Cover image of FedSoc Events
(55)
News
Politics

FedSoc Events

Updated 4 days ago

News
Politics
Read more

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. This podcast feed contains audio files of Federalist Society panel discussions, debates, addresses, and other events related to law and public policy. Additional audio and video can be found at https://fedsoc.org/commentary.

Read more

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. This podcast feed contains audio files of Federalist Society panel discussions, debates, addresses, and other events related to law and public policy. Additional audio and video can be found at https://fedsoc.org/commentary.

iTunes Ratings

55 Ratings
Average Ratings
41
8
2
1
3

It’s great

By 1Lsudokufan - May 14 2019
Read more
Though I’d like to see more states included in these events series.

Fantastic .....JW

By JMJBW - Jul 01 2017
Read more
Auto is uneven at best, some speakers are impossible to hear, please improve.

iTunes Ratings

55 Ratings
Average Ratings
41
8
2
1
3

It’s great

By 1Lsudokufan - May 14 2019
Read more
Though I’d like to see more states included in these events series.

Fantastic .....JW

By JMJBW - Jul 01 2017
Read more
Auto is uneven at best, some speakers are impossible to hear, please improve.

Listen to:

Cover image of FedSoc Events

FedSoc Events

Updated 4 days ago

Read more

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. This podcast feed contains audio files of Federalist Society panel discussions, debates, addresses, and other events related to law and public policy. Additional audio and video can be found at https://fedsoc.org/commentary.

Introduction to Originalism and Federalism: Where Are the Courts Heading?

Podcast cover
Read more
Since the 1980s, the originalist approach to constitutional interpretation has gained greater and greater acceptance in legal circles, and the number of originalists within the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary has grown. At the same time, originalism still has fierce critics who argue that it is an inappropriate method for constitutional interpretation. Likewise, in the last decades of the 20th century the U.S. Supreme Court breathed new life into a federalist view of the Constitution and the relationship between the federal government and the states. As with originalism, the federalist movement has its own strong critics.
The panelists discussed these two legal concepts. What are originalism and federalism, really? Are they valid or flawed? What developments may we see from the federal courts with regard to these concepts in the future—particularly in light of Neil Gorsuch’s joining the U.S. Supreme Court in 2017? And how do these concepts apply to the work of ordinary legal practitioners?

Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law; Director, Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Eric Murphy, State Solicitor, Ohio
Peter M. Shane, Jacob E. Davis and Jacob E. Davis II Chair in Law, Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Apr 19 2018

55mins

Play

The Future of the Past: Stare Decisis

Podcast cover
Read more
Stare decisis – “to stand by things decided” – is the doctrine under which courts follow their own precedents, and precedents of superior courts. Proponents of stare decisis assert that it promotes predictability in the law, reduces revisiting settled issues, and increases reliance on judicial decisions, all while enhancing the legitimacy of the judicial branch. Critics of stare decisis assert that a court decision in error should not be followed blindly, and over-reliance on stare decisis can cause errors to become set in concrete. A handful of recent opinions suggest that some in the judiciary might be open to revisiting the contours of the doctrine of stare decisis. Should it be reevaluated? Does it matter whether the issue under consideration is statutory or constitutional? Does the time in history of the original decision matter? What is the future of this doctrine?

Prof. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center
Hon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Mr. Kannon K. Shanmugam, Partner, Williams & Connolly LLP
Moderator: Hon. Amy Coney Barrett, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Dec 11 2018

1hr 23mins

Play

2018 Annual Supreme Court Round Up

Podcast cover
Read more
On July 13, 2018, the Federalist Society's Washington, DC Lawyers Chapter presented its annual Supreme Court Round Up at the National Press Club. Featuring Miguel Estrada, a partner at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, the event covered the 76 cases from the Supreme Court's 2017-2018 term.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speaker.
Learn more about Miguel Estrada: https://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyer/estrada-miguel-a/

