Necessary & Proper Podcast

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has traditionally regulated interstate and international communications and, as part of that, maintained a universal service fund that requires telecommunications carriers to contribute quarterly based on their revenues. In order to calculate these contribution amounts, the FCC contracts the help of the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC). The constitutionality of these delegations of power—to the FCC by Congress and to USAC by the FCC—were challenged in court by Consumers’ Research. On June 27, 2025, the Court ruled in favor of the FCC, rejecting the argument that the universal-service contribution scheme violates the nondelegation doctrine.Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case, its decision, and what this means for the nondelegation doctrine going forward.Featuring:Sean Lev, Partner, HWG LLPModerator: Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute

On January 20th, 2025, President Trump established the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) by executive order. DOGE and its head, Elon Musk, hope to reduce the size and inefficiencies of the administrative state and return the federal bureaucracy to being accountable to the President and, ultimately, the people. While the scope and extent of this mission are still to be determined, one of DOGE’s early endeavors is to dramatically reduce the number of civil service employees determined to be unnecessary or wasteful. While many are vocal in their support of these actions, they are not without pushback, including several legal challenges. What is DOGE, and are its structure and actions legal? Where does the power to remove civil servants rest? Are there limits to that power? What impacts will their removals have on the Executive Branch? Featuring: Ms. Kristine I. Simmons, Founder and Principal, Rose Communication & Coaching LLC Prof. David A. Super, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Law and Economics, Georgetown University Law Center Mr. Manuel Valle, Senior Managing Associate, Sidley Austin LLP Mr. Hans A. von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation (Moderator) Hon. Ryan T. Holte, Judge, United States Court of Federal Claims; Jurist-In-Residence Professor of Law, The University of Akron School of Law

Among the points emphasized by the second Trump administration has been a major push for deregulation. President Trump has directed that there must be ten deregulatory actions for every one regulatory one, and put forward Presidential Memoranda and Executive Orders to that end. As some have noted, however, such deregulation can take significant time due to factors like the requirements for notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act.Interestingly, an April Presidential Memorandum seems to contemplate that potential hurdle for executive actions directing repeal of regulations contrary to ten specific recent Supreme Court decisions, including without notice and comment “where appropriate.”This panel will seek to discuss the potential impact of this presidential memorandum, when deregulation may happen, incurring a need for notice & comment, and what the Judicial Branch might ultimately determine about the Executive Branch’s efforts to enforce their precedents in this manner.Featuring:John Lewis, Deputy Legal Director, Governing for ImpactJonathan Wolfson, Chief Legal Officer and Policy Director, Cicero Institute(Moderator) Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates, and Former OFCCP Director

Since taking office on January 20, 2025, President Trump has emphasized deregulation. Deregulatory efforts have focused both on undoing Biden-era policies in areas of interest (environmental regulation, SOGI issues, immigration, etc.) and on a broader effort to limit the scope of administrative power more broadly. In light of these strong changes, this panel will discuss the history of deregulation efforts in the Executive Branch, how those compare to the deregulatory efforts of the Trump Administration, and what these changes may mean both practically and more institutionally for the future of the Administrative State.Featuring:Prof. Bridget C.E. Dooling, Assistant Professor of Law, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State UniversityProf. Susan E. Dudley, Distinguished Professor, Regulatory Studies Center, George Washington UniversityMr. William C. Hughes, Senior Counsel, Consensys SoftwareProf. Richard J. Pierce Jr., Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School(Moderator) Mr. Adam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Co-Director, C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School

Does the President control independent agencies? This panel will examine the Trump administration’s efforts to reassert presidential control over independent federal agencies, considering the constitutional, legal, and practical implications of such actions. Central to the discussion will be Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld the independence of certain regulatory bodies by limiting the President’s removal power, and the perspectives raised by legal cases such as Hampton Dellinger’s, which questioned the administration’s authority over the removal of agency officials. Proponents argue that increased presidential oversight enhances accountability, ensuring agencies align with elected leadership’s policies, while critics warn that such changes could erode agency independence and introduce political influence into regulatory decisions. The discussion will consider whether these changes promote efficient governance or threaten the integrity of federal oversight.Featuring:Prof. Jed Shugerman, Professor, Boston University School of LawProf. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School(Moderator) Prof. Aram Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, The George Washington University Law School

