Podcast appearances and mentions of judge jeffrey sutton

It's Wednesday, July 17th, A.D. 2024. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark Pakistan raises age Christian girls can legally marry from 13 to 18 Pakistan's National Assembly passed the Christian Marriage (Amendment) Bill 2024 recently.  Now, the earliest a young Christian man or woman can get married is 18. Before it was 16 for boys and 13 for girls.  Naveed Amir Jeeva, a Christian lawmaker, introduced the amendment.  Christians welcomed the change. Girls from Christian families in Pakistan have faced forced marriages to Muslims.  Bishop Azad Marshall with the Anglican Church of Pakistan said, “The church fully supports the amendment. … It will help in preventing forced marriages of underage Christian girls as well as ensuring that their health, education, and overall well-being does not suffer.”  Poland's parliament does not allow the decriminalization of abortion The Parliament of Poland voted 218-215 against an abortion measure last Friday. The bill would have ended criminal penalties for people who help women get illegal abortions. Poland currently bans elective abortions. However, in certain cases, women can get abortions up to 12 weeks of pregnancy Rafał Bochenek is a Polish lawmaker. He criticized Prime Minister Donald Tusk and others who supported the pro-abortion bill: “They promised and wanted to decriminalize criminal activities, but fortunately there is still a spirit in the nation. … Abortion is always evil!” Nikki Haley endorsed Trump last night In the United States, the Republican Party officially nominated Donald Trump for president on Monday. As The Worldview reported yesterday, Trump's running mate is Ohio Senator J.D. Vance.  The nomination comes just days after an assassination attempt on Trump during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania.  And last night, Nikki Haley, Trump's U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and the woman who challenged him for the GOP presidential nomination, endorsed the former president at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Listen: HALEY: “President Trump asked me to speak to this convention in the name of unity. (cheers) It was a gracious invitation, and I was happy to accept. (cheers) “I'll start by making one thing perfectly clear. Donald Trump has my strong endorsement period.” (cheers) Elon Musk endorses Trump, commits $135 million to his re-election Following the assassination attempt, tech billionaire Elon Musk put his support behind the former president, saying, “I fully endorse President Trump and hope for his rapid recovery. … Last time America had a candidate this tough was Theodore Roosevelt.”  Leading up to the election, Musk plans to give about $45 million per month to a super PAC backing Trump.  Teddy Roosevelt  gave speech after being shot in 1912 assassination attempt Speaking of President Teddy Roosevelt, as he was running for a third presidential term under the Progressive or Bull Moose Party banner, he was shot on October 14, 1912 while arriving at a campaign event in, ironically enough, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. A delusional saloonkeeper named John Schrank, who believed the ghost of assassinated President William McKinley had directed him to kill Roosevelt, shot him in front of the Gilpatrick Hotel. The bullet lodged in his chest after penetrating his steel eyeglass case and passing through a 50-page single-folded copy of his speech. As an experienced hunter, Roosevelt correctly concluded that since he was not coughing blood, the bullet had not reached his lung. He declined suggestions to go to hospital immediately and instead delivered a 90-minute speech with blood seeping into his shirt. In fact, he said, "Friends, I shall ask you to be as quiet as possible. I don't know whether you fully understand that I have just been shot—but it takes more than that to kill a Bull Moose." An excellent reference by Elon Musk indeed. An x-ray showed the bullet had lodged in Roosevelt's chest muscle. Doctors concluded it would be less dangerous to leave it in his body than attempt to remove it. So, Roosevelt carried that would-be assassin's bullet in him for the rest of his life. FCA “allowed” to believe in heterosexual marriage A federal judge ruled in favor of a Christian student group at a Washington, D.C. high school last Thursday. Jackson-Reed High School denied official recognition to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes for requiring leaders to sign a statement of faith. The statement included the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. The ruling noted, “As a condition for reinstatement, the District forced the Fellowship of Christian Athletes to choose between official school recognition and its religious principles.” Court affirms Tennessee law that prohibits people from changing sex Last Friday, a federal court ruled in favor of a Tennessee law that prohibits people from changing the sex listed on their birth certificates.  Four plaintiffs challenged the law after pretending to be the opposite sex. Judge Jeffrey Sutton stated, “There is no fundamental right to a birth certificate recording gender identity instead of biological sex.”  And Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said, “While other states have taken different approaches, for decades Tennessee has consistently recognized that a birth certificate records a biological fact of a child being male or female and has never addressed gender identity.”  Genesis 1:27 says, “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created Him; male and female He created them.”  North Dakota woman celebrated 106th birthday And finally, a North Dakota woman celebrated her 106th birthday this month. Hulda Erdman was born on July 6, 1918. She has always loved music and can still play the piano. While Erdman said she didn't have a secret to her long life, music, piano, and singing in the choir might have played a role. She said, “Well, there is no secret. My Lord has just made me that old.”  Psalm 90:12, 14 says, “So teach us to number our days that we may get a heart of wisdom. … Satisfy us in the morning with Your steadfast love, that we may rejoice and be glad all our days.” Close And that's The Worldview in 5 Minutes on this Wednesday, July 17th, in the year of our Lord 2024. Join me Adam McManus, and my two sons, Honor and Valor, at the Colorado Father-Son retreat Thursday, August 15th through Sunday, August 18th. Go to ColoradoFatherSon.com. Subscribe by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