Jul 24 2018

1hr 30mins

Play

Justice Scalia on Federalism and Separation of Powers 11-17-2016

Podcast cover
Read more
Justice Scalia often said that, while he always tried to get the Bill of Rights cases correct, he cared most about the structural constitutional cases. Once or twice each summer, he even taught a course called Separation of Powers. His opinions on the structural issues of separation of powers and federalism often cited The Federalist Papers. He routinely urged law students and lawyers to read the whole of The Federalist. The authors of the Federalist Papers placed primordial importance on separated powers, both among branches of the federal government and between federal and state governments. With the separation of powers both horizontal and vertical increasingly in doubt, it is particularly important to understand the Federalist's treatment of constitutional structure. This panel, therefore, looks at Justice Scalia's Federalist focus on the importance of separation of powers and federalism as structural protections of liberty. -- This panel was held on November 17, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center; Hon. Ron DeSantis, U.S. House of Representatives, Florida 6th District; Mr. Roger Pilon, Vice President, Legal Affairs, Cato Institute; Hon. Luther Strange III, Attorney General, Alabama; and Prof. Jonathan Turley, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law; Director of the Environmental Law Advocacy Center; Executive Director, Project for Older Prisoners, The George Washington University Law School. Moderator: Hon. William H. Pryor Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Nov 23 2016

1hr 23mins

Play

Evolution of the District Courts

Podcast cover
Read more
Over the past several decades, the workload of federal district courts has changed significantly. On the civil side, perhaps as litigants seek to avoid the expense of elaborate discovery and prolonged motions practice and trials, more and more cases are resolved through alternative dispute resolution. On the criminal side, more and more cases are resolved through plea bargaining. The result is fewer and fewer trials. Our panel will discuss these phenomena, and their implications. What are the causes of these evolutions? Is there a lasting impacts on judges themselves? Are lawyers now required to hone different skills? Is there a lasting effect on the administration of justice, and civil society more generally?

Hon. Thomas Hardiman, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Hon. Michael B. Mukasey, Of Counsel, Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP
Hon. William E. Smith, Chief Judge, United States District Court, District of Rhode Island
Hon. Amul Thapar, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Moderator: Hon. Carlos T. Bea, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Nov 16 2018

1hr 30mins

Play

The First Amendment and Commercial/Economic Speech

Podcast cover
Read more
Although the First Amendment makes no distinction between types of speech, courts have consistently offered so-called “commercial speech” less protection than non-commercial speech. Under the Central Hudson test, courts balance the interests of regulators against the interests of those engaged in commercial speech. These interests can lead to limitations on how pharmaceutical companies communicate information about lawful treatments with patients, doctors, and insurance companies; how lawful products like tobacco or liquor are advertised; and how businesses express themselves. What limitations should courts permit government to impose on commercial speech, if any? Should Central Hudson be reconsidered? And what about occupational speech? Should “commercial speech-level restrictions” be imposed on individuals who offer advice in the fields of interior design, investing, or parenting, for example? How or should concerns about economic liberty be factored in? And do state constitutions provide broader protections for commercial speech than the federal Constitution? If so, should cases like Nike vs. Kasky be overturned?

Bradley Benbrook, Founding Partner, Benbrook Law Group
Erik Jaffe, Law Office of Erik Jaffe
Amanda Shanor, Yale Law PhD Candidate
Moderator: Christina Sandefur, Executive Vice President, Goldwater Institute
Introduction: Lisa Ezell, Vice President & Director of Lawyers Chapters, The Federalist Society

Feb 09 2018

1hr 25mins

Play

Disparate Impact

Podcast cover
Read more
The Sixth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference is scheduled for Tuesday, April 17 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. and will examine the increase in federal regulatory activity and the legal and practical considerations of regulatory reform. This daylong conference will feature plenary panels, addresses, and breakout panels.

Prof. Gail Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law
Mr. Roger Clegg, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity
Prof. Theodore M. Shaw, Julius L. Chambers Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Civil Rights, University of North Carolina School of Law
Mr. Gene C. Schaerr, Schaerr Duncan LLP

Apr 26 2018

1hr 47mins

Play

Address by Hon. Robert H. Bork [Archive Collection]

Podcast cover
Read more
On March 6, 1988, Hon. Robert H. Bork spoke to the Federalist Society's National Student Symposium at the University of Virginia. Judge Bork discussed the campaign against his recently failed Supreme Court nomination and its implications for future judicial nominations, constitutional law, politics, and culture.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:

Hon. Robert H. Bork, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
Hon. T. Kenneth Cribb, Jr., Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs
Hon. David M. McIntosh, Domestic Policy Council

