the Second Amendment in evaluating the constitutionality of modern-day gun control laws. Our panel will discuss what Bruen means for Second Amendment rights, gun control laws, and the landscape of litigation over them as well how courts have been applying Bruen. Featuring:Mr. Stephen Halbrook, Senior Fellow, Independent InstituteProf. William Merkel, Associate Professor of Law, Charleston School of LawProf. Mark Smith, Visiting Fellow in Pharmaceutical Public Policy and Law, Department of Pharmacology, University of Oxford; Presidential Scholar and Senior Fellow in Law and Public Policy, The King’s College; Distinguished Scholar and Senior Fellow of Law and Public Policy, Ave Maria School of LawModerator: Hon. Steven J. Menashi, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

ABA Model Rule of Professional Responsibility 1.2(b) states: “A lawyer's representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client's political, economic, social or moral views or activities.” The comment on the rule further explains: “Legal representation should not be denied to people who are unable to afford legal services, or whose cause is controversial or the subject of popular disapproval. By the same token, representing a client does not constitute approval of the client's views or activities.” These principles date back at least to John Adams’ defense of the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre and have long been viewed as essential to the adversarial system.Increasingly, however, in the minds of some, these principles are better honored in the breach – at least in the case of the powerful. There are all kinds of representation that lawyers simply should refuse to undertake – ranging from the House of Representatives seeking to intervene to defend a previously enacted law, to GITMO detainees, to the Defense of Marriage Act, to tobacco companies, to oil companies, to gun manufacturers, to former President Trump – regardless of the legal merits of the matters at issue. Lawyers who undertake such representations, it is argued, should incur severe reputational and professional consequences, and other clients should punish firms that take on these matters by taking their business elsewhere, even if there is no direct conflict. To these minds such representation sends the wrong message about the role of law in society. At the same time, in the view of many of the proponents of these exceptions, it remains essential that lawyers continue to represent certain kinds of unpopular clients, such as defendants accused of violent crimes, without fear of adverse professional repercussions. To them that is fundamental to the proper role for lawyers in society.Can these two visions coexist? What is the proper role of the lawyer?Featuring:Ms. Lisa Blatt, Partner, Williams & Connolly; Former Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor GeneralHon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLC; Former U.S. Solicitor General Mr. Kannon Shanmugam, Partner, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP; Former Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor GeneralHon. Seth Waxman, Partner, Wilmer Hale; U.S. Former Solicitor General Moderator: Hon. S. Kyle Duncan, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

In February, Russia began a full-scale military action against Ukraine. This war in Ukraine constitutes the latest in a series of incidents since the end of the Cold War in which Russia has sought to reassert authority over former Soviet states. In this case, as in incidents past, Russia has offered a familiar series of purported legal justifications pertaining to the right of self-determination of peoples and permitted exceptions to international law’s prohibition on the use of force.Notwithstanding those arguments, from the outset, many in the international community condemned Russia’s actions as violating fundamental norms of international law. Soon afterward, observers pointed to evidence of war crimes by the Russian military. Now, more than nine months into the conflict, questions remain. What can be said for Russia’s claims, Ukraine’s options, international expectations, and modern conflicts? What effect may this have on traditional legal expectations of the civilized world? Additionally, with the prospect of a costly and protracted war impacting global security and the people of the region for generations to come, what are the best and worst possible outcomes? Our panel of experts will discuss these issues.Featured:Mr. Michael Allen, Managing Director and Partner, Beacon Global StrategiesHon. Marshall S. Billingslea, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute; Former Special Presidential Envoy, U.S. Department of StateMaj. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap Jr., Professor of the Practice of Law, Duke University School of Law; Executive Director, Center on Law, Ethics and National Security, Duke University School of Law; Retired USAF Major GeneralProf. Angela Stent, Senior Nonresident Fellow, The Brookings InstitutionModerator: Hon. Chad Readler, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court released a 6-3 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Court overruled Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, holding that the Constitution confers no right to abortion. The Dobbs decision poses critical questions about the Court’s past and future. Is the decision a misguided action or an overdue correction? How will Dobbs frame judicial and legislative disputes over abortion in years to come? What does Justice Alito’s lead decision, together with Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh’s concurrences, project about the Court’s future rulings? Our panel of experts will discuss these issues and more.Featuring:Prof. Mary Anne Case, Arnold I. Shure Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law SchoolProf. David D. Cole, National Director, American Civil Liberties UnionProf. Sherif Girgis, Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law SchoolMs. Carrie Campbell Severino, President, JCNModerator: Hon. Elizabeth "Lisa" Branch, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

