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 Constituti…
This event is sold out. We will take walk-ins at the door if room becomes available. Cryptocurrency. Decentralized finance. Nonfungible tokens. Once only experts on the cutting edge of financial services were familiar with these terms. Now, with the emergence of digital assets within the global financial system, crypto, DeFi, and NFTs are becoming part of the mainstream financial services lexicon. The rapidly emerging crypto ecosystem faces uncertainty within a regulatory regime designed for very different institutions and securities. In response, on March 9, 2022, President Biden issued an executive order, “Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets,” which ordered agencies to submit policy recommendations based upon multiple principles such as: providing consumer protection, ensuring U.S. financial system stability, mitigating systemic financial risk, responsibly developing digital assets, and examining the creation of a U.S. Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). Supporters of increased financial regulation over cryptocurrency see this as a necessity to provide security essential to ensuring financial stability and consumer protection within the digital asset space. Others view these federal regulatory efforts as a threat to future opportunities for economic innovation. SEC Commissioner Hester M. Peirce and an expert panel including Jerry Brito, Ryan Selkis, C. Todd Phillips, moderated by J.W. Verret, will address current and future efforts at regulation of cryptocurrency and its implications for innovation, financial stability, and consumer protection. Schedule:12:00pm - Lunch12:30pm - Opening RemarksHon. Hester M. Peirce, Commissioner, United States Securities and Exchange Commission12:45pm - PanelRyan Selkis, Co-Founder and CEO, MessariTodd Phillips, Director, Financial Regulation and Corporate Governance, Center for American ProgressJerry Brito, Executive Director, Coin CenterModerator: Prof. J.W. Verret, Associate Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University Lunch will be provided. The event is free, but advance registration is required.This event will be livestreamed on the web page. Registration is not required to watch the livestream.
Cryptocurrency. Decentralized finance. Nonfungible tokens. Once only experts on the cutting edge of financial services were familiar with these terms. Now, with the emergence of digital assets within the global financial system, crypto, DeFi, and NFTs are becoming part of the mainstream financial services lexicon. The rapidly emerging crypto ecosystem faces uncertainty within a regulatory regime designed for very different institutions and securities. In response, on March 9, 2022, President Biden issued an executive order, “Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets,” which ordered agencies to submit policy recommendations based upon multiple principles such as: providing consumer protection, ensuring U.S. financial system stability, mitigating systemic financial risk, responsibly developing digital assets, and examining the creation of a U.S. Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). Supporters of increased financial regulation over cryptocurrency see this as a necessity to provide security essential to ensuring financial stability and consumer protection within the digital asset space. Others view these federal regulatory efforts as a threat to future opportunities for economic innovation. At a live Regulatory Transparency Project event, SEC Commissioner Hester M. Peirce addressed current and future efforts at regulation of cryptocurrency and its implications for innovation, financial stability, and consumer protection. Featuring:Hon. Hester M. Peirce, Commissioner, United States Securities and Exchange CommissionIntroduction: Moderator: Prof. J.W. Verret, Associate Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
On May 5, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a new "Comprehensive Environmental Justice Strategy." One piece of this new strategy was an Interim Final Rule reintroducing the use of Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) in environmental enforcement action settlements.As defined by the Biden administration, SEPs are "local projects that defendants can agree to undertake as part of an enforcement case settlement to help rectify environmental violations." These projects were outlawed under the Trump DOJ due to concerns that their use expands DOJ discretionary authority beyond its statutory limits. The Biden administration, however, argues that "SEPs help to fulfill the goals of the underlying statutes being enforced and can provide important environmental and public health benefits to communities that have been harmed by environmental violations."Join us at 12:00 PM ET on June 15 for a virtual discussion on the return of SEPs featuring three DOJ veterans with a range of views on the issue.Featuring:Michael Buschbacher, Counsel, Boyden Gray & Associates PLLCJustin Savage, Global Co-Lead, Environmental Team, Sidley Austin LLP[Moderator] Annie Donaldson Talley, Partner, Luther Strange and AssociatesVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