May 11 2018

56mins

Play

Panel: Who's Afraid of Substantive Due Process?: Original Meaning and the Due Process of Law

Podcast cover
Read more
Conventional wisdom holds that the original meaning of the "due process of law," as used in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment, is procedural - forbidding deprivations of life, liberty or property without appropriate procedural safeguards and unless they are pursuant to a duly enacted law governing the conduct giving rise to the deprivation. Recent originalist scholarship, however, calls this view into question, arguing that a thicker and indeed "substantive" understanding of due process is justified by a careful reading of the constitutional text and history. This panel will explore and critique these new arguments.
Welcome:

Hon. Lee Liberman Otis, The Federalist Society
Incoming AALS President Vicki C. Jackson, Harvard Law School

Featuring:

Randy Barnett, Georgetown University Law Center
John Harrison, University of Virginia School of Law
Nathan Chapman, University of Georgia School of Law
Ryan Williams, Boston College Law School
Moderator: Christina Mulligan, Brooklyn Law School

Jan 30 2019

1hr 39mins

Play

Rules Versus Standards in Constitutional and Statutory Interpretation [Showcase Panel II] 11-18-2016

Podcast cover
Read more
Justice Scalia believed that the rule of law required a law of rules rather than of balancing tests. He favored rules (like the requirement the President be at least 35 years old) over standards (a requirement that the president be “a mature individual") because they lend themselves more to principled judicial enforcement. As a result, Justice Scalia revolutionized the caselaw he inherited from the Burger Court by eliminating as many balancing tests as possible and replacing them with rules. An example is his favoring of a rule of viewpoint neutrality in freedom of expression cases over separate treatment of various categories of speech. He believed that rules over standards promote the rule of law because they guarantee that judges will decide like cases alike rather than deciding each case on its facts using a totality of the circumstances test. Justice Scalia was so committed to rules over standards that he refused to enforce the non-delegation doctrine because to do so he would have had to employ a balancing test standard, however, in his last year on the bench, there were signs that Justice Scalia was moving away from this position. Justice Scalia also favored rules over standards because they limit lower federal and state court discretion in applying Supreme Court precedents as compared to balancing tests. The reemergence of rules over standards in Supreme Court opinions is another of Justice Scalia's legacies. -- This panel was held on November 18, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale University; Hon. Frank Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit; Prof. John C. Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law; and Prof. Victoria Nourse, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Moderator: Hon. William Francis Kuntz II, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.

Nov 23 2016

1hr 58mins

Play

Prosecutors Run Amok? 11-14-2015

Podcast cover
Read more
The Supreme Court has instructed in clear terms that the duty of the Federal prosecutor in a criminal prosecution "is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done." Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). Yet the news pages are filled with examples of Federal prosecutorial overreach. In its term just ended, the Supreme Court reversed six of seven criminal convictions that reached it, several all involving some form of over criminalization that can lead to prosecutorial overreach. And large categories of prosecutorial overreach never reach the Supreme Court, from dozens of convictions of "insider trading" by non-insiders (now found not to be a crime by the Second Circuit); to civil forfeitures of property of legitimate small businesses never charged with a crime; to multi-billion dollar settlements of the thinnest of charges with large banks, pharmaceutical companies, and individuals that cannot take any risk of a criminal conviction; to what one jurist has described as an “epidemic of Brady violations abroad in the land." -- The panel will explore whether prosecutorial overreach has become epidemic. It will also explore potential remedies ranging from reducing the number of crimes, to sentencing reform, plea bargain reform, civil forfeiture reform, and more. Finally, it will ask who should take action to control prosecutorial overreach? Should it be the state bars? Should the courts be more aggressive? Or, is the task primarily one for Congress? If so, what are the most promising avenues of reform? -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Saturday, November 14, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. Alex Kozinski, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit; Mr. John G. Malcolm, Director, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation; Hon. George J. Terwilliger III, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP; and Ms. Darpana M. Sheth, Constitutional Litigator, Institute for Justice. Moderator: Hon. Keith R. Blackwell, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of Georgia. Introduction: Mr. John J. Park, Jr., Of Counsel, Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP.

