Cover image of FedSoc Events
(60)
News
Politics

FedSoc Events

Updated 13 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

60 Ratings
Average Ratings
47
7
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

60 Ratings
Average Ratings
47
7
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.
Cover image of FedSoc Events

FedSoc Events

Latest release on May 21, 2020

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.

Rank #1: 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

Rank #2: Panel II: A World Without Chevron?

Podcast cover
Read more
On February 6, 2019, the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative and the Georgetown Student Chapter co-sponsored the first Legislative Branch Review Conference. The second panel speculated on "A World Without Chevron?"
Chevron has come under fire as of late, and the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh has tipped off a new round of speculation as to how the Court might narrow, or even eliminate, the doctrine. But is a world without Chevron desirable? If courts do not defer to agency interpretations of truly ambiguous statutes, should courts decide de novo what they think such ambiguous laws mean? Are there viable alternatives?
Featuring:

Mr. Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Mr. David D. Doniger, Director, Climate & Clean Air Program, Natural Resources Defense Council
Prof. Kristin Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School
Prof. David S. Schoenbrod, Trustee Professor of Law, New York Law School
Moderator: Prof. Jennifer L. Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School
Introduction: Joel Nolette, Litigation Associate, Mintz Levin

As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Mar 06 2019

1hr 20mins

Play

Rank #3: 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

Rank #4: 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

Rank #5: Banquet and Discussion with Justice Clarence Thomas

Podcast cover
Read more

Feb 12 2020

1hr 27mins

Play

Rank #6: 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

Rank #7: Departures from the American Rule on Attorney’s Fees

Podcast cover
Read more
2018 Annual Florida Chapters Conference
Welcome and Opening Remarks:

Elena Crosby - Director of Constituent Services, Office of US Senator -Marco Rubio; Orlando Lawyers Chapter President, The Federalist Society
Hon. Jimmy Patronis - Chief Financial Officer, Florida

Session I: Departures from the American Rule on Attorney’s Fees
Panelists:

Bruce J. Berman – Shareholder, Carlton Fields
Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick – Vanderbilt University Law School
Hinda Klein – Partner, Conroy Simberg
R. Hugh Lumpkin – Managing Partner, Ver Ploeg & Lumpkin
Moderator: Hon. Robert Luck - Third District Court of Appeal, Florida

Remarks:

Hon. Ron DeSantis - U.S. House of Representatives, Florida 6th District
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Feb 26 2018

1hr 55mins

Play

Rank #8: The Regulatory State of the Internet

Podcast cover
Read more
The Internet has dynamically changed the way we live. It touches every sector of the U.S. and global economies. For two decades, it flourished in an environment devoid of heavy-handed regulatory oversight, resulting in $1.5 trillion in investments by Internet Service Providers. However, the FCC dramatically changed course in 2015 when it reclassified broadband as an old style utility regulated under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Earlier this year, the FCC initiated a new proceeding, Restoring Internet Freedom, that proposes to return to the classification of broadband service as a Title I information service. But the legal and policy debate continues with passionate supporters on both sides.Moving forward, how should these tensions be addressed? How should the FCC move forward with its Internet Freedom proceeding? Is there a legislative or regulatory fix? Is there a role for other administrative agencies? Should so called "edge companies" (like Google and Facebook) be regulated differently from Internet Service Providers? Today's panel will explore these and other issues.

Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
Dr. Roslyn Layton, Visiting Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
Hon. Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Acting Chairman, Federal Trade Commission
Mr. Jonathan B. Sallet, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP
Mr. Jonathan Spalter, President & CEO, USTelecom
Dr. Nicol Turner-Lee, Fellow, Governance Studies, Center for Technology Innovation, The Brookings Institution
Moderator: Hon. Stephen F. Williams, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Nov 26 2017

1hr 54mins

Play

Rank #9: 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

Rank #10: Supreme Court Preview: What Is in Store for October Term 2019?