There are no federal speech police, but law enforcement is not the only way that executive officials and agencies take aim at disfavored speech and speakers. In recent months, officials have pressed social-media companies to ban those accused of spreading Covid or election-related “misinformation,” announced a task force to investigate parents speaking out at local school-board meetings, and looked on as financial service providers dropped controversial clients their regulators might find presented “reputational risk.” Meanwhile, agencies increasingly wield broadly-worded anti-discrimination laws to encourage institutions and businesses to police speech by students, faculty, and employees. Is officials’ use of “soft power” over speech a new phenomenon, or is it merely more visible in the age of social media and regulatory oversight? And what role should the First Amendment play when officials stop short of punishing speech?Featuring:Prof. Enrique Armijo, Professor of Law, Elon University School of LawMr. Mark Chenoweth, President and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties AllianceMr. Joe Cohn, Legislative and Policy Director, Foundation for Individual Rights and ExpressionMr. Michael Ellis, General Counsel, RumbleModerator: Hon. Britt C. Grant, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

While many Americans take broadband access for granted, in certain predominantly rural areas broadband access remains limited. In addition to private funding, federal and state efforts have spent billions of dollars to address this problem over the years with varying degrees of effectiveness, and there are billions in funding currently flowing out for more broadband projects as a result of pandemic-era funding bills. Most recently, the Infrastructure bill has provided another $42 billion in funding on top of the existing efforts—but will this close the gap once and for all or will we look back at this as a case of opportunity (and funds) lost? Should the country prioritize speed and low cost or taking the time to get every American connected to fiber? With a range of important viewpoints represented, this panel will discuss the largest federal effort to promote broadband connectivity.Featuring:Ms. Shirley Bloomfield, Chief Executive Officer, NTCA–The Rural Broadband AssociationMr. Veneeth Iyengar, Louisiana State Executive Director for Broadband Development and Connectivity, ConnectLA; Chairman of the Board, Innovation CatalystHon. Michael O’Rielly, President, MPORielly Consulting Inc.; Former Commissioner, Federal Communications CommissionModerator: Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC) are the subject of global debate. While proponents see CBDC as a new tool to promote financial stability and inclusion, critics point out that the Federal Reserve would acquire vast new powers to potentially implement a comprehensive government social credit system. In theory, CBDC could be programmed to be used for only designated purposes, on specific items or at particular merchants. To stimulate the economy, CBDC could be programmed to expire in a certain limited time or deposited directly into certain individual’s bank accounts. These concerns about the risks posed by CBDC have been foreshadowed by the actions of American banks and payment processors to refuse to serve certain individuals, non-profit organizations, or merchants. Actions by foreign governments illustrate the potential danger of comprehensive government control over personal financial transactions. China has banned cryptocurrencies and developed its own CBDC, which will enable the Chinese government to monitor and control personal transactions and behavior. In Canada, the government froze the bank accounts and cryptocurrency wallets of anti-vaccine mandate protestors and those who had made donations to support them. If the U.S. were to adopt a CBDC, how can the privacy and financial freedom of Americans be protected? Furthermore, how can the U.S. avoid some of the troubling trends seen in other countries and the troubling potential expansion of administrative power as it weighs the issue ofCBDCs?Featuring:Hon. Randal Quarles, Chairman & Co-Founder, The Cynosure Group; Former Vice Chair, Federal Reserve; Former Chair, Financial Stability BoardProf. Steven L. Schwarcz, Stanley A. Star Distinguished Professor of Law & Business, Duke University Law SchoolProf. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia School of Law; Former Chair, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Taskforce on Federal Consumer Financial LawModerator: Hon. Joan Larsen, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