Nov 19 2015

1hr 33mins

Play

“Dear Colleague”/Guidance Letters, Consent Decrees, and other administrative law innovations - 1-6-2017

Podcast cover
Read more
This panel will discuss administrative agencies’ increasing use of devices such as guidance letters, consent decrees, and Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (instead of final rules or adjudications issued with APA procedural protections) as mechanisms for setting major policies that may be effectively binding on private parties. -- This panel was held on January 6, 2017 during the 19th Annual Faculty Conference in San Francisco, CA. -- Panel: “Dear Colleague”/Guidance Letters, Consent Decrees, and other administrative law innovations -- Prof. Richard Epstein, New York University School of Law; Prof. Gail Heriot, University San Diego School of Law; Prof. Richard Pierce, The George Washington University Law School; and Prof. Aaron Saiger, Fordham University School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Michael W. McConnell, Stanford Law School.

Jan 23 2017

1hr 42mins

Play

Lunch and Keynote Address by Jeffrey Sutton

Podcast cover
Read more
On October 19, 2018, the Federalist Society's Pennsylvania chapters hosted the 2018 Pennsylvania Chapters Conference in Philadelphia. The luncheon address by Hon. Jeffrey Sutton of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals covered the role of state constitutions and state courts in formulating American constitutional law.

Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton - U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Introduction: Matthew Hank, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson PC and President, Philadelphia Lawyers Chapter

51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law

Nov 02 2018

1hr 1min

Play

How the Federal Government Litigates Cases

Podcast cover
Read more
The seventh annual Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 8, 2019, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC. The first panel discussed "How the Federal Government Litigates Cases."
The Trump administration has not often reversed its litigation approach completely from that of the prior administration. But the Trump administration made headlines last year when it refused to defend the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act against a lawsuit brought by the State of Texas. Some commentators argued that this was a significant violation of the Department of Justice's “duty to defend" duly enacted laws. Others noted that the “duty to defend" is a relatively recent creation stemming from an Office of Legal Counsel opinion letter in 1980 that is seldom followed and has little if any basis in the Constitution.Does the President have a constitutionally mandated duty to defend duly enacted laws or government action, if he believes they are unconstitutional? If so, are there limits on that duty—i.e., do government attorneys have any additional obligations as servants of the people to consider the long term implications of the arguments they make in defense of government action, or should they simply try to win like private advocates? On the other hand, if the president does not have an obligation to defend laws he finds unconstitutional, should that effect how the court views the standing of third parties intervening to defend challenged laws or government actions that the president elects not to defend? This panel will dive into how the government does and should argue cases.
* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:

Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Hon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Hon. Scott Keller, Partner, Baker Botts LLP
Mr. Gene C. Schaerr, Scaherr Jaffe LLP
Moderator: Mr. Jesse Panuccio, former Acting Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice

May 28 2019

1hr 9mins

Play

Founding Principles as Pillars of Our Foreign Policy

Podcast cover
Read more
What would history have to say about the way in which American foreign policy is conducted in the modern era? Are Congress and the Executive duly considering the founding principles of our nation as they conduct foreign policy, from the division of labor between these two branches, to the appropriate use of treaties, executive agreements, and other less formal agreements not submitted to the Senate for ratification, to the imposition or revocation of sanctions? And what of multilateral treaties, international governing bodies, and the preservation of American sovereignty? These and other issues will be addressed by our guest speaker and panelists.
Featuring
An address by:

Hon. Mike Gallagher, U.S. House of Representatives, WI-8

Followed by a panel with:

Prof. Henry Nau, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, Elliot School of International Affairs, The George Washington University
Prof. Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law
Mr. Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
Moderator: Mr. Nathan Kaczmarek, Director, Article I Initiative, The Federalist Society

Jun 13 2018

1hr 35mins

Play

Agency Rulemaking: Unnecessary Delegation or Indispensable Assistance?