Podcast cover
Read more

Oct 02 2019

1hr 28mins

Play

Rank #11: Session II: Originalism and Textualism in Practice

Podcast cover
Read more

On January 31-February 1, 2020, The Federalist Society's Florida lawyers chapters hosted their annual Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's Yacht and Beach Club Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. The second day of the conference began with a session on the topic of "Originalism and Textualism in Practice".
*
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:

Sarah Harris, Partner, Williams & Connolly
Joe Jacquot, General Counsel, Governor of Florida
Hon. William H. Pryor, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Hon. Sarah H. Warren, Supreme Court of Georgia
Moderator: Jason Gonzalez, Chairman, Appellate Practice Group, Shutts and Bowen LLP; Managing Partner, Shutts & Bowen LLP, Tallahassee

Feb 21 2020

1hr 17mins

Play

Rank #12: 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

Rank #13: Using Judicial Processes for Political Purposes 11-19-2016

Podcast cover
Read more
“Those who won our independence," Justice Brandeis wrote nearly a century ago, “eschewed silence coerced by law – the argument of force in its worst form." They believed that “the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones." Holding that belief, the Founding Generation added an amendment to the Constitution that expressly protects the freedom of speech. Today, however, public officials and private citizens facing what they believe to be “evil counsels" have sometimes responded not by offering good counsel but by invoking judicial processes. They use “the argument of force in its worst form" to silence opinions and speech that they disapprove of. -- Recent examples of this phenomenon include District Attorneys in Texas and Wisconsin who investigated and charged a sitting Governor, the whistleblower who exposed the practices of Planned Parenthood, and those whose political views diverged from those of the District Attorney. In two of those cases, investigators broke into homes and seized computers and documents. Significantly, in each case, the charges were dropped, although not without great angst and effort from the targeted. -- Mark Steyn has asserted that the process is, itself, the punishment. Steyn has been sued by a Penn State climatologist who famously claims that he was defamed when his writings were subjected to ridicule. Four years after the suit was filed, it is still in its preliminary stages. -- Most recently, a coterie of Attorneys General, aided by some senators, have declared their intention to stifle dissent on the subject of climate change. The Attorneys General of Massachusetts and the Virgin Islands sent subpoenas for documents to Exxon and a number of think tanks grounding their action on the contention that the dissenters are guilty of fraud. -- Are these actions appropriate uses of the judicial process? -- What, if anything, can be done to curtail the use of judicial processes to target speech? Are measures like Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation) laws an appropriate response? Are they constitutional? What about a federal anti-SLAPP law? -- It is noteworthy that the worst abuses have taken place in state courts. Should Congress allow removal to federal court when a defendant makes a plausible case that the relief sought would violate rights under the First Amendment? -- Featuring: Prof. Arthur Hellman, Professor of Law, Sally Ann Semenko Endowed Chair, University of Pittsburgh School Law; Hon. Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General, West Virginia; Prof. Patrick A. Parenteau, Senior Counsel, Professor of Law, Vermont Law School; and Ms. Kimberley A. Strassel, Wall Street Journal Editorial Board Member, Author of The Intimidation Game: How the Left is Silencing Free Speech. Moderator: Hon. Steven M. Colloton, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Introduction: Mr. John J. Park, Jr., Of Counsel, Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP.

Nov 24 2016

1hr 25mins

Play

Rank #14: Ninth Annual Rosenkranz Debate: Hostile Environment Law and the First Amendment 11-19-2016

Podcast cover
Read more
RESOLVED: Hostile Environment Law, On and Off Campus, Often Violates the First Amendment. -- The Ninth Annual Rosenkranz Debate was held on November 19, 2016, during The Federalist Society's 2016 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Prof. Deborah L. Rhode, Ernest W. McFarland Professor of Law; Director, Center on the Legal Profession; Director, Program in Law and Social Entrepreneurship, Stanford Law School and Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Jennifer W. Elrod, U.S Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society.

