Podcasts about featuring prof

As students prepare return to universities across the country, many schools are putting in place Covid vaccine mandates. These mandates require proof of vaccination, and typically include medical and religious exemptions. But, as Professor Ronald Colombo's new paper raises, some kinds of exemption schemes may be unjustly discriminatory. Beyond the issue of exemptions, some students and staff object to the mandates as such. A group of students challenged one such mandate at Indiana University; in July, a district court judge sided with the university, and the ruling was recently upheld 3-0 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. These cases, the nature of the mandates and exemptions, and more will be discussed in this virtual program.Featuring:-- Prof. Ronald J. Colombo, Professor of Law, Maurice A. Deane School of Law, Hofstra University-- Moderator: Stephanie Taub, Senior Counsel, First Liberty

On September 13-14, 1991, the Federalist Society hosted its fifth annual National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The conference was titled "Individual Responsibility and the Law." The second day of the conference included a panel on "Personal Responsibility in Criminal Law."Featuring:Prof. Joseph D. Grano, Wayne State University School of LawProf. Norval Morris, University of Chicago Law SchoolAdam Walinsky, Kronish, Lieb, Weiner and HellmanModerator: Lois Haight Herrington, former Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice*******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 September 13-14, 1991, the Federalist Society hosted its fifth annual National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The conference was titled "Individual Responsibility and the Law." The second panel discussed "Family Law and Individual Responsibility."Featuring:Prof. Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Department of Women's Studies, Emory UniversityProf. Jane E. Larson, Northwestern Law SchoolMrs. Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle ForumMr. Karl Zinsmeister, Adjunct Scholar, American Enterprise InstituteModerator: William Kristol, Chief of Staff to Vice President Dan Quayle*******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 March 10-11, 1989, the Federalist Society's University of Michigan student chapter hosted the eighth annual National Student Symposium in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The topic of the conference was "Property: The Founding, The Welfare State, and Beyond." The final panel of the conference covered "Ownership of Life."Featuring:Prof. Carl E. Schneider, University of Michigan Law SchoolProf. Peter H. Schuck, Yale Law SchoolWalter M. Weber, Staff Attorney, American Center for Law and JusticeProf. Anita L. Allen, Georgetown University Law CenterModerator: Prof. Patricia D. White, University of Michigan Law School*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

What should the Supreme Court do when it finds one provision of a statute unconstitutional? There is a significant split between current Justices on the question where Congress has not provided express instructions on severance within the statute. Several believe the Court should save the rest of the statute, while others have expressed skepticism towards this practice.This distinguished panel will explore the foundations of the severability doctrine and the authority of Article III judges in such cases. Panelists will offer their differing views of severability and discuss where the doctrine may be headed.Featuring:-- Prof. William Baude, Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School-- Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston-- Erin M. Hawley, Senior Legal Fellow, Independent Women's Law Center -- Prof. Kevin C. Walsh, Assistant Professor, University of Richmond School of Law-- Moderator: Megan L. Brown, Partner, Wiley

On March 10-11, 1989, the Federalist Society's University of Michigan student chapter hosted the eighth annual National Student Symposium in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The topic of the conference was "Property: The Founding, The Welfare State, and Beyond." The conference's fourth panel discussed "Intellectual and Informational Property Rights."Featuring:Prof. Stephen L. Carter, Yale Law SchoolJudge Frank H. Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh CircuitProf. Edmund W. Kitch, University of Virginia School of LawModerator: Dean Lee C. Bollinger, University of Michigan Law School*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

Join Professor Gerard V. Bradley and Dr. Charles Kesler, author of Crisis of the Two Constitutions: The Rise, Decline, and Recovery of American Greatness, to discuss Kessler's recently published book. See a brief overview included below:American politics grows embittered because it is increasingly torn between two rival constitutions, two opposed cultures, two contrary ways of life. American conservatives rally around the founders' Constitution, as amended and as grounded in the natural and divine rights and duties of the Declaration of Independence. American liberals herald their “living Constitution,” a term that implies that the original is dead or superseded, and that the fundamental political imperative is constant change or transformation (as President Obama called it) toward a more and more perfect social democracy ruled by a Woke elite.Crisis of the Two Constitutions details how we got to and what is at stake in our increasingly divided America. It takes controversial stands on matters political and scholarly, describing the political genius of America's founders and their efforts to shape future generations through a constitutional culture that included immigration, citizenship, and educational policies. Then it turns to the attempted progressive refounding of America, tracing its accelerating radicalism from the New Deal to the 1960s' New Left to today's unhappy campus nihilists. Finally, the volume appraises American conservatives' efforts, so far unavailing despite many famous victories, to revive the founders' Constitution and moral common sense. From Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump, what have conservatives learned and where should they go from here?Along the way, Charles R. Kesler argues with critics on the left and right, and refutes fashionable doctrines including relativism, multiculturalism, critical race theory, and radical traditionalism, providing in effect a one-volume guide to the increasingly influential Claremont school of conservative thought by one of its most engaged, and engaging, thinkers.Featuring: -- Prof. Charles R. Kesler, Author, Crisis of the Two Constitutions: The Rise, Decline, and Recovery of American Greatness, Senior Fellow, The Claremont Institute -- Moderator: Prof. Gerard V. Bradley, Professor of Law, Univeristy of Notre Dame Law School