The “Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act” amended the Federal Arbitration Act to bar mandatory employment arbitration agreements covering sexual harassment and sexual assault claims. This program will feature Prof. Alexander J.S. Colvin and G. Roger King who testified before Congress as the legislation was being considered (see here and here respectively, for their written testimony). The panel will discuss the new statute, its intended purposes, and its impact more broadly on mandatory employment arbitration. The program will also cover why sexual harassment and assault claims, in particular, have been excluded from mandatory arbitration. Will this exclusion for such claims remain unique under the FAA or will it lead towards a ban on mandatory arbitration for employment claims generally? How does the Act connect to the more general issue of class, collective, and joint action waivers in predispute arbitration, and will the Act impact the mass filing strategy that plaintiff side firms are increasingly using?Featuring:Prof. Alexander J.S. Colvin, Kenneth F. Kahn '69 Dean and Martin F. Scheinman Professor of Conflict Resolution, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell UniversityG. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy AssociationModerator: Christopher C. Murray, Shareholder, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart
On January 30-31, 1987, the Federalist Society hosted its first-ever national lawyers convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The conference featured an address by Dr. Thomas Sowell on "Judges and the Law"Featuring:Introduction: William Bradford Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General, Department of JusticeDr. Thomas Sowell, Hoover Institute
Deference doctrines utilized by the federal Judiciary when federal agencies act is the subject of substantial debate and attention. Chevron deference, Skidmore deference, and Kisor/Auer deference are recognizable to many. But less attention is paid to how state legislatures and judiciaries calibrate the balance of separated powers on the same score.In this webinar, Professor Aram Gavoor will lead a balanced discussion and press the governors' General Counsel or Chief Legal Counsel from Florida, Tennessee, and Texas. The program will explore the similarities, differences, and unique features of state judicial deference to administrative agency interpretations of law.Featuring:Ryan D. Newman, General Counsel, Governor of Florida Ron DeSantisJonathan T. Skrmetti, Chief Legal Counsel , Office of Tennessee Governor Bill LeeJames P. Sullivan, General Counsel , Office of Texas Governor Greg AbbottModerator: Aram A. Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University Law School---To register, click the link above
We recognize the risks of agency overreach when rulemaking seeks to impose ESG considerations on business. But to what extent have private banks and institutional investors also been able to leverage their economic power to shape firm behavior on climate and other ESG questions – outside of the democratic process? And if we worry that the administrative state lacks political accountability for contentious policy choices, should we also be concerned about the role of private economic influence?Join us for a dinner at the Mayflower Hotel as our panelists discuss these questions and more. This registration link above will direct registrants to the Executive Branch Review conference ticket sales page, where dinner tickets will be available at a discount to logged in members. Login or Join today!Featuring: Christina Parajon Skinner, Assistant Professor of Legal Studies and Business Ethics, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, Univeristy of Virginia School of Law Matthew Stoller, Director of Research, American Economic Liberties Project Hon. C. Boyden Gray, Founding Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit Reading Materials: The New Separation of Ownership and Control: Institutional Investors and ESG - Julia Mahoney Banks and Climate Governance - Christina Skinner
Featuring:Anthony LoCoco, Deputy Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL)Colin T. Roth, Partner, Stafford Rosenbaum LLPRyan J. Walsh, Partner, Eimer Stahl LLPModerator: Hon. Shelley A. Grogan, Judge, District II, Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Featuring:Prof. Christopher W. Schmidt, Professor of Law & Co-Director of ISCOTUS, Chicago-Kent College of LawDaniel Suhr, Senior Attorney, Liberty Justice CenterMisha Tseytlin, Partner, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLPModerator: Hon. Maria S. Lazar, Judge-Elect, District II, Wisconsin Court of Appeals
In midst of the pandemic, among the many urgent public demands, Chicago took the time to assess the propriety of monuments to historical figures like Abraham Lincoln. Cities across the country are grappling with the legacy of such figures, many of whom did not live perfect lives. Chicago's effort was part of a larger social movement to remove from sight, or to hold accountable, historical and contemporary figures, including Christopher Columbus, Thomas Jefferson, Dr. Seuss, Woodrow Wilson, J.K. Rowling, and even Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant. Americans are now regularly “cancelled” for actions and statements made many years ago. Is "cancel culture" an important tool of social justice or a new form of intimidation by the powerful? Does canceling someone work to deter bad behavior? How does cancellation and its potential to chill speech interact with the First Amendment? Speakers:Prof. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, Emerita, New York Law School & Former President, American Civil Liberties UnionJonathan D. Urick, Associate Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Litigation CenterProf. Anders Walker, Lillie Myers Professor of Law; Professor of History, St. Louis University School of LawModerator: Hon. Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., Senior Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Leading the charge for abolition during the Civil War-era, among others, were abolitionists with deeply held religious beliefs. Today, virtually everyone supports religious liberty and virtually everyone opposes discrimination. But how do we handle the hard questions that arise when exercises of religious liberty seem to discriminate unjustly? Or when anti-discrimination laws unjustly constrain religious liberty? How do we promote the common good while respecting conscience in a diverse society? For example, many religious liberty questions have arisen in response to the redefinition of marriage, such as when bakers, florists, and photographers who do not wish to prove same-sex wedding services and charge for discrimination. This conflict extends well beyond the LGBT arena, notably in the abortion debate. What counts as discrimination, when is it unjust, and when should it be unlawful? Should the law give religion and conscience special protection at all, and if so, why? Might the protection of religious liberty for all serve the ever so pressing need to calming fear and polarization in today’s society?Speakers:Prof. Thomas C. Berg, James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of LawJustin Edward Butterfield, Deputy General Counsel, First Liberty InstituteD. John Sauer, Solicitor General, MissouriModerator: Hon. James C. Ho, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, dramatically changed constitutional law. How are we to understand these changes? How would an originalist understand these changes? Did the Fourteenth Amendment change our Federalism and, if so, how much? Does the Fourteenth Amendment protect unenumerated rights?Speakers:Prof. Evan D. Bernick, Assistant Professor, Northern Illinois University College of LawProf. Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State UniversityModerator: Hon. Chad A. Readler, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
On October 9, 1996, the Federalist Society's student chapter at Loyola University School of Law in New Orleans, LA hosted its annual James Madison Lecture, featuring former attorney general Edwin Meese III as the keynote speaker.Featuring:Moderator: Justice Harry T. Lemmon, Louisiana Supreme CourtIntroductory Remarks: Harvey C. Koch, Partner, Koch & RouseIntroduction: Verne Spears, Member, The Federalist SocietyEdwin Meese III, Distinguished Fellow, The Heritage FoundationJudge Martin Leach-Cross Feldman, United States District Court, Eastern District of LouisianaJudge Edith Brown Clement, United States District Court, Eastern District of LouisianaJudge Eldon Fallon, United Stats District Court, Eastern District of LouisianaProf. Paul Bayer, Louisiana State University Law Center
Across the country, states are looking at how to handle the privacy rights of their citizens regarding "big tech." Illinois, Virginia, California, and Florida have their versions. Ohio is trying to tackle this issue through HB 376. HB 376 is being described as a consumer protection bill, which will protect the selling of data by "big tech" companies and allow recourse for citizens when their data is sold against their direction. Advocates against the bill say that the bill protects "big tech" rather than the people it purports to protect. Featuring:Hon. Brian Stewart, State Representative, OhioDavid Straite, Partner, DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLCCarl M. Szabo, Vice President & General Counsel, Net ChoiceModerator: Hon. J. Philip Calabrese, Judge, United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio
Law in the form of regulation is increasingly made, enforced, and adjudicated by administrative agencies, e.g. the OSHA vaccine mandate. Does this growth in administrative law threaten individual liberties or is it a more efficient and expert-driven way to govern?Featuring:Clegg Ivey, Director of Engagement, New Civil Liberties AllianceProf. William S. Jordan III, C. Blake McDowell, Jr. Professor of Law, University of AkronPatrick Strawbridge, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLCModerator: Hon. Alice Batchelder, Senior Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Please join the Evansville Lawyers Chapter for a Zoom webinar with Omar Andino Figueroa, Deputy Solicitor General of Puerto Rico. He will speaking on "The Application of the Constitution to the Territories."Friday, April 8, 202212:00pm Central Time
Stablecoins are unique types of digital tokens that have emerged out of the cryptocurrency revolution and have taken center stage in the debate about crypto regulation. Tied to the value of an asset or fiat currency such as the dollar, stablecoins were initially created to ease the trade between different cryptocurrencies and crypto exchanges. Yet they have taken on innovative and beneficial new uses that both increase financial inclusion at home and provide vital assistance to those facing oppression and financial instability, as some argue that the situation in Ukraine demonstrates.But as stablecoins gain prominence, concerns have arisen over risks they might pose to the financial system. Some, such as Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Pat Toomey, have argued for light-touch regulation for stablecoin issuers that would simply require disclosure of reserves and redemption policies. Others have called for strict bank-like regulation on stablecoins with reserve requirements that specify the amount of assets stablecoin issuers must hold and backstop guarantee programs similar to deposit insurance. The President’s Working Group on Financial Markets of the Biden Administration recently recommended that federal laws should only allow stablecoins to be issued by “insured depository institutions” such as banks and savings associations. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is also sending signals that it considers stablecoins as well as other cryptocurrencies to be “securities,” and will subject them to regulatory enforcement under securities laws, despite, as some argue, the lack of clear authority by Congress.This webinar explores the potential of stablecoins as a payment instrument, the inefficiencies of the current payment system, and the appropriate level of regulation that allows for beneficial innovation in this sector.Featuring:Paul Jossey, Principal Attorney, Jossey PLLC; Adjunct Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute; Opinion Contributor, CoinDesk, National Review and other publicationsTimothy Massad, Research Fellow, Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University; Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown Law School; Former Chairman, Commodity Futures Trading CommissionModerator: John Berlau, Senior Fellow & Director of Finance Policy, Competitive Enterprise Institute; Author, George Washington, Entrepreneur: How Our Founding Father’s Private Business Pursuits Changed America and the World
10:10 - 10:20 Remarks from Chief Justice Candidate Brunner10:20 - 10:30 Remarks from Chief Justice Candidate Kennedy speaks10:30 - 11:45 Associate Justice PanelFeaturing:Hon. Jennifer Brunner, Supreme Court of OhioHon. R. Patrick DeWine, Supreme Court of OhioHon. Patrick Fischer, Supreme Court of OhioHon. Terri Jamison, Ohio Tenth District Court of AppealsHon. Sharon L. Kennedy, Supreme Court of OhioHon. Marilyn Zayas, Ohio First District Court of AppealsModerator: Robert Alt, President & CEO, The Buckeye Institute
Many originalists are well-versed in The Federalist Papers. They rely on these documents to better understand the original meaning of the Constitution. But to understand the original meaning of the Constitution, originalists cannot read The Federalist Papers alone. Rather originalists must look to both sides of the original debates. The Anti-Federalists are half of the story, and, when it comes to the Bill of Rights, they may be almost the whole story. The Symposium will begin with an introduction into the Anti-Federalists—who they were, why they were called “Anti-Federalists,” and why originalists should read their essays today.Featuring:Judge Andrew S. Oldham, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitJudge Amul R. Thapar, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
In the contemporary debates over the nature of executive power, two ideas are perennially prominent and intractably controversial: the unitary executive theory and nondelegation doctrine. While many prominent lawyers and judges have advocated a unitary model of the executive, it is still controversial whether the Constitution requires that the President sit at the top of the executive pyramid. And while the Court has refused to seriously revitalize the nondelegation doctrine in recent cases, voices on and off the bench persist in calling for limits on the executive’s ability to exercise lawmaking power.While these debates have modern salience, they actually predate the Constitution. Which provokes the question: what did the Federalists and Anti-Federalists have to say about these topics? In what ways were their debates different from ours, and in what ways are things the same? How do their discussions shed light on our modern arguments? These questions and more will be explored by our learned panelists.Featuring:Moderator: Honorable Paul B. Matey, United States Court of Appeals for the Third CircuitProf. Jennifer Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law and Co-Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Anotnin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. Julian Davis Mortenson, James G. Phillipp Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law SchoolProf. Saikrishna Prakash, James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law—Albert Clark Tate, Jr., Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Michael Rappaport, Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Professor of Law; Director, Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism, University of San Diego School of Law
One of the principal disagreements between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists surrounded the role of the new Constitution in relation to state authority.Federalists argued that the Constitution would make the federal Constitution plenary only in certain areas while preserving the role of the states. The Anti-Federalists feared that the federal Constitution would result in a nationalized government where states would play no role and the federal government would overwhelm any semblance of state authority. Panelists will debate what the Federalists meant when they argued for a plenary, but limited federal Constitution, the different views they held, and whether the Federalists or Anti-Federalists were correct.Featuring:Moderator: Honorable Trevor N. McFadden, United States District Court for the District of ColumbiaProf. John Mikhail, Carroll Professor of Jurisprudence, Georgetown LawProf. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center Stanford Law School