Nov 24 2016

1hr 8mins

Play

Rank #15: 80th Anniversary of the National Labor Relations Act & Congressional Action 11-12-2015

Podcast cover
Read more
Our nation's private sector labor law is a product of the New Deal and the industrial age. In its first edition, the 1935 Wagner Act, employee rights to organize were recognized and employer unfair labor practices were defined. Twelve years later, the pendulum swung and union unfair labor practices were added to the Act. To address corruption, the 1959 Landrum-Griffin Act was enacted to require labor organizations, employers, and labor relations consultants to file annual reports, and union members were granted a Bill of Rights. The NLRA was last amended in 1974, addressing the health care industry. -- Over the past 80 years, our nation's economy, indeed, the global economy, has changed significantly. While some efforts have been made over the last four decades to amend federal labor law, none have succeeded. To fill the vacuum, the National Labor Relations Board has stepped in as what some would describe as a quasi-legislature, issuing decisions and rules reflecting the Board's political majority's bias to circumvent Congressional deadlock. -- Should labor law be viewed as a vehicle to restore organized labor's density of 60+ years ago or to ensure employee rights to join or not join a labor union? Or, should labor law be overhauled to ensure labor unions' presence globally and to empower organized labor to affect or determine global work standards and business models generally? And, should labor law be politically aligned with one party? Is labor law about the American citizen/worker or about organized labor's institutional survival? -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, November 12, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law. Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law; Hon. John N. Raudabaugh, Reed Larson Professor of Labor Law, Ave Maria School of Law; Mr. Bill Samuel, Director of Government Affairs, AFL-CIO; and Mr. Mark Schneider, General Counsel, Int'l Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Moderator: Hon. Joan L. Larsen, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of Michigan.

Nov 17 2015

1hr 26mins

Play

Rank #16: What's Next for Fannie, Freddie, and Housing Finance Reform?

Podcast cover
Read more

On December 10, 2019, the Regulatory Transparency Project hosted an event at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. The title of the event was "What's Next for Fannie, Freddie, and Housing Finance Reform?"
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) oversees the administration of both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. What's next for the agency? What are the priorities that the agency should be pursuing?
*
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:

Mark Calabria, Federal Housing Finance Agency
Edward Pinto, American Enterprise Institute
Peter Wallison, American Enterprise Institute
Moderator: Alex Pollock, US Department of the Treasury

Dec 21 2019

1hr 32mins

Play

Rank #17: Litigating State Constitutional Issues 1-28-2017

Podcast cover
Read more
The past forty years have seen a surge in efforts to litigate under state constitutional provisions furthering individual liberties. Panelists could look to numerous examples of differences between the state and federal constitutions (examples include criminal justice, property rights, same-sex marriage, education/school choice, labor, speech, and economic liberty) and explore how such differences have affected litigation strategy and forum shopping. Which emerging controversies are ripe to be litigated in state courts as opposed to the federal courts? What about business and arbitration cases? In the light of the results of the 2016 election, might some litigators further turn to the state courts to best protect liberty in light of changes to the federal bench? -- 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. -- Litigating State Constitutional Issues -- Thomas F. Ahearne, Foster Pepper and Counsel to Plaintiffs, McCleary v. State; Paul Avelar, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice; and Jeremy Rosen, Partner, Horvitz & Levy LLP and Director, 9th Circuit Appellate Clinic, Pepperdine University School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Carolyn Kuhl, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Introduction: Joel Ard, Member, Foster Pepper PLLC and Carrie Ann Donnell, Legal Programs Director, Goldwater Institute.

Feb 06 2017

1hr 30mins

Play

Rank #18: Panel IV: The Open-Ended Clauses of the Constitution: Due Process, Privileges or Immunities, the Guarantee Clause and the Ninth Amendment

Podcast cover
Read more

On January 30-31, 1987, the Federalist Society hosted its annual National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the convention was "Changing the Law: The Role of Lawyers, Judges, and Legislators". The fourth panel occurred on the second day of the convention, discussing "The Open-Ended Clauses of the Constitution: Due Process, Privileges or Immunities, the Guarantee Clause and the Ninth Amendment".
Featuring:

Prof. Lino Graglia, University of Texas Law School
Floyd Abrams, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel
Hon. Alex Kozinski, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Morton Halperin, ACLU
Moderator: Hon. Stephen Williams, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
Introduction: William Bradford Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General of the United States