On March 10-11, 1989, the Federalist Society's University of Michigan student chapter hosted the eighth annual National Student Symposium in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The topic of the conference was "Property: The Founding, The Welfare State, and Beyond." The second day of the conference continued with a discussion on "Regulation and Property: Allies or Enemies?"Featuring:Prof. Robert C. Ellickson, Yale Law SchoolProf. James E. Krier, University of Michigan Law SchoolGale A. Norton, Pacific Research InstituteProf. Richard B. Stewart, Harvard Law SchoolModerator: Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. 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 June 21, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. Arthrex, Inc. Writing for the 5-4 majority, Chief Justice Roberts explained that the patent judge's unreviewable authority is incompatible with his appointment as an inferior officer.Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined Parts I and II of the opinion, and Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined Part III of the opinion. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined as to Parts I and II.A panel of experts joins us to offer their differing views on the ruling and disucss the implications for patent law, intellectual property, and more. Featuring: Prof. Gregory Dolin, Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of LawProf. Dmitry Karshtedt, Associate Professor of Law, The George Washington Law SchoolModerator: Prof. Kristen Osenga, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law---This Zoom event is open to public registration.

On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided California v. Texas. Writing for the 7-2 majority, Justice Stephen Breyer explained that plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the Affordable Care Act's minimum essential coverage provision. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. Two experts join us to discuss the ruling and offer their differing views on the important constitutional issues involved, including standing and severability. Featuring: -- Prof. Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law-- Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute

On March 10-11, 1989, the Federalist Society's University of Michigan student chapter hosted the eighth annual National Student Symposium in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The topic of the conference was "Property: The Founding, The Welfare State, and Beyond." The second day of the conference commenced with a discussion on "Property and the Constitution."Featuring:Prof. Akhil Amar, Yale Law SchoolCharles Fried, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Jeremy Rabkin, Cornell UniversityProf. Frederick Schauer, University of Michigan Law SchoolModerator: Judge Stephen F. 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.

Three of the nation's leading scholars on constitutional law and executive power — Michael McConnell, Sai Prakash, and John Yoo — join us to discuss the true extent of executive power, and their new books on the subject.The most recent book, The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power under the Constitution by Prof. McConnell, was reviewed in the pages of the Federalist Society Review by John Yoo. Before that, Profs. Prakash and Yoo joined the Federalist Society's Teleforum to debate the Constitution's grant of presidential power and whether (or to what extent) President Trump upheld that grant. The discussion continues with the new voice of former federal judge and distinguished originalist scholar Michael McConnell.Featuring:-- Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution-- Prof. Saikrishna B. Prakash, James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law and Paul G. Mahoney Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law-- Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, UC Berkeley School of Law; Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution-- Moderator: Dean A. Reuter, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided Fulton v. City of Philadelphia for petitioners. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court in an opinion joined by Justices Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, explained that the city violated the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause when it refused to contract with Catholic Social Services for foster-care services unless CSS agreed to certify same-sex couples as foster parents.Justice Barrett filed a concurring opinion in which Justice Kavanaugh joined and Justice Breyer joined as to all but the first paragraph. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined.Mark Rienzi, President of the Becket Fund, which represented petitioners, will discuss the ruling and its implications for First Amendment doctrines. Featuring: -- Prof. Mark L. Rienzi, President, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law, Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America

In March 2021, the Biden Administration unveiled its infrastructure plan, known as the American Jobs Act. An important part of the plan is technology, and a focus point is improving the nation's broadband network. A panel of experts joins us to discuss the plan and its implications.Featuring:-- Prof. Christopher Yoo, University of Pennsylvania Law School-- Tony Clark, Senior Advisor, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP-- Kate O’Connor, Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, House Committee on Energy and Commerce-- Moderator: Hon. David Redl, Founder and CEO, Salt Point Strategies LLC and Senior Fellow, Silicon Flatirons