FeaturingHon. Michael S. Lee, United States Senate, Utah

Law schools are the gatekeepers of the legal profession and thus wield substantial influence on the law’s future shape. In recent times, law schools have increasingly viewed themselves less as charged with training lawyers to serve their clients’ needs and more as engines of social justice. Is that an appropriate role for law schools? How compatible are the two missions? Does the highly and increasingly ideologically homogeneous character of law school faculties, as shown in many studies, exacerbate the tension between those missions?Featuring:Dean Mark Alexander, Arthur J. Kania Dean and Professor of Law, Charles Widger School of Law, Villanova UniversityProf. Joshua Kleinfeld, Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of LawProf. Paul G. Mahoney, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawDean Dayna Matthew, Dean and Harold H. Greene Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Neomi Rao, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

This panel discussion will examine public and private education, with a focus on the relationship—and occasional conflicts—between religious liberty and secular values in that setting. Panel members will discuss the likely impact on religious liberty and parental rights of two landmark Supreme Court rulings from the past Term: Kennedy v. Bremerton (the “praying coach” case) and Carson v. Makin (the Maine tuition assistance case). Other Supreme Court decisions could also be addressed, including Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Troxel v. Granville. Panelists could also discuss the impact on parental rights of recent federal education regulations.Featuring:Prof. Nicole Garnett, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. William P. Marshall, William Rand Kenan Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law; Former Special Assistant Attorney General, MinnesotaMs. Erin Murphy, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLCModerator: Hon. Raymond Kethledge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Supreme Court actions during the 2021-2022 term - opinions, grants and denials of petitions for certiorari, and motions docket orders - captured the attention of the legal community. Emblematic of the trend in judicial analysis was West Virginia v. EPA in which, notwithstanding that every brief cited Chevron for or against deference to the agency’s action, the Court’s opinion never mentioned it. Instead, the Court invoked the major questions doctrine to conclude that the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations had exceeded the authority Congress had granted it in the Clean Air Act. In other decisions as well, the Court applied new degrees of weight to a variety of methodologies, doctrines, and canonical tools in its interpretations of statutes and the authority they grant the agencies assigned to implement them.This panel will explore what this new trend in judicial analysis means for future challenges to agency actions. Is the SEC’s focus on ESG, for example, within the confines of its statutory mandate? Can ERISA fiduciaries favor ESG concerns over earnings and value considerations? Is DOJ acting within its authority when it requires the target seeking to settle an enforcement action to pay, not a statutorily prescribed fine to the Federal Treasury, but non-parties, unrelated to the enforcement action? Is the Department of Education authorized to forgive student loans? Can the Department of Defense discharge military personnel for refusing a COVID vaccine? These and other questions are likely to be the subject of lively discussion by this panel of experts.Featuring:Mr. Ian Gershengorn, Partner, Jenner & Block; Former Acting U.S. Solicitor General Prof. Jennifer Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law & Co-Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of JusticeProf. Tom Merrill, Charles Evans Hughes Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; Former Deputy Solicitor General Mr. Yaakov (Jacob) M. Roth, Partner, Jones Day Moderator: Hon. Edith H. Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

America’s national conversation about firearms is primarily about mass shootings and gun control. Some experts assert that a deeper conversation, however, should include relevant data, the problems of suicide, street and gang crime, and domestic violence. Others point out that we should examine what isn’t being done by local authorities from an enforcement standpoint, as well as how well existing federal criminal firearms statutes are being investigated and prosecuted. They assert that combating violent crime is a state responsibility, with federal support only supposed to fill in the “interstate gaps.”This panel will discuss the foregoing considerations and pursue a more nuanced conversation about the problem of gun violence, established enforcement roles, and possible policy solutions.Featuring:Mr. Thomas Abt, Chair, Violent Crime Working Group and Senior Fellow, Council on Criminal JusticeMr. Paul Carrillo, Community Violence Initiative Director, Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun ViolenceHon. Erica H. MacDonald, Partner, Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath LLP; Former U.S. Attorney, District of Minnesota; Former District Judge, First Judicial District, MinnesotaRev. Mark V. Scott, Associate Pastor, Azusa Christian CommunityModerator: Hon. Amul Thapar, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