*
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Mar 19 2020

1hr 46mins

Play

Rank #19: The Administrative State and Its Discontents

Podcast cover
Read more
How much leeway do agencies have in implementing federal law? What is the source of this leeway? In whom is it vested? What is the remedy for exceeding it? What are the consequences of exceeding it?Administrative agencies are comprised of numerous components and employ tens of thousands of individuals with different ideas about what the law requires and what policies best serve the public interest. Individually or collectively, agency officials may disagree with all or parts of congressionally-enacted laws, with regulations properly adopted by prior administrations, or with the regulatory and enforcement priorities of politically-appointed agency leaders. They may even question the legitimacy of those political appointments. Government resources are finite: both enforcement priorities and resource allocation decisions are primarily within the authority of the Executive Branch. Does permitting agency personnel, whether high ranking or low, to decide to selectively enforce or not enforce laws on the basis of their policy preferences or perceptions of legitimacy turn our government away from the rule of law and toward the rule of man? What can agency personnel do when their agency refuses to administer laws for which it is responsible, or enforces laws they consider unlawful or ill advised? What recourse do Congress or the courts have if the Executive Branch will not follow their commands?

Prof. Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Director of the Constitutional Law Center; Stanford Law School and Senior Fellow, Hoover Institute
Mr. Stuart S. Taylor Jr., Contributing Editor, National Journal
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
Prof. Michael Uhlmann, Professor of Government, Claremont Graduate University
Moderator: Hon. A. Raymond Randolph, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Nov 22 2017

6mins

Play

Rank #20: Checking the Executive: The Importance of Congressional Oversight

Podcast cover
Read more
The Constitution does not explicitly grant Congress the authority to conduct inquiries or investigations of the Executive branch. However, oversight authority is inherent in many facets of the Legislature's duties and responsibilities. The Supreme Court confirmed this in McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927) stating:
A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change, and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information -- which not infrequently is true -- recourse must be had to others who do possess it. Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete, so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed. Id. at p.175.
From legislating and appropriating to confirmation, impeachment, and war, Congress’ ability to compel information and properly supervise federal activity and policy implementation is essential to its nature.
Throughout the history of our country, Congress has exercised oversight via numerous means such as committee hearings, direct Member contact, staff studies and casework, statutory commissions and inspector general reports. Through these methods and others, Congress endeavors to ensure faithful execution of Congressional intent, monitor the efficacy and efficiency of federal programs, protect legislative authority from Executive encroachment, investigate waste, fraud and abuse, assess agency management and financial priorities, and safeguard individual liberties.
In recent decades some have observed that the federal growth of agencies, programs, debt, political polarization, and divided government have greatly intensified the environment in which oversight occurs. They assert that oversight has become weaponized and too partisan. Others lament the use of federal time and energy for “show hearings” designed to embarrass individuals or score purely political points. This panel will explore the current oversight landscape, compare it with prior eras, and offer insight for how it may be improved.
Featuring:
Michael D. Bopp, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Machalagh Carr, Oversight Staff Director, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives
Hon. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Moderator: Amanda Neely, General Counsel for Senator Rob Portman, and Deputy Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

Jan 05 2018

1hr 2mins

Play

Luncheon and Address by William H. Webster [Archive Collection]

Podcast cover
Read more

May 21 2020

33mins

Play

Panel V: The Virtues and Vices of Democracy in Conducting Foreign Affairs [Archive Collection]

Podcast cover
Read more

On November 6-7, 1987, The Federalist Society held a symposium at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Washington, DC on "Foreign Affairs and The Constitution: The Roles of Congress, The President, and The Courts". This panel was titled "The Virtues and Vices of Democracy in Conducting Foreign Policy".
Featuring:

Irving Kristol, The Public Interest
Prof. Gordon Tullock, University of Arizona College of Business and Public Administration
Godfrey Hodgson, Author
Moderator: Charles Krauthammer, The New Republic

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

May 14 2020

1hr 20mins

Play

Luncheon and Address by John Norton Moore [Archive Collection]