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

On April 22, 2021, the Federalist Society's George Mason Student Chapter, the Regulatory Transparency Project, and the Global Antitrust Institute cosponsored an event regarding "(Un)Civil War: The Future of Conservative Antitrust."Featuring:Prof. Joshua D. Wright, Executive Director, Global Antitrust Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason UniversityProf: John Yun, Associate Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason UniversityIntroduction: Sydney Dominguez, President, The Federalist Society's George Mason 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 27, 2000, The Federalist Society hosted a presentation by Prof. Joseph A. Grundfest on "Latest Trends and Emerging Issues in Securities Class Action Litigation" in San Francisco, CA.Featuring:Prof. Joseph A. Grundfest, Stanford Law School*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

On November 30- December 1, 1990, the Federalist Society hosted its annual National Lawyers Convention at the Hotel InterContinental in New Orleans, Louisiana, titled "Legal Systems in Transition: New Directions for Eastern Europe." The conference's fourth panel explored "The Judiciary and the Role of the Rule of Law."Featuring:Prof. Mirjan Damaska, Yale Law SchoolDr. Gabor Halmai, University of Budapest and The Constitutional Court of HungaryDaniel Kroupa, Legislature of the Czech and Slovak Federative RepublicMichael Novak, Senior Scholar, American Enterprise InstituteModerator: Judge Alvin B. Rubin, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth 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 April 14, 2021, the Federalist Society's Philadelphia Lawyers Chapter hosted Prof. Ilan Wurman to discuss his new book, The Second Founding: Originalism and the Fourteenth Amendment.The Fourteenth Amendment is now over 150 years old. The Supreme Court has long rejected interpreting that Amendment with its original meaning. But what would an originalist interpretation of the Amendment look like? Would it be unworkable for modern problems? In this talk, Ilan Wurman, an associate professor at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, argues not only that we should reclaim the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, but that doing so would lead to many desirable and surprising results. Professor Wurman argues that the privileges or immunities clause is not, like many originalists claim, a fundamental rights provision, but is instead an antidiscrimination provision. The implications for incorporation, economic liberty, school desegregation, and gay rights may surprise you. Featuring:Prof. Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State UniversityModerator: Matthew J. Hank, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson P.C.; The Federalist Society's Philadelphia Lawyers 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.

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York Times v. Sullivan came under scrutiny in a recent dissent by Judge Silberman of the D.C. Court of Appeals. Noted First Amendment scholars Glenn Reynolds and Floyd Adams weigh in on the discussion addressing whether or not the nearly sixty-year-old case should be revisited, and the impact of First Amendment driven defamation laws in the journalistic context and free public discourse. Featuring:-- Prof. Glenn Reynolds, Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Tennessee College of Law -- Floyd Abrams, Senior Counsel, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP -- Moderator: Erik Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP

On April 21, 2021, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic Inc. The case involves the issue of whether a defendant in a patent infringement action who assigned the patent, or is in privity with an assignor of the patent, may have a defense of invalidity heard on the merits.Supreme Court practice expert Daniel Ortiz joins us to discuss the case and review the oral arguments. Featuring: -- Prof. Daniel Ortiz, Michael J. and Jane R. Horvitz Distinguished Professor of Law and Director, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, University of Virginia School of Law

On Friday, April 16, 2021, the Federalist Society's Georgetown Student Chapter hosted a webinar featuring professors Gregg Bloche, Larry Gostin, David Hyman, and Timothy Westmoreland discussing the current state of healthcare policy in the United States.Featuring: Prof. David A. Hyman, Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Health Law & Policy, Georgetown LawProf. Lawrence O. Gostin, Founding Linda D. & Timothy J. O’Neill Professor of Global Health Law, Georgetown LawProf. M. Gregg Bloche, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Health Law, Policy, and Ethics, Georgetown LawProf. Timothy M. Westmoreland, Professor from Practice, Georgetown LawModerator: Patrick Lyons, Co-President, The Federalist Society's Georgetown Student ChapterVisit our website – https://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 April 5, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Google v. Oracle. In a 6-2 decision, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that Google's use of a Java program constituted "fair use" under federal copyright law. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, which Justice Alito joined. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. A panel of experts joins us to discuss the case, their differing views on the ruling, and its implications for copyright and intellectual property law.Featuring: -- Prof. Michael Risch, Vice Dean and Professor of Law, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law-- Prof. Zvi Rosen, Assistant Professor, Southern Illinois University School of Law-- Moderator: Prof. Sandra Aistars, Clinical Professor, Senior Scholar and Director of Copyright Research and Policy, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Always on the lookout for new sources of federal revenue, some lawmakers are now drawn to the prospect of taxing wealth. In 2020, Sen. Sanders proposed a “Make Billionaires Pay Act,” described briefly here. In her Presidential campaign, Sen. Warren also proposed a tax on wealth. Now as a member of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Warren, along with Sen. Sanders and others, have proposed an “Ultra-Millionaire Tax.” Because Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution requires that “direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States,” it took the 16th Amendment, passed by Congress in 1909 and ratified in 1913, to enable Congress to tax incomes. Does the Constitution permit Congress to tax wealth? With co-author Prof. John R. Brooks, Prof. David Gamage wrote Why A Wealth Tax Is Definitely Constitutional. In The Warren Wealth Tax: A Response To Professor Bruce Ackerman, Prof. Jonathan Turley lays out some of the arguments to the contrary. In this virtual discussion, Profs. Turley and Gamage will discuss the constitutional issues wealth tax proposals present.Featuring: -- Prof. Jonathan R. Turley, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law, The George Washington University Law School -- Prof. David Gamage, Professor of Law, Maurer School of Law -- Interlocutor: Robert Carney, Senior Counsel, Caplin & Drysdale -- Moderator: Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor, PLLC