As global crises abound, from pandemics to war, society cries out for myriad new technologies, from healthcare and high tech to manufacturing, energy, environment, and food. This panel will explore how the antitrust and patent systems can best foster competition and innovation in each of these vital areas. What are the key ideas to bear in mind when sculpting these specific legal systems? What are the agencies like the PTO and DoJ Antitrust Division best able to accomplish; and what legal rules help them do their best work? How do the courts fit in? What roles are best played by large business firms compared to small and medium enterprises? This panel will explore the lessons that can be drawn from big changes made over the past century to the patent-antitrust interface such as the 1952 Patent Act and the 2011 America Invents Act with an eye towards how best to use them to shape the legal systems for tomorrow.Featuring:Hon. Makan Delrahim, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP; Former Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of JusticeProf. Christine Haight Farley, Professor of Law and Faculty Director, Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, American University Washington College of LawHon. Andrei Iancu, Partner, Irell & Manella LLP; Former Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark OfficeHon. F. Scott Kieff, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School; Former Commissioner, U.S. International Trade CommissionModerator: Hon. Ryan T. Holte, U.S. Court of Federal Claims

Executive branch agencies such as the SEC, CFTC, FTC and others have recently used their regulatory powers to advance ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance criteria) policies that some consider beyond their core missions and outside of their legal authority. For example, the SEC has proposed climate change disclosure rules that are prescriptive as to the actions expected of public companies. Likewise, the FTC has asked “non-traditional” questions (e.g., environmental, governance, unionization status) during merger probes, and its draft strategic plans propose using antitrust and consumer protection to advance “racial equity, and all forms of equity.”Institutional investors are also pushing ESG and corporate America is responding. Many companies have embraced “stakeholder capitalism” and as a result are taking public stands on voting rights, gun control, and other social issues.Some are concerned about the economic and societal impact of these activities, and pushback is occurring in the form of judicial challenges to regulatory rulemaking, new state laws against divestiture and defunding of energy production and gun sales, and state antitrust investigations of institutional investor groups seeking environmental and social change at public companies.Panelists will discuss the current state of play of “woke capitalism”, and efforts to address agency actions and those of private sector entities.Featuring:Mr. Jonathan Berry, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates; Former Acting Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of LaborMs. Dalia O. Blass, Head of External Affairs, Blackrock; Former Director, Division of Investment Management, U.S. Securities and Exchange CommissionMr. Douglas Geho, Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law, U.S. House Judiciary CommitteeHon. Christine S. Wilson, Commissioner, Federal Trade CommissionModerator: Hon. Andrew Oldham, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

The Roberts Court is recasting the administrative state according to its view of the separation of powers. It is giving the President more authority to fire his subordinates and creating a hierarchical executive where the President and his principal officers have more authority over appointments and decision making. It is forcing the legislature to speak clearly when it wants to vest agencies with major powers and expressing interest in reinvigorating limits on some delegations of legislative power. It is strengthening the judiciary’s interpretative role, declining to give as much deference to regulatory interpretations by agencies. Is its view coherent and sound? Should the Court square its vision with a modern government that was formed on different principles? If so, how?Featuring:Prof. Aditya Bamzai, Martha Lubin Karsh and Bruce A. Karsh Bicentennial Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawHon. Thomas B. Griffith, Special Counsel, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP; Former Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia CircuitHon. Sally Katzen, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence; Co-Director of the Legislative and Regulatory Process Clinic, New York University School of LawProf. Nicholas R. Parrillo, William K. Townsend Professor of Law and Professor of History, Yale Law SchoolModerator: Hon. James C. Ho, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

The National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) is a nonpartisan association founded in 1907 that facilitates interaction among the 56 state and territory attorneys general.” The organization’s website reflects that it, “provides a community for attorneys general and their staff to collaboratively address issues important to their work, as well as training and resources to support attorneys general in protecting the rule of law and the United States Constitution.” In 2021 NAAG received $15 million from the McKinsey opioid settlement and it currently holds more than $280 million in assets.In recent years some have called into question NAAG’s leadership and programming and have publicly sought greater transparency prior to receiving, holding, and expending certain kinds of funds from state lawsuit litigation. Does NAAG need structural reform to assuage concerns? Are additional safeguards necessary to ensure the proper stewardship of litigation proceeds?Featuring:Mr. Oramel H. Skinner III, Executive Director, Alliance For ConsumersMr. Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General, State of TennesseeMr. Chris Toth, Former Executive Director, National Association of Attorneys GeneralModerator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Lawyers and judges play an important role in a democratic republic like the United States. In Democracy in America, Tocqueville praised the character of America’s lawyers as indispensable to protecting the U.S. Constitution, because their taste for formality would help preserve it against popular passions. Similarly, in Federalist 78 Alexander Hamilton defends judicial review by arguing that judges will be bound down by “strict rules and precedents.” Does the U.S. Constitution presuppose a legal profession of this sort? Have lawyers’ understanding of their job, and more broadly of their role in society, changed significantly? If lawyers’ interests have become different in the modern regulatory state than in the early republic, can the rule of law, and specifically judicial review, function in the long run as Tocqueville and Hamilton hoped?Featuring:Prof. Jamal Greene, Dwight Professor of Law, Columbia Law School Prof. Tara Grove, Vinson & Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas at Austin School of LawMr. Ashley Keller, Partner, Keller Lenkner LLCProf. John McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University, Pritzker School of LawModerator: Hon. Patrick J. Bumatay, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