Podcast cover
Read more

May 07 2020

35mins

Play

Restoring the Legislative Power to Congress: The Role of the Nondelegation Doctrine and Legislative Vetoes

Podcast cover
Read more
The Eighth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference was held on April 28, 2020 via an online webinar. The final panel was titled "Restoring the Legislative Power: The Role of Nondelegation Doctrine and Legislative Vetoes"
In Federalist Paper No. 51, James Madison argued that a system of checks and balances between the federal branches of government was vital to the health and safety of our constitutional republic. While discussing how the relationship between these separate branches of government should endure, he specifically highlighted the Legislative branch by saying “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” Many in the realm of Constitutional law and governmental policy have argued the balance of power has shifted from the legislature, rendering it less powerful than the founding fathers intended. Some argue this power has been ceded largely to the Executive branch, arguing for more aggressive use of the legislative veto to keep the Executive branch in check. Others argue that the gradual weakening of the non-delegation doctrine has led to the administrative state usurping much of the power once thought solely in the realm of congressional authority. Proponents of the administrative state and of the Executive branch believe these changes are merely a reflection of modern times, and that Congress still has significant and final authority over federal law.
This elite panel of experts will explore the issue in depth, touching on various aspects of the debate, and presenting a wide variety of viewpoints. The panel subject matter promises both to be enlightening and educational for lawyers and policy makers alike.
Featuring:

Prof. Jack Beermann, Harry Elwood Warren Scholar and Professor of Law, Boston University Law School
Prof. Michael B. Rappaport, Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Professor of Law; Director, Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism, University of San Diego School of Law
Prof. David S. Schoenbrod, Trustee Professor of Law, New York Law School
Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law; Director, Washington, D.C., Summer Program, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
Moderator: Mr. Thomas G. Hungar, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Introduction: Dean 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.

May 02 2020

1hr 1min

Play

Restoring Judicial Power: Righting the Ship of Judicial Review and Deference Doctrines

Podcast cover
Read more
The Eighth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference was held on April 28, 2020 via an online webinar. The second panel was titled "Restoring Judicial Power: Righting the Ship of Judicial Review and Deference Doctrines."
One aspect of almost all constitutional systems is judicial deference, which could be loosely defined as the concept that certain matters are best decided by entities other than the judiciary. While nearly all agree that some level of judicial deference is necessary in our current constitutional system, the extent to which the Judiciary should practice deference remains a highly complex and controversial area of constitutional law. During the past several decades, the rise of the administrative state in the federal government has only added fuel to this ongoing legal debate. On one side, many believe that the administrative state is better equipped to deal with particular matters, because members of the administrative state will have more expertise in specific subject matter areas than federal judges. Many of these proponents of deference support Supreme Court cases that carved out the well-known deference doctrines of Chevron and Auer. On the other hand, skeptics of excessive judicial deference criticize much of the Supreme Court’s related jurisprudence. They instead argue that the increasing number of "cases and controversies" decided by regulators, enforcers, and adjudicative bodies within the administrative state, that are neither elected nor directly subject to the political process, has led to a less democratic form of government in America. Proponents of judicial power taking a less deferential approach believe that a strong doctrine of judicial review is a vital way to ensure that we truly have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. That said, is there a way to prevent a less-deferential judiciary from becoming overly ambitious?
This distinguished panel of experts will be discussing and debating this controversial and engaging issue. The panel will provide helpful information to attorneys practicing many fields of law, in particular, attorneys working in administrative, constitutional, and regulatory law.
Featuring:

Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law and President, Cass & Associates, PC
Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor, Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School
Prof. Sally Katzen, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence; Co-Director of the Legislative and Regulatory Process Clinic, New York University School of Law
Dean Alan B. Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service Law; Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law School
Hon. Beth A. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice
Moderator: Dean 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.