This panel will center discussion on the role of the states in our constitutional order—by focusing on states’ highest courts and their role in promoting individual rights and the development of the law. The roundtable will also explore the relationship between the state and federal courts, both historical and contemporary, as well as some of the pivotal moments that produced our modern balance of power. The speakers will also suggest ways that judges in each level of government, along with legislators and lawyers, might help improve the balance of power between states and the federal government.The panelists will discuss the relationship between states and their municipalities. The question of localism was central to the Federalists’ and Anti-Federalists’ debates about the role of government. It was especially significant in respect to the competing interests of agrarian and urban citizens that motivated much ideological conflict in the period. Speakers will discuss how Anti-Federalist preferences for localism and Federalist preferences for nationalization helped produce our modern balance of governmental powers and legal culture. The roundtable will debate whether they see a return to localism soon and, if so, what implications this might have for constitutional governance.Featuring:Moderator: The Honorable Neomi Rao, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia CircuitThe Honorable Goodwin H. Liu, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of CaliforniaThe Honorable Jeffrey S. Sutton, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth CircuitProf. Julia D. Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
There is a folk wisdom that connects the American War of Independence’s “no taxation without representation” with today’s skepticism of Washington, DC and centralized power. The Anti-Federalists were a broad coalition, but most Anti-Federalists shared a dislike of a strong centralized government and believed that many small republics would best protect the individual. Some Anti-Federalists argued that without a bill of rights the Constitution would not be able to sufficiently protect the rights of individuals and the states. Even after ratification, some Founders, such as Jefferson, Mason, and Henry, maintained that the Federalists had in fact “betrayed” the “popular Revolutionary Spirit of ’76” and its desire for “general and individual liberty.” However, once the Jefferson-led Democrat-Republicans—primarily made up of and appealing to the old Anti-Federalist coalition—took office they did not seek to abolish, or significantly alter, this new form of governance. Why not? Did the Anti-Federalists plant the seeds, and prefer to nurture the growth of populism in America?Featuring:Moderator: The Honorable Lisa Branch, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh CircuitProf. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University Prof. Michelle Kundmueller, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Old Dominion UniversityProf. G. Edward White, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Theories of originalism and living constitutionalism currently vie for approval in the courts. Originalists find that popular sovereignty can only come from ratification and legislation. Living constitutionalists fear binding the living by the votes of the dead. What would Jefferson, Madison, or Hamilton think of this debate? Did the founding era public expect the original public meaning to control interpretive debates? Were the American Founders themselves originalists? In a related question, the panel will also explore the usefulness of The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist essays as interpretive tools for identifying the original public meaning of the Bill of Rights. Just how persuasive are the Anti-Federalist concerns considering their position was ultimately lost and the Constitution was ratified? How much did the “losing” arguments contribute to the original public meaning and what light do the founding era debates shed on the proper tools for constitutional interpretation? Featuring:Moderator: The Honorable William H. Pryor, United States Court of Appeals Eleventh CircuitProf. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale UniversityProf. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
Before the National Student Symposium begins, the Federalist Society's Faculty Division will host a panel of young legal scholars, presenting prize winning papers with comments from more senior scholars in Brown 102 at the University of Virginia School of Law. All early arrivals are welcome to sit in and hear some of the exciting scholarship these young legal scholars are working on before the National Student Symposium. For more information, visit https://fedsoc.org/events/2022-young-legal-scholars-panel. The Federalist Society's Faculty Division hosted a panel of young legal scholars before the National Student Symposium began, presenting prize winning papers with comments from more senior scholars in Brown 102 at the University of Virginia School of Law. Featuring:The Irrepressible Myth of Jacobson v. MassachusettsProf. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law HoustonCommenter Prof. Julia D. Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawElection Emergencies: Voting in Times of PandemicProf. Michael T. Morley, Sheila M. McDevitt Professor, Florida State University College of LawCommenter Prof. Bertrall Ross, Justice Thurgood Marshall Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawOf Statutes and Spirits: Interpretation on the English High Courts, c. 1800-2020Jonathan Green, Law Clerk to Judge Neomi Rao, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. CircuitCommenter Prof. Bernadette Meyler, Carl and Sheila Spaeth Professor of Law, Stanford Law School Reconstructing Reconstruction Era RightsProf. Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State UniversityCommenter Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University