Presidents have used executive orders to direct the executive branch since the founding, but over the years the modern Presidency has drastically expanded its use of executive orders. Executive Orders have always been an important means of moving the Executive Branch into alignment with the President’s interpretation of the law consistent with his duty of faithful execution and a primary way President’s exercise their executive discretion under law. Yet all power is subject to expansion and abuse. In January 2014, for example, then-President Obama announced his “pen and phone” strategy: “I’ve got a pen to take executive actions where Congress won’t, and I’ve got a telephone to rally folks around the country on this mission.”Subsequent administrations have similarly relied on presidential authority to govern by way of Executive Orders, leading to significant litigation challenging the breadth of such authority. This panel will examine the use of executive orders and the “pen and phone” strategy throughout our nation’s history, especially from a separation of powers perspective. This broad power is not expressly identified in either the Constitution or statute, but it has long been accepted as inherent to presidential power over the federal government, federal agencies, foreign affairs, and our military. This panel will discuss the impact of executive orders, what precedent they set for future administrations in the robust exercise of executive authority, and how the “unitary executive” theory plays into that analysis.This webinar will be the first of four webinars previewing the Thirteenth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on the topic of Theories of Presidential Power.Featuring: John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government; Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage FoundationProf. Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law SchoolProf. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law SchoolModerator: Beth Williams, Board Member, U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board

After the U.S. Supreme Court in Morrison v. Olson (1988) and U.S. v. Lopez (1995) held two federal statutes were unconstitutional as those statutes were beyond the power of Congress to enact, some claimed it was the dawn of a new federalism revolution. However, such challenges to federal power did not seem to continue.Now, a new case McNutt v. DOJ, once again directly challenges whether a federal statute is beyond Congress’s power to enact. This time, the challenge is to the federal ban on at-home distilling. This case raises substantial issues concerning the scope of Congress’s power and how much decision-making authority the Constitution left for states to decide.This FedSoc Forum will provide an update on what has occurred so far and discuss the important issues raised by this case.Featuring:Thomas Berry, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato InstituteMichael Pepson, Regulatory Counsel, Americans for Prosperity FoundationEric J. Segall, Ashe Family Chair Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of LawModerator: Theodore Cooperstein, Appellate Counsel, Theodore Cooperstein PLLC

In 2025, antitrust and consumer protection remain hot topics in the legal world as a new Congress and Administration begin. Join this FedSoc Forum as we discuss possible antitrust and Federal Trade Commission reforms in the 119th Congress.Featuring:Adam Cella, Chief Counsel for the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust, House Committee on the JudiciaryThomas DeMatteo, Chief Counsel, Senate Judiciary CommitteeDaniel Flores, Senior Counsel, Committee on Oversight and Reform, U.S. House of RepresentativesLynda Garcia, Chief Counsel to Senator Cory A. Booker, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee at United States SenateModerator: Svetlana Gans, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher

For many years, legal scholars have declared that the nondelegation doctrine is dead. Professor Cass Sunstein once quipped that the nondelegation doctrine had only “one good year” and more than 200 “bad ones.” But that has changed recently. In 2024, the en banc Fifth Circuit held that the Federal Communications Commision’s (FCC) Universal Service Fund is unconstitutional on nondelegation grounds. It was one of the only times since 1935 that a court has done so, and it appears that 2024 (and beyond) may turn out to be good years for the nondelegation doctrine. Contrary to the FCC’s argument, the en banc Fifth Circuit concluded that the Universal Service Fund operates as a tax, which only Congress has the power and authority to require. Regardless of the public policy that it seeks to advance, Congress cannot delegate this power to the FCC or to any other executive branch agency. The nondelegation doctrine has not been entirely dead for the last hundred years; courts often construe statutes so as not to invalidate them under the nondelegation doctrine. The en banc Fifth Circuit rejected that approach. Does the canon in the common law of agency, mentioned by the Fifth Circuit, known as delegata potestas non potest delegari (Latin for “delegated power may not be delegated”), have any impact on the original meaning of the nondelegation doctrine? Assuming the nondelegation doctrine is valid, what are the standards that courts should look to when determining whether a statute is sufficiently intelligible? Do words like “in the public interest” or instructions for the agency to “provide reasonable regulations” provide sufficient guidance to agencies? What kind of principles can be applied that are also judicially enforceable? If the Supreme Court affirms the Fifth Circuit, what will be the impact on other statutes? To discuss these important questions and others, Jeff Beelaert, a partner at Stein Mitchell, and Trent McCotter, a partner at Boyden Gray, will join us. Featuring: Jeffrey Beelaert, Partner, Stein Mitchell Trent McCotter, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC Moderator: Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute

The development of standing jurisprudence has been inextricably intertwined with the growth of the administrative state over the past 60 years and the bevy of new statutory rights, privileges, obligations, constraints, and interbranch dynamics that came with it. Over the past three terms, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued numerous opinions that are rich with standing doctrine. Three new voices in administrative law--all recent law school graduates--will address recent developments in standing jurisprudence, focusing on State standing, associational standing, and post-TransUnion common law analogues.Featuring:Eric Bush, Law Clerk to the Hon. Justin Walker, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. CircuitShiza Francis, Associate, Shutts and Bowen LLPAaron Watt, Law Clerk to the Hon. Brian Miller, Eastern District of Arkansas[Moderator] Prof. Aram Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, The George Washington University Law School

Chevron v. NRDC (1984) and subsequent precedents held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This “Chevron Deference” has been a topic of great debate, with many calling for it to be overturned, while others argue it is a vital part of how Courts address the complexity of law and agency actions. In two cases this term (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce) the Court considered challenges to that precedent. Oral argument was heard in both cases on January 17th, 2024.On June 28, 2024, a 6-3 Court issued its decision overturning Chevron, in a decision that may notably change the nature of the administrative state and the role of judges in reviewing agency actions moving forward.Join us for a courthouse steps program where we will discuss and break down the decision and the potential future impacts of this sea change in administrative law.Featuring:Prof. Ronald M. Levin, William R. Orthwein Distinguished Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis School of LawJohn J. Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance(Moderator) Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School

Congress's impeachment power has been used dozens of times since the republic's founding, mostly for relatively low- and mid-level executive and judicial officers involving clear instances of bribery or other felonies. Its attempted use to remove Supreme Court justices, presidents, and now cabinet secretaries is more controversial, and since the 1990s, in arguably partisan or overtly political ways. The impeachment inquiry into President Biden and the House vote to impeach Homeland Security Department Secretary Mayorkas (which recently failed a snap Senate vote) may be seen as tit-for-tat for the two impeachment trials of President Trump. Is that a false equivalence? Regardless of who threw the first partisan stone, are recent uses of the Impeachment power a good development or arguable abuses? What does it portend for the future? Our distinguished panel of scholars will discuss the power itself, recent impeachment proceedings, and the potential implications for the future.Featuring:Prof. Michael J. Gerhardt, Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, UNC School of LawProf. Keith E. Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University(Moderator) Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

In his recent book Why Congress, Dr. Phillip Wallach covers the past, present, and future of the Legislative branch to help measure its modern level of dysfunction and offer suggestions for future restoration. The book traces how Congress was designed to operate, how it has met the challenges of decades past, and the trends that have contributed to increased polarization and decreased power. Having established how we got where we are, Dr. Wallach articulates three potential paths forward for Congress: continued dysfunction, increased power for the Executive branch, or a revival of the forms that ensured it will function as designed in the past.
Join the author and our panel of guest experts for an enlightening discussion!Featuring:Prof. Bridget Dooling, Assistant Professor of Law, The Ohio State University - Moritz College of LawProf. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law SchoolDr. Philip A. Wallach, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute(Moderator) Mr. Joel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP

On March 28, 2023, Representatives Harriet Hageman and Chip Roy joined the Georgetown University Chapter of the Federalist Society for a discussion moderated by David Hoppe. Topics ranged from the representatives' careers prior to joining Congress to the proper role of Congress in the federal government, and the event concluded with audience Q&A.Featuring:- Hon. Harriet Hageman, U.S. Representative, Wyoming- Hon. Chip Roy, U.S. Representative, 21st District of Texas- Moderator: David Hoppe, President, Hoppe Strategies