The 2022 National Lawyers Convention took place Thursday, November 10 through Saturday, November 12 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. Over three days, the Convention featured four Showcase Sessions discussing the Convention Theme of "The Current State of the Legal Profession." Hon. Judge William H. Pryor Jr. gave the opening address.Featuring:Hon. William H. Pryor Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

In the last decades, American businesses have faced growing challenges from within and without. For years, many “blue states” have adopted policies to encourage or even impose social and environmental requirements on companies. Those companies faced a choice: either adopt and manage multiple policies in different states, or adopt the most inclusive version in order to maintain internal consistency.At the same time, some American corporations began explicit efforts to exert influence on political, social, and cultural issues unrelated to their core business. Companies, particularly financial institutions, started issuing proclamations on non-business matters and changing their business to match, declaring that they would no longer deal with XYZ industry, product, or type of energy production. Faced with growing market threats to critical state industries and natural resources, “red states” began to respond, passing laws to counter corporate and state efforts they view as politicizing business. This new pushback is significant, but it complicates matters for in-house counsel trying to navigate the competing obligations from red and blue states. Join us for a panel of experts to discuss these issues and examine possible ways to move forward. Featuring:Mr. Chad Boudreaux, Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer, Huntington Ingalls IndustriesMs. Elisebeth Collins, Former General Counsel, WWE; Former Deputy General Counsel & Chief Compliance Officer, Caterpillar Inc.; Former Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy, U.S. Department of JusticeMr. Harold Kim, Chief Legal Officer and Executive Vice President, U.S. Chamber of CommerceMs. Cheryl Stanton, Chief Legal and Government Affairs Officer, BrightStar CareModerator: Hon Theodore W. Ullyot, Partner, Torridon Group

Alexa Gervasi, Executive Director, Georgetown Center for the ConstitutionJennifer Freel, Partner, Jackson WalkerPrerak Shah, Of Counsel, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and former Acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of TexasJohnny Sutton, Partner, Ashcroft Law FirmModerator: Hon. Wes Hendrix, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas

Ryan Bangert, Senior Counsel and Vice President for Legal Strategy, Alliance Defending FreedomArif Panju, Managing Attorney, Institute for JusticeBecky Ricketts, Counsel, Becket LawKeisha Russell, Counsel, First Liberty InstituteChance Weldon, Senior Attorney and Director of Litigation for the Center for the American Future, Texas Public Policy FoundationModerator: Hon. Drew Tipton, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

Hon. William Barr, Former United States Attorney General and Author, One Damn Thing After Another: Memoirs of an Attorney GeneralModerator: Will Levi, Partner, Sidley and former Chief of Staff to Attorney General William Barr

CLE credit anticipated.Featuring:Rick Glazier, Executive Director, North Carolina Justice CenterProfessor Derek Muller, Iowa College of LawPhil Strach, Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLPModerator: Hon. James C. Dever, Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina

CLE credit anticipated.Featuring:Professor John Orth, William Rand Kenan Jr. Professor of Law, UNC School of LawHon. Stephen Markman, Former Justice, Michigan Supreme CourtAndrew Tripp, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, University of North Carolina System OfficeRyan Park, Solicitor General, North CarolinaModerator: Hon. Paul Newby, Chief Justice, North Carolina Supreme Court

Featuring:Hon. Thom Tillis, United States SenatorModerator: Hon. Robert T. Numbers, United States Magistrate Judge