Featuring:Welcome: Jessica Mann, Symposium Chair, University of Virginia School of LawOpening Remarks: Dean Risa L. Goluboff, Arnold H. Leon Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawKeynote Address: Gov. Glenn Youngkin, 74th Governor of Virginia
In January 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) finalized its SUNSET Rule. Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) requires agencies to have a written plan to review their significant regulations every ten years to determine their impact on small entities (and to determine whether the regulations should be amended or rescinded based on the findings of the review). Because HHS found it was not reviewing all its significant regulations, it issued the SUNSET Rule to better incentivize review. Under the SUNSET Rule, all HHS regulations must be assessed every ten years to determine whether they are significant under the RFA and if they are, the review called for by the RFA must be performed. If the assessment or review of a regulation is not conducted every ten years, the regulation would expire. Critics of the rule argue that committing HHS to reassessing the economic impacts of many of the department’s existing regulations is a large undertaking and it establishes an extreme penalty for noncompliance. Last fall, HHS issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to rescind the SUNSET Rule, and reports suggest a final repeal may be near. This webinar will discuss the SUNSET rule, the effort to repeal it, and possible future actions in this area. Featuring:Jonah Hecht, Attorney, McGonigle; former Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesProf. William Funk, Lewis & Clark Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, Lewis & Clark Law SchoolModerator: Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Small Business Legal CenterVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
On April 7-9, 1995, the Federalist Society held its fourteenth annual National Student Symposium at the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, Illinois. The subject of the conference was "Originalism, Democracy, and the Constitution." The penultimate panel explored "The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."Featuring:Moderator: Prof. John C. Harrison, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Akhil R. Amar, Yale Law SchoolProf. Earl M. Maltz, Rutgers University School of LawProf. Michael W. McConnell, University of Chicago Law SchoolProf. Jeffrey Rosen, George Washington University Law School
On April 7-9, 1995, the Federalist Society held its fourteenth annual National Student Symposium at the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, Illinois. The subject of the conference was "Originalism, Democracy, and the Constitution." The fifth panel discussed "Is Originalism Possible? Historical Indeterminacy."Featuring:Moderator: Prof. Stephen B. Presser, Northwestern University School of LawProf. Suzanna Sherry, University of Minnesota Law SchoolProf. Randy E. Barnett, Boston University School of Law Prof. Gary Lawson, Northwestern University School of Law Thomas B. McAffee, Southern Illinois University School of Law
The first panel of the Federalist Society's Eighth Annual Florida Chapters Conference featured an impressive group of lawyers and professors to discuss redistricting in Florida since the previous decade. Judge Meredith Sasso of Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal moderated the discussion.Featuring:Phillip Gordon, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLCDr. Michael McDonald, Professor of Political Science, University of FloridaProf. Michael Morley, Professor of Law, Florida State University College of LawModerator: Hon. Meredith Sasso, Florida's 5th District Court of Appeal
Florida Attorney General Ashley Moodey delievered the opening remarks at the Federalist Society's Eighth Annual Florida Chapters Conference. She was introdueced by Richard Martin, the Florida Office of the Attorney General Chief of Staff.Featuring:Hon. Ashley Moody, Attorney General of Florida
Forida Governor Ron Desantis and former White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany held a fireside chat at the Federalist Society's Eighth Annual Florida Chapters Conference. Jason Gonzalez of Shutts & Bowen LLP introduced the speakers.Featuring:Gov. Ron DeSantis, 46th Governor of FloridaKayleigh McEnany, Former White House Press Secretary
Former Vice President Michael R. Pence delivered the Keynote Address at the Eighth Annual Florida Chapters Conference on February 4th, 2022. He made remarks regarding COVID-19 mandates at the time and the accomplishments of the previous administration.Featuring:Hon. Michael R. Pence, 48th Vice President of the United States
The Minnesota Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society held a Zoom webinar discussing Justice Breyer, his legacy, and his thoughts on his replacement. The event will begin with speaker remarks and discussion, followed by audience Q&A.