On March 31, 2021, the Federalist Society's New Jersey Lawyers Chapter hosted a debate between Matthew Platkin and Ilan Wurman about the proper use of executive powers during times of crisis.Featuring: Prof. Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State UniversityMatthew Platkin, Partner, Lowenstein Sandler LLP; Former Chief Counsel to New Jersey Governor Phil MurphyModerator: Ryan Goodwin, The Federalist Society's New Jersey Lawyers 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.

FEATURING PROF. ROBIN D. G. KELLEY – The trial of Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd has unfolded on television screens across America, bringing up painful reminders of what happened on May 25th 2020, and unearthing new details about an incident that sparked a mass movement. It seems that on trial is not...

On March 18, 2021, the Federalist Society's Southwest Florida Lawyers Chapter hosted Prof. Eugene Volokh and Berin Szoka to debate issues surrounding social media, free speech, and Section 230. Featuring: Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of LawBerin Szoka, President, TechFreedomModerator: Alex Brockmeyer, Shareholder, Boyle, Leonard & Anderson, P.A.; The Federalist Society's Southwest Florida Lawyers 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 September 11, 1987, the Federalist Society held a trial-style debate covering the debate surrounding the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. Titled "On Trial: The Bork Nomination," the event was televised on WXXI-TV in Rochester, New York.Featuring:Prof. Michael McConnell, University of Chicago Law SchoolProf. Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law SchoolAndrew Frey, Mayer, Brown & PlattThomas Sowell, Senior Fellow, Hoover InstitutionAlan Morrison, Public Citizen Litigation GroupMarcia Greenberger, Co-Founder, National Women's Law CenterModerator: Morton Kondracke, Panelist, The McLaughlin Group*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

Apache Stronghold v. United States is an ongoing case involving religious land use. On February 18, 2021, a federal judge allowed the government's plans to swap a portion of Tonto National Forest for land owned by Resolution Copper. Inside the National Forest land is Oak Flat, a Native American sacred site.Apache Stronghold, a nonprofit organization that defends these sites, and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty are challenging the judge's preliminary injunction at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.First Amendment expert Stephanie Barclay, co-author of the recent Harvard Law Review article "Rethinking Protections for Indigenous Sacred Sites," and A.J. Ferate, formerly Vice President of Regulatory Affairs for the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association, will give an update on this case and discuss legal implications.Featuring: -- Prof. Stephanie Barclay, Associate Professor of Law and Director, Religious Liberty Initiative, University of Notre Dame Law School-- Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP

On February 19, 2021, the Charleston, Greenville, and Columbia Lawyers Chapters hosted Eugene Volokh and Casey Mattox for a discussion on the First Amendment and Rule 8.4.Featuring: Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA Law and a recognized First Amendment expertCasey Mattox, Vice President of Legal Strategy, Americans for Prosperity and a regular First Amendment litigatorIntroduction: Miles Coleman, Partner, Nelson Mullins; The Federalist Society's Columbia Lawyers 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 March 7-8, 1986, The Federalist Society hosted its annual National Student Symposium at Stanford Law School. The topic of the conference was "The First Amendment: Constitutional Principles & Public Policy." The second day of the conference opened with a panel on "The Freedom of Religion."Featuring:Prof. Michael McConnell, University of Chicago Law SchoolArthur Spitzer, Legal Director, ACLU of the District of ColumbiaProf. Henry M. Holzer, Brooklyn Law SchoolProf. Robert L. Cord, Northeastern UniversityModerator: Judge John T. Noonan, Jr., United States Court of Appeals, Ninth CircuitIntroduction: Mitchell Edwards, President, The Federalist Society's Stanford 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 March 3, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Carr v. Saul. This case involves important constitutional questions of appointments and officer status. Specifically, the case deals with the question of whether a claimant seeking disability benefits under the Social Security Act forfeits an appointments-clause challenge to the appointment of an administrative law judge by failing to present that challenge during administrative proceedings.Profs. Jennifer Mascott and Richard Pierce, distinguished experts in the field of administrative law, join us to discuss the case, review oral arguments, and discuss implications, and offer their thoughts on related constitutional questions.Featuring: -- Prof. Jennifer L. Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University-- Prof. Richard Pierce, Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in United States v. Arthrex Inc. on March 1, 2021. This case is an important one for the office of patent judges. At issue in the case is whether, for purposes of the appointments clause, administrative patent judges of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are principal officers, requiring presidential appointment and Senate confirmation, or are "inferior officers." Also at issue is whether if they are principal officers, the lower court properly cured any appointments-clause defects in the current statutory scheme.Profs. Greg Dolin and Dmitry Karshtedt join us review oral arguments, discuss the case, and offer their divergent views on the merits in a discussion moderated by Prof. Kristen Osenga. Featuring:-- Prof. Gregory Dolin, Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of Law-- Prof. Dmitry Karshtedt, Associate Professor of Law, The George Washington Law School-- Moderator: Prof. Kristen Osenga, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law

The Fourteenth Amendment is now over 150 years old. The Supreme Court has long rejected interpreting that Amendment with its original meaning. But what would an originalist interpretation of the Amendment look like? Would it be unworkable for modern problems?In this teleforum, Profs. Steven Calabresi and Ilan Wurman will discuss Wurman's new book The Second Founding: An Introduction to the Fourteenth Amendment, in which he argues not only that we should reclaim the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, but that doing so would lead to many desirable and surprising results. Professor Wurman argues that the privileges or immunities clause is not, like many originalists claim, a fundamental rights provision, but is instead an antidiscrimination provision. The implications for incorporation, economic liberty, school desegregation, and gay rights may surprise you. Featuring:--Prof. Steven G. Calabresi, Clayton J. and Henry R. Barber Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law-- Prof. Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University; Author, The Second Founding: An Introduction to the Fourteenth Amendment

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.

FEATURING PROF. YANEER BAR-YAM – Last year when describing the worst-case scenarios of the coronavirus pandemic, government scientists warned we could see deaths numbering between 100,000 to 240,000. That range, predicted 10 months ago, was considered a “grim projection.” Now, more than 400,000 Americans have died from the coronavirus. On his first day in office,...

Drug prices are a pressing policy issue. On November 20, 2020, President Donald Trump announced two new rules aimed at reducing drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries. These rules use a system known as reference pricing, which ties the price the federal government pays for patented drugs and treatments to the prices other countries pay. These rules are set to take effect in January 2021. Meanwhile, legislation pending in the U.S. House of Representatives and supported by Speaker Nancy Pelosi would create an International Pricing Index.These policies enjoy bipartisan support, but they also face bipartisan opposition. Some think the Trump rules do not go far enough and others argue that reference pricing is bad policy regardless.Two distinguished experts who have worked and written extensively on this issue, Prof. Adam Mossoff and Dr. Wendell Primus, join us for a moderated discussion of reference pricing, current policy proposals, and future challenges.Featuring:-- Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; Senior Scholar, Hudson Institute; Visiting Fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation-- Dr. Wendell Primus, Senior Policy Advisor on Budget and Health Issues, Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi; Former Minority Staff Director, Joint Economic Committee-- Moderator: Hon. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President, General Counsel, and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

The battles over the nominations of Merrick Garland, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett suggest that the Supreme Court is now part of the same politicized cloud that envelops all of the nation’s public discourse. Politics have always played a role in judicial confirmations, but it’s a modern phenomenon for divergent legal theories to map onto partisan preferences at a time when the parties are ideologically sorted and polarized. Has the culmination of these trends led some people to think of judges and justices in partisan terms, and to question the legitimacy of our judiciary altogether—or at least its mode of selection and appointment? The threat of “court-packing” was a live issue in the 2020 campaign, as a potential Democratic response to alleged Republican violations of the norms surrounding judicial nominations. Is there anything we can do to fix this dynamic, to turn down the political heat on Supreme Court vacancies? Reform proposals abound: term limits, politically rebalancing or changing the size of the Court, setting new rules for the confirmation process, and more. President-elect Joe Biden promised to establish a bipartisan judicial reform commission and our distinguished panel will provide a preview of the sort of discussion such a commission would likely have.Featuring:-- Prof. Noah Feldman, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law and Director, Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law, Harvard Law School-- Prof. James T. Lindgren, Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law-- Carrie Severino, Chief Counsel and Policy Director, Judicial Crisis Network-- Prof. Rivka Weill, Professor of Law, Harry Radzyner Law School, Interdisciplinary Center-- Moderator: Ilya Shapiro, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institutespeakers.