Podcast cover
Read more
On June 18, 2019, the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative and Regulatory Transparency Project hosted a panel on "Agency Rulemaking: Unnecessary Delegation or Indispensable Assistance?" at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.
In his recent article, “Strategic Institutional Positioning: How We Have Come to Generate Environmental Law Without Congress,” published in the Texas A&M Law Review, Donald Kochan lays out the argument that delegation of authority to agencies serves the interests of both sides of Congress. Those ostensibly elected to oppose further regulation can argue that any proposed rule changes are out of their control. Conversely, representatives elected to increase regulation can blame agency heads for not following the intent of the authorizing statute. However, both sides avoid blame by the electorate.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a system? Should specialized bureaucrats do the lion’s share of rulemaking? Or should elected Senators and Congressman, often without the same level of expertise, write the rules that govern our nation?
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position or particular legal or public policy issues. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:

Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato Institute
Prof. Donald Kochan, Professor in Law and the Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law
Prof. Robert Percival, Professor of Law and Director, Environmental Law Program, University of Maryland School of Law
Brianne Gorod, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center
Moderator: Jeff Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell LLP

Jul 10 2019

1hr 23mins

Play

Constitutionality of Administrative Law Judges at the SEC and Elsewhere 11-12-2015

Podcast cover
Read more
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has recently increased its use of administrative proceedings, before Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), to seek civil penalties, as an alternative to proceeding in an Article III court. Other federal regulatory and enforcement agencies use ALJs for various purposes at various rates. Although no single set of rules governs all ALJs, they typically differ from Article III courts in important ways, bringing their use under recent criticism. As two examples, ALJs do not enjoy life tenure and they are sometimes employed by and answerable to the agency itself. Our panel will discuss the pros and cons of the use of ALJs at the SEC and other agencies. -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, November 12, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center; Mr. Stephen J. Crimmins, Shareholder, Murphy & McGonigle PC; Prof. Todd E. Pettys, H. Blair and Joan V. White Chair in Civil Litigation, University of Iowa College of Law; and Prof. Tuan Samahon, Villanova University School of Law. Moderator: Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Commissioner, International Trade Commission.

Nov 17 2015

1hr 28mins

Play

Conversation with State Supreme Court Justices 1-28-2017

Podcast cover
Read more
What is the proper role of the State judiciary when considering questions of federal law? If there are independent and adequate federal and State grounds, on which basis should a state supreme court decide a case? -- This panel was part of the 2017 Annual Western Chapters Conference at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA on January 28, 2017. -- Luncheon: Conversation with State Supreme Court Justices -- Hon. Clint Bolick, Arizona Supreme Court and Hon. Stephen Markman, Michigan Supreme Court. Moderator: Hon. Diane Sykes, U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit. Introduction: Jennifer Perkins, Assistant Solicitor General, AG Opinions and Ethics at Arizona Attorney General's Office.

Feb 06 2017

1hr 3mins

Play

Corporate Responsibility: Maximizing Shareholder Benefit v. Social Justice

Podcast cover
Read more
The seventh annual Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 8, 2019, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC. The second panel explored "Corporate Responsibility: Maximizing Shareholder Benefit v. Social Justice."
This Panel will focus on the differing theories on the proper duty of corporations. Do corporations only owe their loyalty to their specific shareholders, and should they be bound to conduct that is judged purely on how much it increases the value of shareholder investments? Or, perhaps due to the sheer size and power of corporations, do they also owe a duty to society as whole. Some argue that Corporations are made up of people with individual ideologies and beliefs, and thus corporations making decisions on political motivations is unavoidable. Others argue that since corporations last much longer than individual lives or careers, that they owe a duty to the long term prospects of the company, over the present day shareholders. The debate rages on and the eventual outcome will have wide-ranging implications for American business, and the national economy as a whole.
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:

Hon. Paul Atkins, Chief Executive Office, Patomak Global Partners
Prof. Jonathan R. Macey, Sam Harris Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Prof. Andrew Schwartz, Associate Professor of Law, University of Colorado Law School
Moderator: Mr. Matthew R. A. Heiman, Senior Fellow and Associate Director for Global Security, National Security Institute

May 28 2019

1hr 14mins

Play

New Federalism

Podcast cover
Read more
Justice Brennan’s 1977 article “State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights,” provoked many litigators to look to the state courts to enhance individual liberties beyond the scope of the federal constitution. This came at a time when the conservative legal movement developed out of a perception that the Warren Court and its successors had gone too far, with courts holding an influence far too powerful in American life. They called for a more restrained view of the judicial role, while those on the left looked to state courts to assert their role in protecting individual rights. This sparked a New Federalism that embraced more active and robust efforts to achieve litigation-oriented outcomes through state constitutional litigation. In recent years, many in the conservative legal movement have also come to embrace state constitutions as separate documents that best protect both individual and economic liberty. This panel will offer a historical overview of these trends as well as offer perspectives of the role of state constitutions from the federal and state bench.
The Inaugural Wisconsin Lawyers Chapters Conference was held on May 4, 2018, in Madison, Wisconsin.
Panelists:

Hon. Stephen Markman, Chief Justice, Michigan Supreme Court
Joseph Ranney, Professor of Law, Marquette University Law School & Shareholder, DeWitt Ross & Stevens S.C.
Hon. Jeffrey Sutton, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Moderator: Hon. Brian K. Hagedorn, Wisconsin Court of Appeals

May 17 2018

1hr 32mins

Play

Twelfth Annual Rosenkranz Debate & Luncheon

Podcast cover
Read more

RESOLVED: The Free Exercise Clause guarantees a constitutional right of religious exemption from general laws when such an exemption would not endanger public peace and good order.
On November 16, 2019, the Federalist Society held the twelfth annual Rosenkranz Debate at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The participants discussed whether the Free Exercise Clause guarantees a constitutional right of religious exemption from general laws when such an exemption would not endanger public peace and good order.
*
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:

Prof. Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law and Director, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School
Moderator: Hon. Stuart Kyle Duncan, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President and CEO, The Federalist Society

Dec 06 2019

1hr 10mins

Play

19th Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture

Podcast cover
Read more

On November 15, 2019, the Federalist Society held the 19th Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The lecture featured Attorney General William Barr, who discussed the development of the role of the executive in the federal government.
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.
*
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:

Hon. William P. Barr
Introduction: Eugene Meyer, President and CEO, The Federalist Society

Dec 04 2019

1hr 4mins

Play

Address by Secretary Eugene Scalia

Podcast cover
Read more

On November 15, 2019, the Federalist Society's Labor & Employment Practice Group hosted an address by Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. Secretary Scalia discussed his plans as the Secretary of Labor as well as some important constitutional decisions involving labor and employment law.
*
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:

Hon. Eugene Scalia, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor
Introduction: Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Dec 04 2019

42mins

Play

Opening Remarks with Governor Ron DeSantis

Podcast cover
Read more

On November 14, 2019, The Federalist Society opened its 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC with a speech by Governor Ron DeSantis (FL). Governor DeSantis focused his remarks on the Florida Supreme Court and the balance of powers in the federal government.
*
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:

Hon. Ron DeSantis, Governor, Florida
Introduction: Mr. Leonard A. Leo, Co-Chairman and Executive Vice President, The Federalist Society

Dec 04 2019

23mins

Play

A Conversation with Senator Mike Lee

Podcast cover
Read more
On October 28, 2019, the George Washington Student Chapter presented A Conversation with Senator Mike Lee. The Senator reflected on the current state of Congress and the Judiciary.
Featuring:

Hon. Mike Lee, United States Senate, Utah

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Nov 14 2019

58mins

Play

Panel Three: The Civil Jury: Constitutional Liberty or Unhealthy Romance?

Podcast cover
Read more
On October 24, 2019, The Federalist Society held its annual Third Circuit Chapters Conference. This panel debated the merits of civil juries.
The American civil jury has all but disappeared. Cases are rarely heard by juries, which might be a good thing: juries are expensive, time-consuming, and unpredictable. On the other hand, they are a constitutional right – in the federal constitution and all but two state constitutions – and there may be much value to keeping this right, notwithstanding the costs. Professors Philip Hamburger and Renee Lerner will debate the merits of the American civil jury.

Prof. Renée Lettow Lerner - Donald Phillip Rothschild Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School
Prof. Shanin Specter - Irving Segal Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School
Moderator: Hon. David J. Porter - U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Introduction: Alida Kass, The Federalist Society 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.

Nov 07 2019

1hr 1min

Play

Panel Two: Regulation of Big Tech

Podcast cover
Read more
On October 24, 2019, The Federalist Society held its annual Third Circuit Chapters Conference. This panel discussed and debated the proper government response to Big Tech.
In recent years, a small number of big tech companies have amassed enormous power and influence in our society. Growing concerns regarding the roles these companies play have led to numerous government investigations and bipartisan calls to crack down on or even break up Big Tech. This panel will discuss these developments and debate the proper government response to Big Tech.