This Day in Legal History: Lots of Things On March 13th, various significant events have unfolded in the realm of legal history, reflecting the ever-evolving landscape of law and justice across the globe. On this day in 1781, Sir William Herschel's discovery of Uranus led to international legal discussions on the naming rights of celestial bodies, a precursor to modern space law debates. In 1868, the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson began, marking the first time a U.S. president faced such proceedings, underscoring the constitutional checks and balances in American governance.Fast forward to 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico established significant precedents regarding states' rights and the commerce clause, affecting how businesses and state regulations interacted. On March 13, 1989, the Internet's precursor, ARPANET, was hit by one of the first major digital security incidents, leading to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 being amended to address such modern challenges, illustrating the law's attempt to keep pace with technological advancements.Moreover, on this day in 1996, the Dunblane school massacre occurred in Scotland, leading to stringent gun control laws in the United Kingdom, a pivotal moment in the global debate on gun regulation. This tragic event underscores how legal systems can rapidly evolve in response to societal tragedies.In more recent history, March 13, 2013, saw the election of Pope Francis, which brought to the forefront discussions about canon law, the legal system governing the Roman Catholic Church, highlighting the intersection of law and religion.These events, spanning centuries and continents, illustrate the dynamic nature of legal history and its profound impact on societal norms, regulations, and governance. As we reflect on these milestones, it becomes evident that the law is a living entity, constantly adapting to the complexities of human civilization.The federal judiciary has introduced a new policy to combat "judge shopping," a tactic where litigants select specific courts hoping for a favorable ruling, particularly noted in challenges to Biden administration actions in Texas. This practice, prevalent in cases aimed at barring or implementing state or federal actions, will now see civil actions randomly assigned to judges within a district, countering any local practices of case assignments to a single judge. This move, according to Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the Judicial Conference's executive committee, is a response to the increasing use of national injunctions that have seen district judges block nationwide policies across various administrations. While the policy's full implementation details remain unclear, it represents a significant shift aimed at ensuring impartiality and reducing the perception of the judiciary as politically influenced. The policy has drawn attention to judges like Matthew Kacsmaryk and Alan Albright, who have been focal points for conservative cases and patent cases, respectively. Despite these changes, challenges in areas not affecting state and federal law may still experience judge shopping. The judiciary's move is seen as a step towards fairness, although its effectiveness and scope are yet to be fully understood.Federal Courts Aim to Curb Judge Shopping With New Policy (3)US federal judiciary moves to curtail 'judge shopping' tactic | ReutersThe push towards unionizing student athletes, notably highlighted by Dartmouth College's men's basketball team's vote to unionize, has sparked significant controversy and concern among Republicans and university athletics representatives. This development comes amid debates in Congress, particularly focused on whether student athletes should be classified as employees, a question intensified by the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) decision to allow Dartmouth students to hold a union election. Critics, such as Rep. Burgess Owens, argue that recognizing student athletes as employees poses an "existential threat" to college sports, fearing widespread unintended consequences that could extend beyond NCAA Division I to impact Division II and III, as well as high school athletes.University representatives worry about the implications of employment status on issues ranging from tax exemptions for scholarships to visa eligibility for international students. They also fear the