On December 1st, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service. The case involves whether courts have jurisdiction over challenges to the validity of Internal Revenue Service rules or regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act before the taxpayer pays a tax and seeks a refund. The specific issue presented was whether the prohibition in the Anti-Injunction Act (26 U.S.C., sec. 7421, “AIA”) on lawsuits “for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax” bars challenges to regulatory mandates issued by Treasury/IRS in the form of information reporting requirements that could lead to the assessment of tax penalties. In CIC Services, the Government asserted that the AIA barred pre-enforcement litigation challenging reporting requirements that could have significant civil and criminal penalties attached for non-compliance, where the civil penalties are denominated by the Internal Revenue Code as a “tax” but where no violation had yet occurred. The case came to the Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which had affirmed a district court opinion dismissing the case under the AIA for lack of jurisdiction.We are joined by a panel of experts to discuss the oral arguments, and the various policy implications of the potential rulings. Featuring: -- Prof. Robert Carney, Senior Counsel, Caplin & Drysdale, and Adjunct Professor, Tax Practice and Procedure (Administrative), Georgetown University Law Center-- Prof. Kristin Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School-- Prof. Gregory Dolin, Co-director of the Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of Law, and Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute

On December 7, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases involving the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). In Republic of Hungary v. Simon, the issue is whether a district court may abstain from exercising jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act for reasons of international comity, in a matter in which former Hungarian nationals have sued the nation of Hungary to recover the value of property lost in Hungary during World War II but the plaintiffs made no attempt to exhaust local Hungarian remedies.In Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, the issue is whether the “expropriation exception” of the FSIA, which abrogates foreign sovereign immunity when “rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue,” provides jurisdiction over claims that a foreign sovereign has violated international human rights law when taking property from its own national within its own borders, even though such claims do not implicate the established international law governing states’ responsibility for takings of property. Is the doctrine of international comity unavailable in cases against foreign sovereigns, even in cases of considerable historical and political significance to the foreign sovereign, when the foreign nation has a domestic framework for addressing the claims?Featuring: -- Prof. Alberto R. Coll, Vincent de Paul Professor of Law and Director of Global Engagement, DePaul College of Law-- James C. Dunlop, Senior Attorney, Sensient Technologies Corporation

On April 3-5, 1987, the Federalist Society's Chicago Student Chapter hosted the sixth annual National Student Symposium at the University of Chicago Law School. The symposium's fourth panel discussed "The Role of the Legislative and Executive Branches in Interpreting the Constitution."Featuring:Prof. Robert Nagel, University of Colorado Law SchoolProf. Burt Neuborne, New York University Law SchoolJohn Harrison, Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United StatesSteven Ross, Counsel for the House of RepresentativesModerator: Prof. Daniel Polsby, Northwestern Law School*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On November 30, 2020 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. New York. The case has garnered widespread media attention and arose over the attempt by the Trump administration to exclude noncitizens from the population numbers for the purposes of apportioning seats in the House of Representatives. The Supreme Court will decide whether New York and the twenty states that filed suit against the administration have standing, and whether policy is within the power of the President's discretion under the provisions of law governing congressional apportionment. The case will bear on the short- and long-term future of congressional elections.Featuring: -- Prof. John S. Baker, Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University