Barry C. Lynn, Executive Director, Open Markets Institute
Taylor Owings, Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice
Prof. Joshua Wright, Professor of Law and Director, Global Antitrust Institute, George Mason University School of Law, and former Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
Moderator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Introduction: Ryan Costa, The Federalist Society Delaware 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.

Nov 07 2019

1hr 27mins

Play

Keynote Address by Don McGahn

Podcast cover
Read more
On October 24, 2019, The Federalist Society held its annual Third Circuit Chapters Conference. The keynote address here is by Don McGahn, former White House Counsel.
Featuring:

Hon. Don McGahn, Former White House Counsel
Introduction: Matthew J. Hank, President, The Federalist Society 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.

Nov 07 2019

31mins

Play

Panel One: The Future of Administrative Law After Kisor

Podcast cover
Read more
On October 24, 2019, The Federalist Society held its annual Third Circuit Chapters Conference. This panel focused on the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Kisor v. Wilkie and the increased attention given to deference that is paid by administrative agencies' legal interpretations.
In judicial opinions, such as the Supreme Court’s recent opinion Kisor v. Wilkie, and in academia, there is increased attention to deference that is and should be paid to administrative agencies’ legal interpretations. This panel will address these developments, make some predictions about future developments, and discuss whether those likely developments are good, bad, or neither.

Prof. Emily Bremer - University of Notre Dame Law School
Adam White - Director, Center for the Study of the Administrative State, George Mason University
Prof. David Zaring - The University of Pennsylvania
Moderator: Hon. Paul B. Matey - U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Introduction: Matthew Hank, President, The Federalist Society 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.

Nov 07 2019

1hr 9mins

Play

First Amendment Panel

Podcast cover
Read more
On October 7, 2019, The Federalist Society held a panel on The First Amendment at its annual Kentucky Chapters Conference.
From Twitter blocking to Peace Crosses to religious exemptions and commercial speech, the First Amendment remains perhaps the most hotly and frequently contested aspect of constitutional law. Those disputes are playing out in federal and state courts, and under federal and state constitutions. Notions of judicial restraint have long had less purchase when First Amendment claims are at stake, with courts invalidating laws more frequently and offering less deference to legislatures. And in the Twitter era, courts are arguably less guided by traditional arguments from text, original meaning, and precedent than in other contexts. Our panel will take stock of how these debates are playing out in federal and Kentucky courts, and where we can expect the next battle lines to emerge.

Amy D. Cubbage - Ackerson & Yann, PLLC; ACLU of Kentucky Litigation Review Committee
Jesse Panuccio - Former Acting Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
William E. Thro - General Counsel, University of Kentucky
Jonathan D. Urick - Senior Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center
Moderator: Hon. John Nalbandian - U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Nov 04 2019

1hr 7mins

Play

Stare Decisis Panel

Podcast cover
Read more
On October 7, 2019, The Federalist Society held a panel on Stare Decisis at its annual Kentucky Chapters Conference.
This spring, Justice Breyer wrote, in response to the Supreme Court's decision to overrule Nevada v. Hall, "Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next." But is the Roberts Court actually more aggressive in overruling precedents than previous Courts? How does the Kentucky Supreme Court compare? And when should a Court overrule a precedent? This latter question divides many originalists and textualists, in part because it cuts across ideological lines. Our panel will explore these topics, with a focus on the intersection of originalist principles and the principles of stare decisis.

Cassie Chambers Armstrong - Kaplan Johnson Abate & Bird; Vice Chair, Kentucky Democratic Party
Prof. Michael Morley - Assistant Professor, Florida State University College of Law
John Sheller - Stoll Keenon Ogden
Hon. Laurance VanMeter - Kentucky Supreme Court
Moderator: Hon. Amul Thapar - U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Nov 04 2019