May 02 2020

1hr 3mins

Play

Restoring the Executive Power: Revisiting Humphrey's Executor, Reviving the Unitary Executive

Podcast cover
Read more
The Eighth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference was held on April 28, 2020 via an online webinar. The first panel was titled "Restoring the Executive Power: Revisiting Humphrey's Executor, Reviving the Unitary Executive."
In public discourse, the visibility and prominence of the presidency has flourished in recent decades in America. However, while the visibility of the presidency has increased, some worry that the actual power and influence of the presidency gradually has been surrendered to much less visible levers of governmental power. The ever-increasing power of the administrative state and the influence of independent agencies has caused many legal experts and policy makers to question whether the presidency has retained all the powers of the executive branch the founding fathers intended. The President surely exercises some control over significant agency heads, but has Presidential control over the agencies themselves weakened? Is the President’s control over independent agencies too attenuated? Proponents of greater executive power argue that the administrative state has grown so large it can stymie a newly elected president’s agenda, which leads to a less democratic form of government. In light of these concerns, should the Supreme Court revisit Humphrey's Executor, and give the President more control over federal agencies? As a practical matter, if agency power is reduced, what ought to fill the void of policy-making and enforcement?
Our distinguished panel of experts will attempt to answer that question, and will delve into multiple sides of this controversial and complex debate.
Featuring:

Hon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and former White House Counsel
Hon. Steven A. Engel, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice
Mr. Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, and former Acting Associate Attorney General, United States Department of Justice
Moderator: Dean 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.

May 02 2020

58mins

Play

Panel V: The Role and Relevance of the Amendment Process [Archive Collection]

Podcast cover
Read more

On March 4-5, 1988, The Federalist Society's University of Virginia student chapter hosted the National Student Symposium in Charlottesville, Virginia. The topic of the conference was "Are There Unenumerated Constitutional Rights? The final panel of the conference discussed "The Role and Relevance of the Amendment Process".
Featuring:

Prof. Akhil Amar, Yale University Law School
Stephen Markman, U.S. Department of Justice
Moderator: Hon. Frank Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

*
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Apr 17 2020

50mins

Play

Should Big Tech Platforms Be Viewpoint Neutral? Should the Government Care?

Podcast cover
Read more

On March 4, 2020, the Regulatory Transparency Project sponsored a symposium with the University of Pennsylvania Federalist Society student chapter. The second panel of the symposium was titled "Should Social Media Platforms Be Viewpoint Neutral? Should the Government Care?"
Featuring:

Adam Candeub, Michigan State University College of Law
Carrie Goldberg, C. A. Goldberg PLLC
Arthur Milikh, Heritage Foundation
Nadine Strossen, New York Law School
Moderator: Neil Chilson, Charles Koch Institute

*
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Apr 10 2020

1hr 19mins

Play

Do We Need to Rethink Antitrust for Big Tech?

Podcast cover
Read more

On March 4, 2020, the Regulatory Transparency Project sponsored a symposium with the University of Pennsylvania Federalist Society student chapter. The first panel of the symposium was titled "Do We Need to Rethink Antitrust for Big Tech?"
Featuring:

Roger Alford, Notre Dame University
Jay Himes, Labaton Sucharow LLP
Salil Mehra, Temple University School of Law
Moderator: Christopher Yoo, University of Pennsylvania Carey School of Law

*
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Apr 10 2020

1hr 21mins

Play

Luncheon Address by Edwin Meese [Archive Collection]

Podcast cover
Read more

On September 9-10, 1988, The Federalist Society held its annual National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. This Luncheon Address was presented by former Attorney General, Edwin Meese III, on the second day of the conference.
Featuring:

Hon. Edwin Meese III, former Attorney General of the United States
Introduction: Steven Calabresi, 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.

Apr 02 2020

36mins

Play

The Third Annual Joseph Story Award

Podcast cover
Read more
On March 14, 2020, the Federalist Society held its 39th National Student Symposium. The Symposium was originally scheduled to be held at the University of Michigan's Law School but was rescheduled as a digital conference. The 2020 Story Award was presented to Professor Stephen E. Sachs of Duke University School of Law.
Featuring:

Prof. Stephen E. Sachs, Professor of Law, Duke University School 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.