On March 23, 2023, the Center for Constitutional Design at Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law and the Federalist Society's Arizona State University Student Chapter and Article I Initiative co-hosted a debate about whether the legislative power can be delegated.The debate featured Professor James Stoner and Professor Michael Rappaport, and was moderated by Arizona State Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick.Featuring:- Prof. Michael Rappaport, Hugh & Hazel Darling Professor of Law and Director, Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism, University of San Diego School of Law- Prof. James Stoner, Hermann Moyse, Jr., Professor and Director, Eric Voegelin Institute, Department of Political Science, Louisiana State University- [Moderator] Hon. Clint Bolick, Justice, Arizona Supreme Court- [Introduction] Prof. Stephanie Lindquist, Foundation Professor of Law and Political Science and Director, Center for Constitutional Design, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University

The University of Richmond chapter of the Federalist Society hosted this panel discussion on "The Major Questions Doctrine, Chevron Deference & the Future of the Regulatory State" on Tuesday, March 21, 2023.Featuring:- Prof. Joel B. Eisen, Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law- Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School- Jonathan Wolfson, Chief Legal Officer and Policy Director, Cicero Institute

In November 2022, the District of Columbia City Council passed the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 (RCCA) that significantly reformed the D.C. Criminal Code to "modernize and overhaul" the District's criminal laws including a reduction in penalties for many violent offenses.D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser initially vetoed the bill citing concerns about some of the changes, but the Council overrode her veto in early 2023. Because D.C. government is not autonomous from the federal government, the legislation requires Congressional approval.The U.S. House voted to nullify the bill, and the Senate is slated to vote on whether to block the bill this week. Should the Senate vote to block the D.C. bill, it could be the first time in almost 3 decades that Congress has nullified a D.C. law.If the Senate votes to nullify the law, the bill will go to President Biden to sign or to veto. While many had anticipated he would veto the resolution, President Biden indicated in a March 2 tweet that he would sign the resolution should it pass.On March 6, D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson wrote a letter to the Senate attempting to withdraw the legislation. Such a withdrawal has not been attempted before. The Senate is still slated to take the issue to a vote later this week.As the Senate vote approached, we hosted a webinar featuring an opening address from U.S. Senator Bill Hagerty, followed by a discussion of the bill and what may come next.Opening Address Featuring:Hon. Bill Hagerty, United States Senator, TennesseeDiscussion Featuring:Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Heritage Foundation

On October 17, 2022, the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project and Capitol Hill Chapter hosted part III in a lecture series on the administrative state. This discussion covered the major questions doctrine and how Congress may respond to the Supreme Court's decision in West Virginia v. EPA.Arguably unenforced for some time, recent federal court cases have once again raised the specter of nondelegation doctrine. In so doing, cases such as West Virginia v. EPA at the Supreme Court, and the 5th Circuit's decision in Jarkesy v. SEC, arguably throws into question the status quo under which administrative agencies have heretofore operated.This final event in the co-sponsored luncheon series on the administrative state investigated the impact such cases may have on Congress in terms of lawmaking delegation, and forecasted what Congress can expect if SCOTUS continues to enforce the nondelegation doctrine while moving away from former deference doctrines.Featuring:- Sarah Binder, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, Brookings Institution- Daniel Flores, Senior Counsel, Committee on Oversight and Reform, House of Representatives- Moderator: Hon. Trevor McFadden, Judge, United States District Court, District of Columbia

This second event of a co-sponsored series on the Administrative State focused on the role of the administrative state in policymaking. Through its various roles and capacities, the Administrative state can have great leeway to create policy that has similar effects to rules and laws created through the legislative process but comes to be via different means. Agencies can make rules, issue guidance documents that often carry significant weight, interpret statutes, and enforce their rules. All these can contribute to agencies making policies that have the force of law.Some argue that this policy-making by non-elected individuals serving in the administrative state is improper and usurps elected officials' authority. Others contend this is a valuable and necessary part of the Administrative State's ability to operate as authorized, and that the policy-making capacity of the Administrative State is a net benefit.Panelists David Fotouhi, a current partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP who spent four years serving with the EPA, and Richard Peirce, a professor of Law at George Washington University who focuses on the Administrative State, discussed the policy-making power of the Administrative State, and the practical ways in which that power can often be applied. Judge Lisa Branch moderated.Featuring:- David Fotouhi, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP- Richard Pierce, Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School- Moderator: Hon. Lisa Branch, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

On Friday, November 11, 2022, Senator Mike Lee of Utah addressed the Federalist Society's National Lawyers Convention.Featuring:- Hon. Michael S. Lee, United States Senate, Utah

This first luncheon in a series on how the administrative state functions in modern American government featured former "regulations czar" Paul J. Ray, who served as President Trump's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator (OIRA). As OIRA Administrator, Ray oversaw the review of hundreds of regulations, and led efforts on regulatory reform.The luncheon also featured Boris Bershteyn, a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, and Flom, LLP. Mr. Bershteyn served as acting Administrator of ORIA in 2012 and 2013. He was also General Counsel of the Office of Management and Budget starting in 2011.Moderating this event was Hon. Stephen Alexander Vaden from the United States Court of International Trade. Before joining the bench, Judge Vaden served as General Counsel of the United States Department of Agriculture. During his nearly four-year tenure as head of the Office of General Counsel, the Department won two cases before the United States Supreme Court, relocated and reorganized the agencies that comprise the Department to better serve rural America, engaged in substantial regulatory reform, developed new regulations to allow for the legal sale of hemp and the labeling of bioengineered products, and implemented the 2018 Farm Bill.Featuring:- Boris Bershteyn, Partner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, and Flom, former acting OIRA Administrator- Paul J. Ray, Director, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation, former OIRA Administrator- Moderator: Hon. Stephen Alexander Vaden, United States Court of International Trade

The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits anyone who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States after swearing an oath to support the Constitution from ever holding public office again. In light of this Disqualification Clause, some have called for participants in the riot that occurred on January 6, 2021 to be barred from future elections.Who has the authority to enforce this provision, the states or Congress? Normally states cannot add requirements for holding public office, but is this different, or is enforcement left to Congress itself through its ability to expel members?These questions took on new relevance on September 6, 2022, when New Mexico Judge Francis Mathew ordered that Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin be removed from office effective immediately for his participation in the January 6 riot under the Disqualification Clause. While this decision is likely to be appealed, it could have serious implications for members of Congress and/or former President Donald J. Trump.Listen to a discussion on these important issues between James Bopp, Jr., who represented Congressman Madison Cawthorn against challenges to his office under the Disqualification Clause, and Pressly Millen, who represented the challengers to Congressman Cawthorn. That challenge was mooted after Congressman Cawthorn failed to win his primary, leaving the underlying questions unanswered. Joining Mr. Bopp and Mr. Millen will be Kory Langhofer, who successfully represented Congressman Andy Biggs before the Arizona Supreme Court on a Disqualification Clause challenge, and moderator Devin Watkins, an Attorney at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.Featuring:- James Bopp, Jr., General Counsel, James Madison Center for Free Speech- Kory Langhofer, Managing Partner, Statecraft- Pressly M. Millen, Partner, Womble Bond Dickinson- Moderator: Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Recently we were saddened to hear of the passing of Senator Orrin Hatch. In his honor, we hope you will enjoy revisiting remarks that Senator Hatch gave during the 2015 Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention. That year's Convention was focused on "The Role of Congress," and Senator Hatch eloquently discussed Congress's place in the Constitution's separation of powers as well as the importance of prudence in effective governance. The Senator was introduced by Leonard Leo, then Executive Vice President of the Federalist Society.Lee Liberman Otis, Senior Vice President and Director, Faculty Division at the Federalist Society, eulogized Senator Hatch here: https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/n-memoriam-orrin-hatch.Featuring:- Hon. Orrin Hatch, Former United States Senator, Utah- Leonard A. Leo, Former Executive Vice President, The Federalist Society

On March 24, 2022, Judge Stephen Schwartz joined the Federalist Society's Notre Dame Student Chapter to discuss the historical, theoretical, and practical reasons why law students should care about the Court of Federal Claims. Professor David P. Waddilove then provided a response and moderated an audience Q&A.Featuring:- Judge Stephen Schwartz, Judge, United States Court of Federal Claims- Prof. David P. Waddilove, Associate Professor, Notre Dame Law School

Some experts argue that the first and most important place for congressional reform is its power of the purse. With regular order a distant memory, annual budget proceedings failing to live up to the basic framework of the 1974 Budget Act, the ever-expanding role of the president in spending decisions, and regular threats of federal government shutdowns, some fear the legislative branch has lost its ability to oversee and control our nation's finances.Senator James Lankford joined us to discuss these issues and some of his specific solutions including the recently passed bipartisan "Taxpayers Right-to-Know Act" and his proposed "End Government Shutdowns Act." Thereafter, our panel of experts discussed those ideas and much more.Featuring:- Hon. James Lankford, United States Senator from Oklahoma- G. William Hoagland, Senior Vice President, Bipartisan Policy Center- Matthew B. Lawrence, Associate Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law- Molly Reynolds, Senior Fellow - Governance Studies, Brookings Institution- Moderator: Ilya Shapiro, Vice President and Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute

The Evansville Lawyers Chapter hosted Dave Hoppe, President, Hoppe Strategies, for a discussion entitled "How to Fix the Budget Mess."Featuring: - David Hoppe, President, Hoppe Strategies- Introduction: Seth Zirkle, Evansville Lawyers Chapter President

An expert panel discusses the impact that changes proposed in HR 4, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021, may have on drawing voting districts and litigating redistricting cases.Featuring: - Mark Braden, Of Counsel, BakerHostetler- Jeffrey M. Wice, Adjunct Professor of Law, New York Law School; Director, N.Y. Census and Redistricting Institute- Moderator: Maya Noronha, Visiting Fellow, Independent Women's Law Center

On September 29, 2021, former United States Representative Bob Barr joined the Federalist Society's Southern California Student Chapter to discuss the two-party system.Featuring:- Bob Barr, President and CEO, Liberty Strategies LLC

With Democrats holding power in both houses of Congress and the White House, how will congressional oversight and investigations affect private industry and the Biden administration during the 117th Congress? What should we expect if Republicans take back one or both houses of Congress in the midterm elections? What should private entities expect from congressional investigations, and what effect will recent court decisions such as Mazars have on industry? A panel of current and former congressional investigators discuss these issues and more, as well as how recent investigations and judicial decisions will affect the structural relationship between Congress and the Executive Branch in the years ahead.Featuring:- Ashley Callen, Deputy Staff Director, House Oversight and Reform Committee- Daniel Goshorn, Chief Investigative Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on Finance- Allison Murphy, Former Chief Oversight Counsel of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, Majority Staff; Partner in the Government, Regulatory & Internal Investigations Practice Group, Kirkland & Ellis- Christopher Armstrong, Former Chief Oversight Counsel, Senate Committee on Finance; Partner, Holland & Knight LLP- Moderator: Michael D. Bopp, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP

Then-Senator Biden said in 2005 that "American citizens have benefited from the Senate's check on the excesses of the majority" with "minority protections" through the filibuster. Now, however, President Biden believes the filibuster is being abused and, potentially, impeding democracy. Is Senator Biden or President Biden right? Recent pressure from the press and powerful interest groups on the left seem to agree with President Biden and are urging senators to cast aside their centuries-old tradition of parliamentary procedure in favor of simple majority rule. Should they? What are the consequences if the Senate exercises the nuclear option? Can the Senate still act as our cooling saucer and protect against the "excesses of the majority" without the filibuster?Featuring:- Jon Kyl, Senior Advisor, Covington & Burling, and former United States Congressman and Senator- Martin Gold, Partner, Capitol Counsel LLC- Moderator: Peter Roskam, Partner, Sidley Austin, and former Congressman, Illinois' 6th Congressional District

The For the People Act was introduced in the House of Representatives in 2019 as H.R. 1, the symbolic designation marking it as the top priority of the new Democratic House majority. Described by its author, Representative John Sarbanes, as addressing "voter access, election integrity and security, campaign finance, and ethics for the three branches of government," the 570 page bill passed the House later that year, but was never voted on in the Republican-controlled Senate.The measure was reintroduced in the 117th Congress as H.R. 1 in the House and S. 1 in the Senate, but with still more provisions expanding it to over 800 pages. Proponents supporting passage have cited the importance of expanding voter access and fighting "voter suppression." Opponents argue that the bill significantly restricts free speech by changing campaign finance rules, creates the potential for widespread voter fraud by relaxing necessary voting integrity safeguards, and constitutes a federal takeover of state-run elections.The House passed the bill on a near party-line vote (1 Democrat voted "no"), and its fate now lies with the 50-50 divided Senate. Senate Republicans can block a vote with the filibuster, and H.R. 1 has been cited frequently as a reason to abolish the filibuster. But at least one Senate Democrat, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, has stated that he will not vote for the bill in its current form, depriving the legislation--for now--of even a simple majority.Mr. Bradley A. Smith, Chairman and Founder of the Institute for Free Speech and one of the nation's foremost experts on campaign finance law, joined the Federalist Society to discuss some of the more important provisions and implications of H.R.1/S. 1, the For the People Act.Featuring:- Bradley A. Smith, Chairman and Founder, Institute for Free Speech

On May 17, as part of their annual Executive Branch Review Conference, the Federalist Society's Practice Groups hosted an expert panel on the non-delegation doctrine.Whether as the result of hyper-partisanship or as a residue of the constitutional design for lawmaking, government by executive "diktat" is lately increasing. Many of these executive actions appear to have dubious — if any — statutory authority, but the courts have been reticent to validate objections along these lines. The U.S. Supreme Court has indicated a willingness to revisit and possibly to reinvigorate the non-delegation doctrine (with 5 Justices adhering to that view publicly), or at least to put some teeth into its supposedly constraining intelligibility principle. To do so, the Court first will have to grapple with whether Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution contains a non-delegation principle at all.Featuring: - Prof. Nicholas Bagley, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School- Prof. Philip Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School- Prof. Jennifer Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School- Prof. Nicholas Parrillo, William K. Townsend Professor of Law, Yale Law School- Moderator: Hon. Neomi Rao, United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

The Federalist Papers Book Club ran weekly on Tuesday evenings for 10 one-hour sessions beginning January 26th 2021. This session covers Federalist numbers 62, 63, 65, and 66, which discuss the United States Senate.The recommended edition of The Federalist is edited by Carey and McClellan, published by Liberty Fund. It comes in paper and online versions.The Federalist by Publius (AKA Madison, Hamilton, and Jay) contains 85 essays. The recommended reading pace was 9 to 10 essays per week. The sessions focus only on selected essays, however.Slides are available at https://fedsoc.org/federalist-papers-book-club.Featuring:- Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University

The Federalist Papers Book Club ran weekly on Tuesday evenings for 10 one-hour sessions beginning January 26th 2021. This session covers Federalist numbers 52, 55, 56, and 57, which discuss the House of Representatives.The recommended edition of The Federalist is edited by Carey and McClellan, published by Liberty Fund. It comes in paper and online versions.The Federalist by Publius (AKA Madison, Hamilton, and Jay) contains 85 essays. The recommended reading pace was 9 to 10 essays per week. The sessions focus only on selected essays, however.Slides are available at https://fedsoc.org/federalist-papers-book-club.Featuring:- Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University

The Federalist Papers Book Club ran weekly on Tuesday evenings for 10 one-hour sessions beginning January 26th 2021. This session covers Federalist numbers 47, 48, and 51, which discuss the Constitution's separation of governmental powers.The recommended edition of The Federalist is edited by Carey and McClellan, published by Liberty Fund. It comes in paper and online versions.The Federalist by Publius (AKA Madison, Hamilton, and Jay) contains 85 essays. The recommended reading pace was 9 to 10 essays per week. The sessions focus only on selected essays, however.Slides are available at https://fedsoc.org/federalist-papers-book-club.Featuring:- Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University

On February 15, 2021, Erin M. Hawley and Jennifer Nou joined the Federalist Society's Chicago Student Chapter for a discussion on the future of administrative law.Featuring:- Erin M. Hawley, Senior Legal Fellow, Independent Women's Law Center- Jennifer Nou, Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School- [Introduction] Hallie Saunders, Programming Director, The Federalist Society's Chicago Student Chapter

After living in relative obscurity since its passage in 1996, the Congressional Review Act caught the nation's attention in 2017 when a Republican-led Congress and newly-elected President Trump used it to overturn 14 "midnight" regulations issued at the end of the Obama administration. Some prominent Democratic lawmakers opposed the CRA's framework as well as its individual uses in 2017. Will roles be reversed in 2021 regarding Trump administration "midnight" regulations? Can they be completely reversed?In this live podcast, experts review the overriding purposes of the CRA and do a deep dive into its technical elements, such as the law's expedited congressional procedures, the types of actions it covers, the number of votes needed to overturn an action, and the consequences of disapproval.Featuring:- Todd F. Gaziano, Chief of Legal Policy and Strategic Research & Director, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation- [Moderator] Susan Dudley, Director, GW Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, George Washington University

In this presentation co-sponsored by the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative and Columbia Student Chapter, Professor Christopher J. Walker discusses the proper the role of Congress in the modern administrative state.Featuring:- Christopher J. Walker, John W. Bricker Professor of Law; Director, Washington, DC, Summer Program, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law

On November 17, 2020, the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative and the Little Rock Lawyers Chapter co-hosted a webinar on Supreme Court nominations and the perils of court-packing.Featuring:- Dan McLaughlin, Senior Writer, National Review Online- Introduction: Chad Pekron, Lead Counsel – Appellate, Walmart

On November 2, 2020, the Federalist Society's Illinois Student Chapter hosted Logan Beirne for a discussion of the history of presidential power.Logan Beirne is a Clinical Lecturer in Law and a Faculty Fellow at the Information Society Project at Yale Law School. He is also the Chief Executive Officer of Matterhorn Transactions, Inc., a legal information services company that provides transaction term language and market trend analytics across the US, UK, and Canada.Featuring:- Logan Beirne, Clinical Lecturer in Law and Faculty Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School

On October 29, the Penn and Temple Student Chapters of the Federalist Society hosted former officemates and leading scholars of presidential power for a debate on the true extent of presidential power. In his new book, "Defender in Chief," John Yoo argues that Trump, despite his populism, is more often the defender rather than the opponent of the original Constitution. In "The Living Presidency," however, Sai Prakash counters that Trump, like many modern presidents, has violated the Constitution's grant of executive power. The debate was moderated by Temple Law's Professor Craig Green.Featuring:- Saikrishna B. Prakash, James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law and Paul G. Mahoney Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law- John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law; Co-Faculty Director, Korea Law Center; and Director, Public Law & Policy Program, UC Berkeley School of Law- [Moderator] Craig Green, Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law

To celebrate Constitution Day, the Rutgers Law School chapter of the Federalist Society hosted Dr. Colleen Sheehan, one of the nation's leading Madison scholars, to discuss the constitutional thought of James Madison and his role as the "Father of the Constitution."Dr. Sheehan is the Director of Graduate Studies at the Arizona State School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership. She is author of the Cambridge Companion to The Federalist, co-edited with Jack Rakove (Cambridge, 2020), The Mind of James Madison: The Legacy of Classical Republicanism (Cambridge, 2015), James Madison and the Spirit of Republican Self-Government (Cambridge, 2009), and Friends of the Constitution: Writings of the "Other" Federalists, 1787-88 (with Gary L. McDowell, Liberty Fund, 1998).Featuring:- Dr. Colleen Sheehan, Director of Graduate Studies, Arizona State School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership.

To celebrate Constitution Day, the Rutgers Law School chapter of the Federalist Society hosted Dr. Colleen Sheehan, one of the nation's leading Madison scholars, to discuss the constitutional thought of James Madison and his role as the "Father of the Constitution."Dr. Sheehan is the Director of Graduate Studies at the Arizona State School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership. She is author of the Cambridge Companion to The Federalist, co-edited with Jack Rakove (Cambridge, 2020), The Mind of James Madison: The Legacy of Classical Republicanism (Cambridge, 2015), James Madison and the Spirit of Republican Self-Government (Cambridge, 2009), and Friends of the Constitution: Writings of the "Other" Federalists, 1787-88 (with Gary L. McDowell, Liberty Fund, 1998).Featuring:- Dr. Colleen Sheehan, Director of Graduate Studies, Arizona State School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership.

Recently we were saddened to learn of the passing of Senator Tom Coburn. In this episode we bring you some highlights from a panel he participated in at the Federalist Society’s 2015 National Lawyers Convention. The panel was titled, Agency Rule: How Congress Can Reclaim its Legislative Authority. Senator Coburn spoke about a range of topics including Congressional leadership, limited government, federal debt, and the importance of debate. We hope you enjoy Senator Coburn’s reflections. Senator Tom Coburn, Former United States Senator, Oklahoma.