1hr 9mins

Play

Fair Trade: Reinvigorating American Leadership in the 21st Century

Podcast cover
Read more

On October 15, 2019, the Federalist Society's International & National Security Law Practice Group hosted a panel at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the panel was "Fair Trade: Reinvigorating American Leadership in the 21st Century".
Many conservative-leaning thinkers and commentators are swift to attack the President’s embrace of tariffs and other tough trade tools. They speak of free trade and exchange, comparative advantage, and market efficiency, but do these critics fundamentally mistake the pre-Trump trade policy status quo for “free trade?” Have unjust trade imbalances and foreign manipulation of trade relationships chipped away at America's economic and security well-being, meaning bold action has been needed to address it?
President Trump argues that though foreign commercial discrimination, regional protectionism, and illegal commercial exploitation have chipped away at our economic and national security, our economy’s sheer size and and strength have largely insulated it from dramatic, sudden effects. But the effects, in the aggregate, over time, have led to a decline in American dominance and self-reliance. The President made a commitment to revivify sectors that have slowly atrophied over the decades, negatively impacting our culture as well as our economy. By engaging vigorously with foreign powers - allies and strategic competitors alike, the President is attempting to send a signal: He wants free trade, but it must also be fair trade. These and other issues will be debated at our event.
*
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Opening Address

Panel Discussion Featuring:

Donald B. Cameron, Jr., Partner, Morris, Manning, & Martin, LLP
Hon. Ronald A. Cass, President, Cass & Associates, PC; Former Commissioner & Vice-Chairman, US International Trade Commission; Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law
Hon. Jeffrey I. Kessler, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce
Moderator: Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Oct 28 2019

1hr 22mins

Play

Laboratories of Democracy, Part 2: Can Congress learn from State Legislatures?

Podcast cover
Read more
The concept of states serving as important test cases for national governance dates to the founding of the country. In part 2 of our series, this panel will discuss how lessons from how different state legislatures operate today could be incorporated to increase the effectiveness of our federal legislature. The panel will begin with a presentation on a study from the Center for Legislative Strengthening at the National Conference of State Legislatures which examines the structures and procedures that have allowed some state legislatures to avoid partisan gridlock.
Featuring:

Hon. Robert Hurt, Vice President and Director, Center for Law and Government at Liberty University; Former Congressman, Virginia's 5th District
Karl Kurtz, Principal, Legis Matters; Coauthor, Republic on Trial: The Case for Representative Democracy
Introduction: William Hild, III, Deputy Director, Article I Initiative and Deputy Director, Regulatory Transparency Project, 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.

Oct 17 2019

1hr 27mins

Play

Supreme Court Preview: What Is in Store for October Term 2019?

Podcast cover
Read more
On October 2, 2019, the Federalist Society hosted a panel discussing the current composition and the future of the Supreme Court. October 7th marked the first day of oral arguments for the 2019 Supreme Court term. The Court's docket already includes major cases involving criminal law, sex discrimination, copyright, DACA and immigration, federal Indian law, and matters of constitutional structure. The full list of cases granted thus far for the upcoming term can be viewed on SCOTUSblog. The panelists will also discuss the current composition and the future of the Court.
Featuring:

Prof. Josh Blackman - Founder and President, Harlan Institute; Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
Megan Brown - Partner, Wiley Rein LLP
Prof. Robert Cottrol - Harold Paul Green Research Professor of Law, George Washington University
Amy Howe - Howe on the Court and reporter, SCOTUSblog
Carrie Severino - Chief Counsel and Policy Director, Judicial Crisis Network
Moderator: Robert Barnes - The Washington Post

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Oct 15 2019

1hr 28mins

Play

Address by Milton Friedman [Archive Collection]

Podcast cover
Read more
On March 7, 1986, The Federalist Society hosted its annual National Student Symposium at Stanford Law School. Professor Emeritus Milton Friedman delivered opening remarks on economics and free speech.
Featuring:

Brian J. Brille, Symposium Director, Stanford Federalist Society
John Hart Ely, Dean, Stanford Law School
Milton Friedman, Professor Emeritus of Economics, University of Chicago

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Oct 03 2019

43mins

Play

Address by President Ronald Reagan [Archive Collection]

Podcast cover
Read more

Oct 03 2019

27mins

Play

Panel Three: Election Issues Roundtable

Podcast cover
Read more

Oct 02 2019

1hr 7mins

Play

Second Annual Gregory S. Coleman Memorial Lecture & Luncheon

Podcast cover
Read more

Oct 02 2019

1hr 4mins

Play

Panel Two: Discussion on Nationwide Injunctions

Podcast cover
Read more

Oct 02 2019

1hr 13mins

Play

Panel One: Proposed Reforms to Texas Judicial Selection

Podcast cover
Read more

Oct 02 2019

1hr 51mins

Play