Learn more about the Joseph Story Award:https://fedsoc.org/joseph-story-award
FedSoc Blog: The 2020 Joseph Story Awardhttps://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/the-2020-joseph-story-award
FedSoc Blog: Remarks from the 2020 Joseph Story Awardhttps://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/remarks-from-the-2020-joseph-story-award

Mar 30 2020

5mins

Play

Panel IV: Originalism and Interstate Relations

Podcast cover
Read more

On March 14, 2020, the Federalist Society held its 39th National Student Symposium. The Symposium was originally scheduled to be held at the University of Michigan's Law School but was rescheduled as a digital conference. The fourth panel discussed "Originalism and Interstate Relations"
The Constitution famously says very little about interstate relations. Writing for the Court in Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt, Justice Thomas suggested that the Constitution “reflects implicit alterations to the States’ relationships with each other, confirming that they are no longer fully independent nations.” How much of the law of interstate relations is truly settled by the Constitution? As for the rest, what kind of law governs instead? Is it federal or state, general or international, written or unwritten? And what does it provide?
This panel examines what originalism has to say, if anything, about questions of “horizontal federalism”—such as personal jurisdiction, choice of law, full faith and credit, extraterritorial regulation, state borders, sovereign immunity, and other areas of interstate dispute. How did the Founders understand these questions, either before the Constitution or after? What duties do the fifty states owe one another? And what are the roles of Congress and the courts in determining the answers?

Prof. William P. Baude, Professor of Law and Aaron Director Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law School
Prof. Douglas Laycock, Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Stephen E. Sachs, Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law
Moderator: Hon. David R. Stras, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth 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.

Mar 30 2020

1hr 39mins

Play

Panel III: Do Changing Norms Undermine Support for Our System of Government?

Podcast cover
Read more

On March 14, 2020, the Federalist Society held its 39th National Student Symposium. The Symposium was originally scheduled to be held at the University of Michigan's Law School but was rescheduled as a digital conference. The third panel discussed the question "Do Changing Norms Undermine Support for Our System of Government?".
Norms range from having quasi-constitutional force to simply being generally accepted modes of conduct that are more easily broken. Such norms include: The Supreme Court has nine members; Congress invites the President for the State of the Union message; the Senate acts on nominees; children are left alone in political campaigns; and the press ignores old sexual peccadilloes. In the area of congressional action, major new legislation historically required bipartisan support, but this did not occur with the Affordable Care Act. There are now battles over recess appointments for political purposes as opposed to the practical purpose of filling positions when Congress is in recess. Is there generally less self-restraint and more willingness to achieve short-term goals by whatever means with less respect for process? If so, does that pose a serious threat to our Constitution, and what might be done about it?

Prof. David E. Bernstein, University Professor and the Executive Director, Liberty & Law Center, Antonin Scalia Law School
Dean Vikram D. Amar, Dean and Iwan Foundation Professor of Law, University of Illinois College of Law
Prof. Keith E. Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University
Dean Evan H. Caminker, Dean Emeritus and Branch Rickey Collegiate Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Moderator: Hon. Chad A. Readler, United States 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 speakers.

Mar 30 2020

1hr 45mins

Play

Keynote Address by Hon. Paul D. Clement

Podcast cover
Read more

On March 14, 2020, the Federalist Society held its 39th National Student Symposium. The Symposium was originally scheduled to be held at the University of Michigan's Law School but was rescheduled as a digital conference. Hon. Paul D. Clement offered the keynote address.
Featuring:

Hon. Paul D. Clement, Former Solicitor General of the United States; Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Distinguished‎ Lecturer in Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President and CEO, 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.

Mar 30 2020

32mins

Play

Panel II: The Proper Role of the Senate

Podcast cover
Read more

On March 14, 2020, the Federalist Society held its 39th National Student Symposium. The Symposium was originally scheduled to be held at the University of Michigan's Law School but was rescheduled as a digital conference. The second panel explored "The Proper Role of the Senate".
Much has changed concerning the Senate since the adoption of the Constitution. It is now directly elected. The nature of its power has changed with the passage of the 16th Amendment. And its unique role in confirmations and treaties and the nature of its role protecting smaller states all have undergone much discussion. The Senate has always played a key role in balancing purely democratic power. It has also protected the states and possibly served to defuse otherwise hostile geographical battles. Does or should this role change in our modern democracy? If so, how?