potential for the NLRB's stance to fluctuate with political changes. Proponents of the NLRB's decision, however, argue that past decisions, like the one involving Northwestern University football players, have been misinterpreted and that circumstances have evolved to warrant a reevaluation of student athletes' rights. They advocate for student athletes having a "seat at the table" to negotiate conditions pertinent to their dual roles as students and athletes. This debate gains further complexity considering the recent legal milestones, such as the Supreme Court's NCAA v. Alston case and the NLRB's Columbia University decision, both favoring expanded rights and compensation for students. Amidst these divided opinions, there's consensus on the need for a new approach to how student athletes are treated, with unionization seen as a potential catalyst for change.Unionizing Student Athletes Called ‘Existential Threat' by GOPIn the climax of New York's budget discussions, state Senate and Assembly Democrats have proposed tax increases on high earners and corporations, diverging sharply from Governor Kathy Hochul's stance against income tax hikes. This move aims to address concerns over New York's high tax burden and the outmigration of taxpayers, with progressive factions advocating for these tax hikes to fund education and Medicaid, contrary to Hochul's budgetary constraints. The legislative bodies' budget resolutions, contrasting with Hochul's $233 billion plan, also suggest restrictions on social media for minors and the establishment of an AI research consortium, amongst other priorities.While supporting the enhancement of housing construction and tech regulations, Hochul's budget seeks to manage future deficits through spending limits on public schools and Medicaid, positions not endorsed in the legislative proposals. Despite agreeing on a commercial security tax credit and extending a cap on itemized deductions for the wealthiest, the chambers reject Hochul's approach to school funding, Medicaid spending, and tech governance, indicating a significant battleground.The contention extends to technology policies, where both the Senate and Assembly resist Hochul's proposed AI and social media regulations, though they do introduce other data privacy initiatives. With a looming April 1 deadline and the complexities of Easter timing, achieving consensus appears challenging, especially given Hochul's constitutional leverage and the political implications for upcoming elections. Hochul, emphasizing the urgency to protect children from digital harms, faces a delicate balance between her tech policy goals and securing an on-time budget amidst these divergent legislative priorities.NY Lawmakers' Budgets Oppose Governor's Plans on Taxes, HousingSecuring a summer associate position at a major law firm was significantly more challenging in 2023, with the offer rate to law students at its lowest since 2012. Law firms made 19% fewer offers compared to the previous year, decreasing the average number of offers from 28 in 2022 to 22 in 2023. This reduction in offers resulted in a record-high overall acceptance rate of 47%, as law students found themselves with fewer options to choose from. The decline in summer associate hiring is attributed to a decrease in client demand and the high number of summer associates hired in 2022, leaving firms cautious about adding new talent amidst uncertain client demand. Furthermore, the competition was intensified by a 12% increase in the law student class size for 2024, exacerbating the challenge of securing these coveted positions.Large law firms typically use summer associate programs as a key recruitment tool, offering students six- to 14-week positions that often lead to permanent job offers upon graduation, sometimes with starting salaries up to $225,000. These programs serve as an economic indicator for the legal industry, with firms adjusting their hiring based on anticipated demand. Additionally, the practice of "precruiting," or extending offers ahead of official on-campus interview programs, has risen, with 47% of offers made before these formal events in 2023, up from 23% in 2022. This shift indicates a change in how law firms are approaching recruitment, with most of the decline in offers occurring through school-sponsored interview programs.Law firm summer associate recruiting hits 11-year low in 2023 | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