On April 7-9, 1995, the Federalist Society held its fourteenth annual National Student Symposium at the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, Illinois. The subject of the conference was "Originalism, Democracy, and the Constitution." The second day of the conference commenced with a panel asking "Is Originalism Possible? Normative Indeterminacy and the Judicial Role."Featuring:Moderator: Edwin Meese III, The Heritage FoundationProf. Michael C. Dorf, Rutgers University School of LawProf. Richard A. Epstein, University of Chicago Law SchoolProf. Michael J. Perry, Northwestern University School of LawProf. Steven D. Smith, University of Colorado School of Law
On April 7-9, 1995, the Federalist Society held its fourteenth annual National Student Symposium at the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, Illinois. The subject of the conference was "Originalism, Democracy, and the Constitution." The first day of the conference concluded with a panel titled "What Is Originalism?"Featuring:Moderator: Rep. David M. McIntosh, United States House of Representatives (IN-2)Prof. Richard S. Kay, University of Connecticut School of LawProf. Larry Alexander, University of San Diego School of LawProf. Paul F. Campos, University of Colorado School of LawProf. Frederick Schauer, Harvard University
Come hear the views of in-house lawyers as they discuss their career paths and day to day experience as corporate counsel. When and why did they decide to go in-house? How does it differ from the law firm experience? What are the benefits and challenges of in-house practice?Featuring:Kyle Dolan, General Counsel, Priority Sports & EntertainmentAlexandra Harrison Gaiser, Director of Regulatory Affairs, River FinancialDennis Murashko, Co-Founder and Corporate Counsel, Degree Insurance Co.Mark Schuman, Vice President and Associate General Counsel, American Equity Investment Life Holding Company
On February 18, 2022, the Evansville Lawyers Chapter hosted a Zoom webinar featuring Professor Josh Blackman of South Texas College of Law Houston. Prof. Blackman spoke on "Abortion, Dobbs, and The Future of the Conservative Legal Movement."Featuring: Prof. Josh Blackman, South Texas College of Law Houston
On April 7-9, 1995, the Federalist Society held its fourteenth annual National Student Symposium at the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, Illinois. The subject of the conference was "Originalism, Democracy, and the Constitution." The first panel discussed "Originalism and the Dead Hand."Featuring:Moderator: Prof. Daniel D. Polsby, Northwestern University School of LawProf. Daniel A. Farber, University of Minnesota Law SchoolProf. John O. McGinnis, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of LawProf. Michael S. Moore, University of Pennsylvania Law SchoolProf. Lawrence G. Sager, New York University Law School*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On April 7-9, 1995, the Federalist Society held its fourteenth annual National Student Symposium at the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, Illinois. The subject of the conference was "Originalism, Democracy, and the Constitution." The second panel of the conference covered "Constitutionalism and Originalism."Featuring:Moderator: Steve Chapman, Chicago TribuneProf. Lilian R. BeVier, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Lino A. Graglia, University of Texas School of LawProf. Jonathan R. Macey, Cornell Law SchoolProf. Cass R. Sunstein, Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School***As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Public K-12 schools across the country have introduced elements of critical race theory into their curriculums. The Biden Administration has produced a federal rule that would prioritize funding for history and civics programs shaped by CRT. Meanwhile, lawmakers in 16 states have introduced or passed legislation seeking to limit the teaching of critical race theory within public institutions. And parents across the country have pushed back against school boards adopting CRT and filed litigation to that effect. What is critical race theory? And are states and localities within their rights in designing and limiting curricula and what can and cannot be taught in public schools, or do laws that do so potentially violate First Amendment rights or other applicable law?Featuring:Reverend Michael Barber, S.J., Professor of Philosophy, Saint Louis UniversityJosh Hammer, Opinion Editor, Newsweek and Research Fellow, Edmund Burke FoundationKimberly Hermann, General Counsel, Southeastern Legal FoundationDave Roland, Director of Litigation, Freedom Center of MissouriModerator: Mark Bremer, Partner, Shands, Elbert, Gianoulakis & Giljum, LLP and President, St. Louis Lawyers Chapter
Some social media companies are inviting the government to impose new content moderation and censorship requirements. Others say that in a free market system, consumers should be able to choose social media networks based on those networks’ content moderation policies. Still others suggest that Big Tech could be regulated as a common carrier, barring large platforms from discriminating against messages based on their content. Which is the best approach?Featuring:Josh Divine, Chief Counsel to Senator Josh Hawley, United States SenateLyrissa Lidsky, Dean and Judge C.A. Leedy Professor of Law, University of MissouriAmy Peikoff, Chief Policy Officer, ParlerModerator: Edward Greim, Partner, Graves Garrett LLC and President, Kansas City Lawyers Chapter