On November 12, 2020, The Federalist Society hosted an online showcase discussion for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention with Professors Robert George of Princeton and Cornel West of Harvard. The title of the panel was "Showcase Discussion: A Discussion with Professors Robert George and Cornel West on Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, the Black Lives Matter Movement, and the Cancel Culture."In the aftermath of George Floyd's killing, the country is re-examining fundamental aspects both of our society and how we talk about changing it. In order to undertake that examination in a spirit of honesty and free inquiry, one view holds that participants need to feel free from the danger, and sometimes, as we have seen, the reality, of punishment or intimidation for taking an unpopular point of view. Those holding this view are concerned that we seem to be entering an era of enforced conformity to a new norm—that America is systemically racist, and that a failure to accept and acknowledge this fact is disqualifying from having a place in academia, in public life, or even in the private sector. They are concerned that the radical changes being called for ignore the pillars of the successful American experiment that ultimately led from slavery to the outlawing of racial segregation, and that these changes will do grave harm both to American society as a whole and to the radical changes’ intended beneficiaries.On the other hand, some believe that our society is so inherently degraded by racism that a fundamental change is justified from the old ways of how we have felt we can think and speak about these issues. The thought is that the traditional notions of free speech and free thought are themselves devices that support oppression, and inevitably are employed to prop up established practices and ways of thinking that have created, and perpetuate, racial inequity. This view holds that those who have been harmed by racism are only further harmed by a so-called “balanced” discussion of their grievances.Professors George and West will address whether both society, and the ways in which we can discuss its virtues and its deficiencies, are in need of fundamental change.Featuring:Prof. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence; Director, James Madison Program, Pinceton UniversityProf. Cornel West, Professor of the Practice of Public Philosophy, Harvard UniversityModerator: Mrs. Jennifer C. Braceras, Director, Independent Woman’s Law CenterIntroduction: Hon. Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, 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.

On November 12, 2020, the Federalist Society hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The panel covered "Law, Social Justice, Wokeness, and Protests: Where Do We Go From Here?".Historically, the rule of law and the concept of justice it represents supply two key roots of the American experiment. Some think the ideology underlying many of the recent protests challenges this experiment at its core and that its concept of justice arguably differs from that of our Framers. Indeed for some social justice advocates the concepts of the rule of law, justice, reason and discussion all are suspect at best and tools of oppression at worst. Are the protesters who hold this ideology reform minded or revolutionary? Do the critics of this movement underestimate the powerful currents behind the protests? What are possible or desirable responses to this challenge?Featuring:Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center Prof. Randall Kennedy, Michael R. Klein Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolMr. Eugene B. Meyer, President and CEO, The Federalist Society (representing Prof. John O. McGinnis)Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor of Constitutional Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of LawProf. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law Emerita, New York Law School; Former President, American Civil Liberties UnionModerator: Hon. Kenneth K. Lee, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth 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 11, 2020, The Federalist Society's Intellectual Property Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The panel covered "Intellectual Property Rights and the Rule of Law."The world’s first democratized intellectual-property legal system, initiated by Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 8 of the U.S. Constitution, is intended, per Federalist #43, to: provide uniformity for the protection of IP rights; secure those rights for the individual rather than the state; and incentivize innovation and creative aspirations. Predictability, rooted in uniform application of the rule of law, is essential for property rights and economically sustainable growth. This is especially true in the context of intellectual property and the tremendous investments required for innovation and creative expression. These intended goals can be jeopardized in times of crisis if they are seen as being pitted against health, safety, security, and humanitarian needs that arise during actual or perceived crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic.How can private IP rights be achieved and maintained in a manner that genuinely promotes public good without capture issues? Does a crisis necessitate a suspension or weakening of intellectual and/or other property rights –– or is it in times of crisis that rule of law and its attendant stability/predictability are most crucially needed? What we can learn for IP from how the rule of law has been affected by national crises in the past? This panel will discuss IP law in the 21st century and especially in 2020, considering court decisions, public advocacy, and data-driven lessons of history and how they should be applied to ideas for reforms that would weaken IP and rule of law versus those that may construct and restore predictable rights in support of vibrant and productive innovation and creative output.Featuring:Prof. Jorge Contreras, Professor of Law, University of Utah School of LawProf. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law; Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow, Hoover InstitutionMr. Phil Johnson, Founder and Principal, Johnson-IP Strategy and Policy Consulting; Former, Senior Vice President and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel, Johnson & JohnsonHon. Karyn A. Temple, Senior Executive Vice President and Global General Counsel, Motion Picture Association; Former Register of Copyrights, United States Copyright OfficeModerator: Hon. Ryan T. Holte, United States Court of Federal Claims*******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 10, 2020, The Federalist Society's Litigation Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The topic of the panel was "Are MDL Judges Too Powerful?".Nearly half of all federal civil cases are now consolidated in a few handfuls of so-called MDLs (multi-district litigations). Each MDL is overseen by a single federal district judge even though it can comprise tens of thousands of individual cases and involve dozens of different defendants. Some MDLs are so big they can threaten entire industries, including perhaps the biggest of them all, the Opioid MDL pending in the Northern District of Ohio. In theory the individual cases in an MDL can return to their original courts once all pretrial proceedings are completed, but in reality the litigants almost always feel compelled to settle before that happens. In light of the bar on interlocutory appeals, this means that the single MDL judge has vast authority to decide what happens to all these cases, from how much discovery is exchanged, to whether motions to dismiss and summary judgment are granted, to whether experts should be disqualified, to whether a class action should be certified. When it comes to MDLs, have we placed too much power in the hands of one judge? Are more options needed? Even more dramatic structural reforms?Featuring:Prof. Elizabeth Chamblee Burch, Fuller E. Callaway Chair of Law, University of Georgia School of LawProf. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolMr. Christopher A. Seeger, Partner, Seeger Weiss LLPModerator: Hon. Britt C. Grant, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh 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 10, 2020, The Federalist Society's Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The panel explored "Rule of Law, or Just Making it Up? First Amendment Tiered Scrutiny."Different levels of Scrutiny are a staple of First Amendment Jurisprudence. Strict scrutiny for viewpoint-based restrictions, intermediate scrutiny for restrictions on commercial speech, and, over the years, amorphously defined other types of “heightened” scrutiny for restrictions on association, campaign-related speech, public vs. private figure defamation, and purportedly incidental speech restrictions. In recent years, however, various judges and justices have called for revisiting ahistorical or a-textual approaches constitutional analysis, in both the First Amendment and other contexts. And many scholars have long questioned whether tiered scrutiny is just a smoke-screen for ad hoc balancing, allowing judges to impose their own preferred outcomes in any given case. This panel will explore both the theory and practice of tiered scrutiny in First Amendment analysis. Is there a textual or historical basis for creating such differential levels of scrutiny? Is a more historical or absolutist approach more faithful to the constitutional text? Is it even possible to avoid creating such judicial doctrines at the margins where the application of First Amendment principles to moderns circumstances can be challenging at best? As for the practical application of tiered scrutiny, how does one distinguish between important or compelling interests versus valid but otherwise ordinary interests? How does one determine a less restrictive means of accomplishing a governmental goal, and how much loss of efficiency is too much to ask to preserve some additional amount of speech? Are courts even remotely capable of providing consistent answers to such questions across a range of cases, or is it inevitable that the answer to any such questions will be entirely a function of the judge’s policy preferences?If our judicial system is meant to be based on the rule of law rather than the rule of judges, does tiered scrutiny advance or hinder that ideal? Does the “rule of law” allow any degree of judicial discretion or judgment and, if so, is there any textual basis for deciding how much judgment is allowed and how much effectively eliminates any “rule” at all.Featuring:Prof. Ashutosh Bhagwat, Boochever and Bird Endowed Chair for the Study and Teaching of Freedom and Equality; Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, University of California, Davis School of LawProf. Genevieve Lakier, Assistant Professor of Law, Herbert and Marjorie Fried Teaching Scholar, University of Chicago Law School Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law CenterProf. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles School of LawModerator: Hon. David R. Stras, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth CircuitIntroduction: Hon. Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, 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 speakers.