Prof. Lynn A. Baker, Frederick M. Baron Chair in Law and Co-Director of the Center on Lawyers, Civil Justice and the Media, University of Texas at Austin School of Law
Prof. Sanford V. Levinson, W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair in Law, University of Texas at Austin School of Law
Ms. Amanda Neely, General Counsel, Office of Senator Rob Portman
Prof. John Yoo, Emanuel Heller Professor of Law and director of the Korea Law Center, University of California at Berkeley School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Raymond M. Kethledge, United States 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 speakers.

Mar 30 2020

1hr 44mins

Play

Panel I: The Compact Clause

Podcast cover
Read more

On March 14, 2020, the Federalist Society held its 39th National Student Symposium. The Symposium was originally scheduled to be held at the University of Michigan's Law School but was rescheduled as a digital conference. The first panel covered The Compact Clause.
The Compact Clause has received extra attention recently because of the Electoral College and the proposed state compact concerning the popular vote, but that is far from the only use of the compact clause. There are currently 200 active interstate compacts ranging from the significant to the almost trivial. The environment, metropolitan transportation authorities, and waterways are a few major areas where compacts are frequent. What can compacts properly cover? When are they constitutionally forbidden? When permitted, when do they promote good public policy, and what are the dangers posed by their use?

Prof. Michael S. Greve, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School
Prof. Roderick M. Hills, Jr., William T. Comfort, III Professor of Law, New York University School of Law
Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Moderator: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President and CEO, 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.

Mar 30 2020

1hr 38mins

Play

Workshop on Problems of Insider Trading and Merger Regulations [Archive Collection]

Podcast cover
Read more

On January 30-31, 1987, the Federalist Society hosted its annual National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the convention was "Changing the Law: The Role of Lawyers, Judges, and Legislators". The final panel of the convention was a "Workshop on Problems of Insider Trading and Merger Regulations".
Featuring:

Dean Henry Manne, George Mason University Law School
Joseph Grundfest, Commissioner, Securities Exchange Commission
Hon. Pasco Bowman, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Prof. Saul Levmore, Yale Law School
Moderator: John Bolton, Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Office of Legislative Affairs
Introduction: William Bradford Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General of the United States

*
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Mar 26 2020

1hr 45mins

Play

Panel IV: The Open-Ended Clauses of the Constitution: Due Process, Privileges or Immunities, the Guarantee Clause and the Ninth Amendment

Podcast cover
Read more

On January 30-31, 1987, the Federalist Society hosted its annual National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the convention was "Changing the Law: The Role of Lawyers, Judges, and Legislators". The fourth panel occurred on the second day of the convention, discussing "The Open-Ended Clauses of the Constitution: Due Process, Privileges or Immunities, the Guarantee Clause and the Ninth Amendment".
Featuring:

Prof. Lino Graglia, University of Texas Law School
Floyd Abrams, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel
Hon. Alex Kozinski, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Morton Halperin, ACLU
Moderator: Hon. Stephen Williams, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
Introduction: William Bradford Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General of the United States

*
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Mar 19 2020

1hr 46mins

Play

Panel III: Precedent, The Amendment Process, and Evolution in Constitutional Doctrine [Archive Collection]

Podcast cover
Read more

Mar 12 2020

1hr 39mins

Play

Banquet Speech by Attorney General Edwin Meese III [Archive Collection]

Podcast cover
Read more
On January 30, 1987, the Federalist Society hosted its annual National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. Attorney General Edwin Meese III delivered the keynote speech.

Master of Ceremonies: T. Kenneth Cribb, Presidential Advisor, Domestic Affairs
Introduction: William Bradford Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General of the United States
Hon. Edwin Meese III, Attorney General of the United States

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

Feb 28 2020

42mins

Play

iTunes Ratings

60 Ratings
Average Ratings
47
7
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.