How should we think about “lawyer-shaming”? At the close of the Trump administration, we saw an effort to deter law firms from re-hiring attorneys leaving the Department of Justice and to encourage corporate America to decline to work with firms that had re-hired such attorneys. And efforts have since moved on to targeting firms with clients involved in the fossil fuel industry.Further, in the past year we have seen a spate of bar complaints filed against both lawyers holding or seeking political office and against lawyers representing or even merely advising political candidates and officeholders.There has been controversy in years past over attorney pro bono work on behalf of detainees accused of terrorism.As a matter of legal ethics and as a matter of industry norms, how should we think about such efforts and is there a consistent principle that should govern? Should law firms hire attorneys with a diversity of viewpoints? When are politically motivated bar complaints appropriate and when are they unethical? Featuring:Stephen Davis, Partner, True North LawCharles Hatfield, Partner, Stinson LLPGary Myers, Earl F. Nelson Professor of Law and former Law School Dean, University of Missouri - ColumbiaModerator: Jennifer Bukowsky, Executive Director, Show-Me Defenders and President, Jefferson City Lawyers Chapter
On March 26, 1999, the Federalist Society co-sponsored the Stranahan National Issues Forum with the University of Toledo College of Law. The title of the conference was "Education Reform at the Crossroads: Politics, the Constitution, and the Battle over School Choice." The final panel explored "School Choice in Action."In recent years, school choice has to moved beyond an abstract topic for free-market theorists and constitutional scholars. Today, school-choice programs — public and private — and similar education-reform policies aimed at increasing choice and competition are up and running the country. Speakers at this panel — leading students, critics, and evaluators of school-coice programs — will discuss candidly the available data and empirical evidence relating to the choice programs, and will also survey and evaluate the different and local programs. Featuring:Roberta Holt, Director, Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring ProgramAnn Payne, Founder, Aurora AcademyProf. John Witte, University of WisconsinBrother Bob Smith, President, Messemer High SchoolDr. Myron Lieberman, Education Policy InstituteAs always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On March 26, 1999, the Federalist Society co-sponsored the Stranahan National Issues Forum with the University of Toledo College of Law. The title of the conference was "Education Reform at the Crossroads: Politics, the Constitution, and the Battle over School Choice." The penultimate panel covered "School Choice: The Next Civil Rights Crusade?"School choice is more than an education-reform porposal. To many supporters of vouchers and charter schools, these policy innovations are crucial elements in the effort to vindicate the civil and political ights of low-income parents and members of racial minorities. At the same time, many school choice critics suggest that vouchers will constitute a set-back for public-school integration. Speakers at this panel— civil-rights leaders, school-choice activists, and academics— will discuss these problems, and also explore the connection between school choice and parents' First Amendment freedoms, as well as the historical and consitutional tradition of viewing a well-educated citizenry as the key to democratic and republican government and education as the key to meaningful exercise of civil rights. Featuring:Introduction Ted Cruz, Attorney, Cooper, Carvin & RosenthalProf. Joseph Vitteritti, New York UniversityJennifer Grossman, Director of Education, CatoMichael Meyers, President, New York Civil Rights CoalitionClint Bolick, Cofounder, Institute for JusticeAs always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
The Federalist Society's Student Division &Columbus School of Law Student Chapter presentFeddie Night Festivus:Blackman vs. Everybody!FeaturingUnprecedented Feats of Jurisprudential StrengthThis event will be livestreamed via YouTubeThursday, December 23, 20218:00 PM ETFeaturing:Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of LawFeddie Night Fights is a series of online events hosted by the Student Division and a rotating Student Chapter each month.
On March 26, 1999, the Federalist Society co-sponsored the Stranahan National Issues Forum with the University of Toledo College of Law. The title of the conference was "Education Reform at the Crossroads: Politics, the Constitution, and the Battle over School Choice," and featured a keynote address by Linda Chavez.Featuring:Introductory Remarks: Ted Cruz, Attorney, Cooper, Carvin & RosenthalAward: Corey Swanson, Cofounder, Stranahan National Issues ForumIntroduction: Dean Albert Quick, The University of Toledo College of LawLinda Chavez, President, Center for Equal Opportunity
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". The conference concluded with the annual Hon. Robert H. Bork Memorial Lecture, featuring remarks by Judge Laurence H. Silberman on "The Job of Attorney General—A Historical Perspective."Judge Laurence H. Silberman will be delivering remarks on "The Job of Attorney General—A Historical Perspective."Featuring:Hon. Laurence H. Silberman, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit