Podcasts about article i initiative

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project and Capitol Hill Chapter hosted the second in a lecture series on the administrative state's role in policymaking in modern American government.This second event of our 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 the discussion.Featuring: David Fotouhi, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPRichard Pierce, Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Lisa Branch, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh CircuitVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

The Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project and Capitol Hill Chapter hosted the third in a lecture series on the administrative state. The subject of this discussion was 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.In this final event in our co-sponsored luncheon series on the administrative state, experts investigated the impact such cases may have on Congress in terms of lawmaking delegation, and looked to forecast 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 InstitutionDaniel Flores, Senior Counsel, Committee on Oversight and Reform, House of RepresentativesModerator: Hon. Trevor McFadden, Judge, United States District Court, District of ColumbiaVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

The first in a lecture series on how the administrative state functions in modern American government, presented by the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project and Capitol Hill Chapter.This first luncheon 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.Our moderator 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:Paul J. Ray, Director, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation, former OIRA AdministratorBoris Bershteyn, Partner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, and Flom, former acting OIRA AdministratorModerator: Hon. Stephen Alexander Vaden, United States Court of International TradeVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

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 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

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

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

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: Hon. 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:Senator Jon Kyl, Senior Advisor, Covington & Burling, and former United States Congressman and SenatorMartin Gold, Partner, Capitol Counsel LLCModerator: Peter Roskam, Partner, Sidley Austin, and former Congressman, Illinois’ 6th Congressional District* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

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 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 CenterJennifer Nou, Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law SchoolIntroduction: Hallie Saunders, Programming Director, The Federalist Society’s Chicago Student Chapter* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

On January 19-20, 1990, The Federalist Society hosted a conference at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "The Presidency & Congress: Constitutionally Separated and Shared Powers." The fourth panel covered "The Appropriation Power and the Necessary and Proper Clause."Featuring:William Barr, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of JusticeLouis Fisher, Congressional Research ServiceProf. Geoffrey Miller, University of Chicago Law SchoolProf. Kate Stith, Yale Law SchoolModerator: Edwin Meese III, The Heritage Foundation*******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 January 21, 2021, The Federalist Society's Article I Initiative and Columbia Student Chapter co-sponsored a webinar on "Congress and the Administrative State." In this portion of the program, Professor Christopher J. Walker gives a presentation on the proper role of Congress in modern administrative law. Featuring: Prof. Christopher J. Walker, John W. Bricker Professor of Law; Director, Washington, DC, Summer Program, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

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 January 19-20, 1990, The Federalist Society hosted a conference at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "The Presidency & Congress: Constitutionally Separated and Shared Powers." The third panel explored "Congressional Control of the Administration of Government: Hearings, Investigations, Oversight, and Legislative History."Featuring:Griffin Bell, King & SpaldingMichael Davidson, Counsel, U.S. SenateL. Gordon Crovitz, Wall Street JournalProf. Peter Strauss, Columbia Law SchoolModerator: Judge Stephen Williams, U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit*******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 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 17, 2020, the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative and the Little Rock Lawyers Chapter cohosted a webinar on Supreme Court nominations and the perils of court-packing.Featuring: Dan McLaughlin, Senior Writer, National Review OnlineIntroduction: Chad Pekron, Walmart*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

On November 18, 2020, the Regulatory Transparency Project hosted a virtual fireside chat with FTC Commissioner Noah Phillips on the House Judiciary Antitrust Staff Report and its potential ramifications.The House Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust Subcommittee recently released findings of a 16-month investigation into competition in the digital economy. The 449-page staff report, "Investigation of Competition in the Digital Marketplace: Majority Staff Report and Recommendations", proposes sweeping changes to U.S. antitrust laws and enforcement that could have far-reaching effects throughout the economy.Featuring:Svetlana Gans, Vice President & Associate General Counsel, NCTAHon. Noah Phillips, Commissioner, Federal Trade CommissionKoren Wong-Ervin, Partner, Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLPIntroduction: Nathan Kaczmarek, Vice President & Director, Regulatory Transparency Project and Article I Initiative, The Federalist SocietyVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

On October 29, 2020, the Penn and Temple Student Chapters of the Federalist Society hosted former officemates and leading scholars of presidential power John Yoo and Saikrishna Prakash 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:Prof. John C. Yoo, UC Berkeley School of LawProf. Saikrishna B. Prakash, University of Virginia School of LawModerator: Prof. Craig Green, Temple University Beasley School of LawIntroduction: Lorenzo Riboni, The Federalist Society's Temple Law Student ChapterIntroduction: Andrea Leelike, The Federalist Society's Penn Law Student Chapter*******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 October 20, 2020, the Federalist Society's Georgetown Law Student Chapter and the Regulatory Transparency Project hosted John C. Yoo and Saikrishna B. Prakash for an online discussion on the extent of executive power.In his new book, Defender in Chief,"John Yoo argues that Trump – despite his populism – has become more often the defender rather than the opponent of the original Constitution. In The Living Presidency, Sai Prakash counters that Trump, like many modern presidents, has violated the Constitution’s grant of executive power.Featuring: Saikrishna B. Prakash, James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law and Paul G. Mahoney Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawJohn C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law; Co-Faculty Director, Korea Law Center; and Director, Public Law & Policy Program, UC Berkeley School of LawModerator: Dean Reuter, The Federalist SocietyIntroduction: Courtney Stone Mirski, The Federalist Society's Georgetown Law Student Chapter*******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 October 20, 2020, the Federalist Society's Georgetown Law Student Chapter and the Regulatory Transparency Project hosted John C. Yoo and Saikrishna B. Prakash for an online discussion on the extent of executive power.In his new book, Defender in Chief,"John Yoo argues that Trump – despite his populism – has become more often the defender rather than the opponent of the original Constitution. In The Living Presidency, Sai Prakash counters that Trump, like many modern presidents, has violated the Constitution’s grant of executive power.Featuring: Saikrishna B. Prakash, James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law and Paul G. Mahoney Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawJohn C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law; Co-Faculty Director, Korea Law Center; and Director, Public Law & Policy Program, UC Berkeley School of LawModerator: Dean Reuter, The Federalist SocietyIntroduction: Courtney Stone Mirski, The Federalist Society's Georgetown Law Student Chapter*******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 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

The creators of the award-winning documentary, They Say It Can't Be Done, in partnership with the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project, present It Can Be Done Live - a conversation between entrepreneurs, regulatory experts, and noted academics around creative and bipartisan solutions to global challenges to our shared future. The last of four panel events, It Can Be Done Live: The Future of Our Food, took place on October 1st, 2020.Over the next 30 years, our global population is expected to grow by more than 2 billion people to 9 billion people inhabiting this planet. How will we feed a rapidly growing population with decreased land and water resources and increased attention to animal welfare and the environment? Is that even possible? The panelists will explore the potential of human ingenuity to solve these problems and the conditions necessary to make those solutions a reality. We say it can be done. The Future of Our Food Panelists:Sonny Perdue, Secretary, U.S. Department of AgricultureJohn Mackey, Co-Founder and CEO, Whole Foods MarketJosh Tetrick, Co-Founder and CEO, Eat JUST, Inc.Moderator: Anastasia P. Boden, Attorney, Economic Liberty Project, Pacific Legal FoundationIntroduction: Nathan Kaczmarek, Vice President & Director, Regulatory Transparency Project and Article I Initiative, The Federalist Society* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. About The Film:They Say It Can't Be Done is a documentary that explores how innovation can solve some of the world’s largest problems. The documentary tracks four companies on the cutting edge of technological solutions that could promote animal welfare, solve hunger, eliminate organ wait lists & reduce atmospheric carbon.

The creators of the award-winning documentary, They Say It Can't Be Done, in partnership with the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project, present It Can Be Done Live - a conversation between entrepreneurs, regulatory experts, and noted academics around creative and bipartisan solutions to global challenges to our shared future. The last of four panel events, It Can Be Done Live: The Future of Our Food, took place on October 1st, 2020.Over the next 30 years, our global population is expected to grow by more than 2 billion people to 9 billion people inhabiting this planet. How will we feed a rapidly growing population with decreased land and water resources and increased attention to animal welfare and the environment? Is that even possible? The panelists will explore the potential of human ingenuity to solve these problems and the conditions necessary to make those solutions a reality. We say it can be done. The Future of Our Food Panelists:Sonny Perdue, Secretary, U.S. Department of AgricultureJohn Mackey, Co-Founder and CEO, Whole Foods MarketJosh Tetrick, Co-Founder and CEO, Eat JUST, Inc.Moderator: Anastasia P. Boden, Attorney, Economic Liberty Project, Pacific Legal FoundationIntroduction: Nathan Kaczmarek, Vice President & Director, Regulatory Transparency Project and Article I Initiative, The Federalist Society* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. About The Film:They Say It Can't Be Done is a documentary that explores how innovation can solve some of the world’s largest problems. The documentary tracks four companies on the cutting edge of technological solutions that could promote animal welfare, solve hunger, eliminate organ wait lists & reduce atmospheric carbon.

The creators of the award-winning documentary, They Say It Can't Be Done, in partnership with the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project, present It Can Be Done Live - a conversation between entrepreneurs, regulatory experts, and noted academics around creative and bipartisan solutions to global challenges to our shared future. The third of four panel events, It Can Be Done Live: The Future of Our Earth, took place on September 24th, 2020.By 2050, 9 billion humans will share this planet and how we protect it is one of the most important questions of our time. How will we ensure that we can adapt to a changing climate, that we will all have access to clean air and fresh water, and that habitats are protected? While these goals have notable public support, reasonable people differ on the best methods to protect the environment. Are there more effective and less burdensome ways to accomplish these vital goals? The panelists will explore the potential of human ingenuity to solve these problems and the conditions necessary to make those solutions a reality. We say it can be done. The Future of Our Earth Panelists:James W. Coleman, Associate Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of LawDavid Doniger, Director, Climate & Clean Air Program, Natural Resources Defense CouncilCharles Hernick, Vice President of Policy and Advocacy, Citizens for Responsible Energy SolutionsAndrew Wheeler, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyModerator: Susan Dudley, Director, George Washington University Regulatory Studies CenterIntroduction: Nathan Kaczmarek, Vice President & Director, Regulatory Transparency Project and Article I Initiative, The Federalist Society* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. About The Film:They Say It Can't Be Done is a documentary that explores how innovation can solve some of the world’s largest problems. The documentary tracks four companies on the cutting edge of technological solutions that could promote animal welfare, solve hunger, eliminate organ wait lists & reduce atmospheric carbon.

The creators of the award-winning documentary, They Say It Can't Be Done, in partnership with the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project, present It Can Be Done Live - a conversation between entrepreneurs, regulatory experts, and noted academics around creative and bipartisan solutions to global challenges to our shared future. The third of four panel events, It Can Be Done Live: The Future of Our Earth, took place on September 24th, 2020.By 2050, 9 billion humans will share this planet and how we protect it is one of the most important questions of our time. How will we ensure that we can adapt to a changing climate, that we will all have access to clean air and fresh water, and that habitats are protected? While these goals have notable public support, reasonable people differ on the best methods to protect the environment. Are there more effective and less burdensome ways to accomplish these vital goals? The panelists will explore the potential of human ingenuity to solve these problems and the conditions necessary to make those solutions a reality. We say it can be done. The Future of Our Earth Panelists:James W. Coleman, Associate Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of LawDavid Doniger, Director, Climate & Clean Air Program, Natural Resources Defense CouncilCharles Hernick, Vice President of Policy and Advocacy, Citizens for Responsible Energy SolutionsAndrew Wheeler, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyModerator: Susan Dudley, Director, George Washington University Regulatory Studies CenterIntroduction: Nathan Kaczmarek, Vice President & Director, Regulatory Transparency Project and Article I Initiative, The Federalist Society* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. About The Film:They Say It Can't Be Done is a documentary that explores how innovation can solve some of the world’s largest problems. The documentary tracks four companies on the cutting edge of technological solutions that could promote animal welfare, solve hunger, eliminate organ wait lists & reduce atmospheric carbon.

The creators of the award-winning documentary, They Say It Can't Be Done, in partnership with the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project, present It Can Be Done Live - a conversation between entrepreneurs, regulatory experts, and noted academics around creative and bipartisan solutions to global challenges to our shared future. The second of four panel events, It Can Be Done Live: The Future of Our Health, took place on September 17th, 2020.We are in the throes of a global pandemic that threatens the lives of millions and the way of life for billions more. Our healthcare systems are stretched to their limits. At the same time, innovations are being developed that could move us from treatments to outright cures. How do we ensure that these advancements are safe and effective, but not needlessly delayed when we need them most? The panelists will explore the potential of human ingenuity to solve these problems and the conditions necessary to make those solutions a reality. We say it can be done.Featuring:Julie Allickson, Chief Manufacturing Development Center Officer, Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative MedicineBetsy McCaughey, Chairman, Committee to Reduce Infection DeathsJoshua Sharfstein, Vice Dean for Public Health Practice and Community Engagement, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins UniversityDan Troy, Chief Business Officer, Chief Administrative Officer, and General Counsel, ValoModerator: Christina Sandefur, Executive Vice President, Goldwater InstituteIntroduction: Nathan Kaczmarek, Vice President & Director, Regulatory Transparency Project and Article I Initiative, The Federalist Society* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. About The Film:They Say It Can't Be Done is a documentary that explores how innovation can solve some of the world’s largest problems. The documentary tracks four companies on the cutting edge of technological solutions that could promote animal welfare, solve hunger, eliminate organ wait lists & reduce atmospheric carbon.

The creators of the award-winning documentary, They Say It Can't Be Done, in partnership with the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project, present It Can Be Done Live - a conversation between entrepreneurs, regulatory experts, and noted academics around creative and bipartisan solutions to global challenges to our shared future. The second of four panel events, It Can Be Done Live: The Future of Our Health, took place on September 17th, 2020.We are in the throes of a global pandemic that threatens the lives of millions and the way of life for billions more. Our healthcare systems are stretched to their limits. At the same time, innovations are being developed that could move us from treatments to outright cures. How do we ensure that these advancements are safe and effective, but not needlessly delayed when we need them most? The panelists will explore the potential of human ingenuity to solve these problems and the conditions necessary to make those solutions a reality. We say it can be done.Featuring:Julie Allickson, Chief Manufacturing Development Center Officer, Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative MedicineBetsy McCaughey, Chairman, Committee to Reduce Infection DeathsJoshua Sharfstein, Vice Dean for Public Health Practice and Community Engagement, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins UniversityDan Troy, Chief Business Officer, Chief Administrative Officer, and General Counsel, ValoModerator: Christina Sandefur, Executive Vice President, Goldwater InstituteIntroduction: Nathan Kaczmarek, Vice President & Director, Regulatory Transparency Project and Article I Initiative, The Federalist Society* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. About The Film:They Say It Can't Be Done is a documentary that explores how innovation can solve some of the world’s largest problems. The documentary tracks four companies on the cutting edge of technological solutions that could promote animal welfare, solve hunger, eliminate organ wait lists & reduce atmospheric carbon.

The creators of the award-winning documentary, They Say It Can't Be Done, in partnership with the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project, present It Can Be Done Live - a conversation between entrepreneurs, regulatory experts, and noted academics around creative and bipartisan solutions to global challenges to our shared future. The first of four panel events, It Can Be Done Live: The Future of Our Seas took place on September 10th, 2020.Our oceans are changing rapidly and not for the better. Ocean acidification, rising sea levels, plastic waste, and overfishing are contributing to an unsustainable and unhealthy ecosystem in our seas. Can we find a way to reverse the damage? The panelists will explore the potential of human ingenuity to solve these problems and the conditions necessary to make those solutions a reality. We say it can be done.Speakers:Tom Bell, Professor, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman UniversityPatrick Reasonover, Producer, They Say It Can't Be DoneScotty Schmidt, Co-Founder & CEO, Primary Ocean ProvidersJulie Friedman Steele, CEO & Board Chair, World Future SocietyModerator: Kimberly Hermann, General Counsel, Southeastern Legal FoundationIntroduction: Nathan Kaczmarek, Vice President & Director, Regulatory Transparency Project and Article I Initiative, The Federalist Society* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. About The Film:They Say It Can't Be Done is a documentary that explores how innovation can solve some of the world’s largest problems. The documentary tracks four companies on the cutting edge of technological solutions that could promote animal welfare, solve hunger, eliminate organ wait lists & reduce atmospheric carbon.

The creators of the award-winning documentary, They Say It Can't Be Done, in partnership with the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project, present It Can Be Done Live - a conversation between entrepreneurs, regulatory experts, and noted academics around creative and bipartisan solutions to global challenges to our shared future. The first of four panel events, It Can Be Done Live: The Future of Our Seas took place on September 10th, 2020.Our oceans are changing rapidly and not for the better. Ocean acidification, rising sea levels, plastic waste, and overfishing are contributing to an unsustainable and unhealthy ecosystem in our seas. Can we find a way to reverse the damage? The panelists will explore the potential of human ingenuity to solve these problems and the conditions necessary to make those solutions a reality. We say it can be done.Speakers:Tom Bell, Professor, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman UniversityPatrick Reasonover, Producer, They Say It Can't Be DoneScotty Schmidt, Co-Founder & CEO, Primary Ocean ProvidersJulie Friedman Steele, CEO & Board Chair, World Future SocietyModerator: Kimberly Hermann, General Counsel, Southeastern Legal FoundationIntroduction: Nathan Kaczmarek, Vice President & Director, Regulatory Transparency Project and Article I Initiative, The Federalist Society* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. About The Film:They Say It Can't Be Done is a documentary that explores how innovation can solve some of the world’s largest problems. The documentary tracks four companies on the cutting edge of technological solutions that could promote animal welfare, solve hunger, eliminate organ wait lists & reduce atmospheric carbon.