You'll likely be hearing a lot more about L.W. v. Skrmetti, a trans rights case that the ACLU has requested the Supreme Court takes up.Jess and Imani get into the nuts and bolts of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that allowed Tennessee's gender-affirming ban targeting trans kids to take effect, breaking previous federal court consensus that these bans are unconstitutional. Led by Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a George W. Bush appointee, it was the first decision to let a gender-affirming ban take effect, which has led to a domino effect on other similar bans in the country.Rewire News Group is a nonprofit media organization, which means Boom! Lawyered is only made possible with the support of listeners like you! If you can, please join our team by donating here.And sign up for The Fallout, a weekly newsletter written by Jess that's exclusively dedicated to covering every aspect of this unprecedented moment.

You'll likely be hearing a lot more about L.W. v. Skrmetti, a trans rights case that the ACLU has requested the Supreme Court takes up.Jess and Imani get into the nuts and bolts of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that allowed Tennessee's gender-affirming ban targeting trans kids to take effect, breaking previous federal court consensus that these bans are unconstitutional. Led by Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a George W. Bush appointee, it was the first decision to let a gender-affirming ban take effect, which has led to a domino effect on other similar bans in the country.Rewire News Group is a nonprofit media organization, which means Boom! Lawyered is only made possible with the support of listeners like you! If you can, please join our team by donating here.And sign up for The Fallout, a weekly newsletter written by Jess that's exclusively dedicated to covering every aspect of this unprecedented moment.

Jeffrey Sutton is chief judge of the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and a lecturer at Harvard Law. He's in Utah today for UVU's Constitution Day Conference. He says that we should call it Constitutions' Day, because many of our rights come from and are protected by state constitutions. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As one of the most radically democratic constitutions in American history, the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 sought to ensure government “by the people” rather than by a king. In this Cutting Room Floor episode of the FedSoc Films Podcast, we feature three experts from our film “The Drafting of America's First Constitutions,” which explores the development of state constitutions in revolutionary America. Professor John Dinan of Wake Forest College, Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Prof. Robert Williams of Rutgers Law School had lots to say about Pennsylvania's first constitution and its impact on the development of constitutional thought.Thanks again for listening to the FedSoc Films Podcast! Be sure to rate and review us on your favorite podcast platform.Watch the full film, The Drafting of America's First Constitutions, here: https://youtu.be/zKdNHlFGXuw As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.Learn more about Prof. John Dinan here:https://politics.wfu.edu/faculty-and-staff/john-dinan/ Learn more about Judge Jeffrey Sutton here:https://www.ali.org/members/member/287895/ Learn more about Prof. Robert Williams here: https://law.rutgers.edu/directory/view/rfw Visit https://fedsoc.org/ to learn more!Follow us on Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter:https://www.instagram.com/fedsoc/https://www.youtube.com/thefederalistsocietyhttps://twitter.com/FedSoc

How important are state constitutions today? In this episode of the FedSoc Films Podcast, Samantha interviews Jeffrey Sutton, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, who appears in our film The Drafting of America's First Constitutions, a short documentary about the extraordinary decade from 1776 to 1787 which marked the most substantial period of constitution writing in the history of the world.Thanks again for listening to the FedSoc Films Podcast! Be sure to rate and review us on your favorite podcast platform.Watch the full film, The Drafting of America's First Constitutions, here:https://youtu.be/zKdNHlFGXuw Learn more about Judge Jeffrey Sutton here:https://fedsoc.org/contributors/jeffrey-suttonAs always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.Visit https://fedsoc.org/ to learn more!Follow us on Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter:https://www.instagram.com/fedsoc/https://www.youtube.com/thefederalistsocietyhttps://twitter.com/FedSoc

Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, discusses his new book, "Who Decides?: States as Laboratories of Constitutional Experimentation." June Grasso hosts. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, discusses his new book, "Who Decides?: States as Laboratories of Constitutional Experimentation." June Grasso hosts. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