On November 9, 2020, The Federalist Society's Religious Liberties Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The topic of the panel was "Religious Liberty and the New Court."Religious liberty and religious free exercise in the modern era often involve the question of when religious exemptions are appropriate or required. A well-trodden debate asks whether the Free Exercise Clause provides relief only from laws that target religion, or whether it also requires courts to grant exemptions from generally applicable laws that happen to burden religion. But much less has been said about how courts should implement either of these two readings. First, how can courts tell if a law is truly general in application? If religious entities must be treated as well as secular analogues, what makes a secular entity "analogous"? Second, if the Free Exercise Clause requires something more than even-handed treatment of religious entities, what more is needed? What sort of test should be used to determine when to grant exemptions from a general law? The first question came up repeatedly in cases challenging the shutdown orders prompted by COVID-19, and is also at issue in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Depending on how the Court decides that case, it may address the second question as well. This panel explores both questions, and features opposing perspectives on religious exemptions as a matter of history, doctrine, and constitutional law.Featuring:Prof. Stephanie Barclay, Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Gerard V. Bradley, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles School of Law Ms. Lori Windham, Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious LibertyModerator: Hon. Neomi Rao, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia CircuitIntroduction: Hon. Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, 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 speakers.

On November 20, 2020, The Federalist Society's Student Division and the Columbia Student Chapter hosted the third Feddie Night Fight via online webinar. The two contenders engaged in a knockout debate reprising the discussions surrounding Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. The Feddie Night Fights are a series of online events hosted by Federalist Society student chapters on the last Friday of the month. Join us on December 18 for the next match (scheduled earlier due to the holidays).Featuring: Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA School of LawJordan Lorence, Alliance Defending FreedomModerator: Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth CircuitIntroduction: Cole Campbell, Columbia Law School 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 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.