State constitutions influenced the drafting of the U.S. Constitution and continue to shape constitutional rights today. The Virginia Constitution of 1776 in particular influenced both the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. As we get ready to celebrate Independence Day, National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen joined experts for a two-part conversation on state constitutions. First, Rosen was joined by A.E. Dick Howard of the University of Virginia. Professor Howard is an expert on the Virginia Constitution of 1776 and Virginia's current constitution, which he helped draft and is commemorating its 50th anniversary this year. Rosen was then joined by two experts on state constitutions: Judge Jeffrey Sutton, author of 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law, and professor Emily Zackin, author of Looking for Rights in All the Wrong Places: Why State Constitutions Contain America's Positive Rights.  This panel was streamed live on June 28, 2021.  If you're interested in learning more about state constitutions, check out some of our past programs including this Town Hall program featuring Judge Jeffrey Sutton, “Why State Constitutions Matter.” Register for our 2021 Annual Supreme Court Review on July 8 at constitutioncenter.org/debate. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

This week we have our first opinions in cases argued this term. Zack joins GianCarlo in discussing those cases and this week's oral arguments, which include two cases about art stolen by Nazis. Zack also updates us about the major election cases pending before the Court. GianCarlo interviews returning guests, Judge Jeffrey Sutton and Ed Whelan on their new book: The Essential Scalia: On the Constitution, the Courts, and the Rule of Law. Lastly, Zack quizzes GianCarlo with art-related trivia.Follow us on Twitter and Instagram @scotus101 and send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating!Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

When representing clients, attorneys often think of constitutional rights only in terms of the federal constitution. But this narrow focus leaves out the 50 state constitutions, which can offer different and more protective rights than their federal counterpart. From his experience as Ohio Solicitor General through his time on the 6th Circuit, Judge Jeffrey Sutton has seen the impact that state constitutions can have on the rule of law. In his 2018 book, 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law, Judge Sutton outlined the ways raising state constitutional claims can improve a client's odds of success and provide greater protection of rights. In this episode, Judge Sutton joins Jody Sanders and Todd Smith to discuss considerations and strategies for parties who might otherwise forgo state constitutional claims. He also reflects on his time as a clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia—a phase of his career that influenced his later endeavors and his love of the law.Love the show? Subscribe, rate, review, and share!Here’s How »Join the Texas Appellate Law Podcast Community today:appealsplus.comTwitterFacebookLinkedInYouTube

For the next few weeks on Deep Background, in addition to our regular show, we’re bringing you a special five-part series about the Supreme Court's dramatic rightward turn. In this second installment of Deep Bench, a rare interview with a sitting judge. Noah talks with Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who describes how members of the Federalist Society helped develop the central legal theories that conservative judges and justices use today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It is difficult to exaggerate Justice Antonin Scalia's outsized impact on American constitutional law. Originalism and textualism, the interpretive methods he championed throughout his career, are key themes in today's legal landscape thanks in large part to his elegant and witty defense of their merits. In this episode of Unprecedential, two former Scalia clerks, Sixth Circuit Judge https://fedsoc.org/contributors/jeffrey-sutton (Jeffrey Sutton) and the Ethics and Public Policy Center's president https://eppc.org/author/edward_whelan/ (Ed Whelan), join https://twitter.com/adamjwhitedc?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor (Adam) to talk about the recent compilation of Scalia's writings they edited, https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/602308/the-essential-scalia-by-antonin-scalia-edited-by-jeffrey-s-sutton-and-edward-whelan/ (The Essential Scalia: On the Constitution, the Courts, and the Rule of Law). Judge Sutton and Ed note that equally significant to Justice Scalia's legal acumen was his amiable character. They discuss with Adam their memories of his generous mentorship of them as clerks, and his affable spirit even to those with whom he dissented vehemently. Justice Scalia's playful disposition leaps out of his writings, providing his ideas with clarity, vividness, and pleasure uncommon in the legal profession. His faithfulness to originalism, as Judge Sutton and Ed point out, brought him both critics and admirers. But such principled jurisprudence is a sparkling example to all of judging at its very finest.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on Friday, rocking the nation and setting the stage for a blistering Senate confirmation fight  should the Senate Judiciary Committee go through with the hearing process before the election. Today, our podcast hosts walk us through the history of SCOTUS vacancies, reflect on the legendary friendship between Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Antonin Scalia, and offer some rank punditry about what this SCOTUS vacancy means for the future of our republic. The question on everyone’s mind is: What happens next? Will Senate Republicans go through with the Supreme Court nomination process? Should they? Sarah and David have some thoughts. What’s clear is that Trump will fight tooth and nail to get a nominee through as a last ditch effort to energize his base. “The more the Democrats threaten him, his brand is that he cannot give in to threats,” explains Sarah. “It’s the ultimate ‘owns the libs’ move to fill the Ginsburg seat and enrage the left.” But who will president Trump nominate? Judge Barbara Lagoa of the 11th Circuit  is in the running, but 7th Circuit judge Amy Coney Barrett’s cult of personality on the right—especially within the pro-life community—will likely give her the winning ticket. “If RBG is Michael Jordan,” Sarah explains, “ACB is Lebron James.” Stick around for a deep dive into the filibuster’s life expectancy, the possibility of a Democratic court packing scheme, and the likelihood of an Electoral College split this November. Show Notes: -David’s new book, Divided We Fall: America's Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation, Judge Jeffrey Sutton’s conversation with Justice Scalia about his friendship with RBG, and Sarah’s Sweep newsletter, “Yep, This Changes Everything,” and “Replacing Justice Ginsburg: Politics, Not Precedent” by Andrew McCarthy in National Review, the upcoming Dispatch Live with Sarah and David this Wednesday. -David’s piece on the battle over Ginsburg's seat and don’t forget to take advantage of our 30 day free trial of The Dispatch.

Judge Jeffrey Sutton talks with David F. Levi about his book 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law and the role of state courts in protecting personal rights.

In this episode, Judge Goodwin Liu of the California Supreme Court talks to Judge Jeffrey Sutton about the distinct yet parallel importance of the State Court systems and the Federal Court system, including how we came to value so highly the federal system; why we should pay more attention to our state courts and constitutions; and what we as citizens, educators, and advocates should do going forward.

On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society believes that it is most fitting to dedicate an annual lecture on limited government and the spirit of freedom to the memory of Barbara Olson. She had a deep commitment to the rule of law and understood well the relationship between respecting limits on government power and the preservation of freedom. And, significantly, Barbara Olson was an individual who never took freedom for granted in her own life, even in her final terrifying moments-her inspiring and energetic human spirit is a testament to what one can achieve in a world that places a premium on human freedom. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals.On November 16, 2018, Judge Jeffrey Sutton offered the annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture. Sutton reflected on the roles of state constitutions, state courts, and state governments in the formation of American constitutional law.Hon. Jeffrey Sutton, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth CircuitIntroduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist SocietyFor more on Barbara Olson and the Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture Series, follow this link.

On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society believes that it is most fitting to dedicate an annual lecture on limited government and the spirit of freedom to the memory of Barbara Olson. She had a deep commitment to the rule of law and understood well the relationship between respecting limits on government power and the preservation of freedom. And, significantly, Barbara Olson was an individual who never took freedom for granted in her own life, even in her final terrifying moments-her inspiring and energetic human spirit is a testament to what one can achieve in a world that places a premium on human freedom. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals.On November 16, 2018, Judge Jeffrey Sutton offered the annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture. Sutton reflected on the roles of state constitutions, state courts, and state governments in the formation of American constitutional law.Hon. Jeffrey Sutton, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth CircuitIntroduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist SocietyFor more on Barbara Olson and the Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture Series, follow this link.

Judge Jeffrey Sutton discusses his career, the balance of state and federal legislation, and his new book, 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law.