Justice Scalia on Federalism and Separation of Powers 11-17-2016
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.
23 Nov 2016
Rules Versus Standards in Constitutional and Statutory Interpretation [Showcase Panel II] 11-18-2016
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.
23 Nov 2016
Prosecutors Run Amok? 11-14-2015
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.
19 Nov 2015
Conversation with State Supreme Court Justices 1-28-2017
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.
6 Feb 2017
Most Popular Podcasts
Constitutionality of Administrative Law Judges at the SEC and Elsewhere 11-12-2015
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.
17 Nov 2015
Using Judicial Processes for Political Purposes 11-19-2016
“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.
24 Nov 2016
Ninth Annual Rosenkranz Debate: Hostile Environment Law and the First Amendment 11-19-2016
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.
24 Nov 2016
80th Anniversary of the National Labor Relations Act & Congressional Action 11-12-2015
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.
17 Nov 2015
Litigating State Constitutional Issues 1-28-2017
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.
6 Feb 2017
What is Congress Doing to Reassert its Power Over Agencies? 5-17-2017
The Fifth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference will examine the changing and often convoluted relationship between the legislative and the executive branches in the United States government. The Conference began with an opening address by Senator Mike Lee and concluded with a closing address by OMB Director Mick Mulvaney. -- This panel of the 2017 Executive Branch Review Conference was held at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. on May 17, 2017. -- Featuring: Hon. Todd F. Gaziano, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Law and Executive Director of Pacific Legal Foundation's DC Center; Hon. David M. McIntosh, President, Club for Growth and Vice Chairman, The Federalist Society; and Prof. David C. Vladeck, A.B. Chettle Chair in Civil Procedure, Georgetown University Law Center. Moderator: Mr. Stuart S. Taylor, Jr., Contributing Editor, National Journal.
7 Jun 2017
Campaign Finance and Free Speech 3-4-2017
Congress' passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 did not end the debate on campaign finance. Instead, it arguably created more legal questions than it did answers. -- The Act's passage quickly unleashed subsequent litigation, resulting in a number of Supreme Court decisions directly related to the BCRA and, more broadly, to general laws regulating campaign finance. These recent Supreme Court cases, including the much-discussed Citizens United decision, struck down many campaign regulations on the grounds that they infringe upon individuals' First Amendment rights. Some have charged that decisions like these have increased the influence of a privileged few in our political system. Others have argued that these decisions are not only doctrinally correct, but the prudential fears many have expressed have not been borne out. -- Still, Americans remain discontented with the current campaign finance regime. According to a New York Times/CBS News poll in 2015, 46% of respondents agree that the country needs to completely rebuild its campaign finance system, while 39% believed it requires fundamental change. Today, groups and individuals continue to fight limits on political contributions, and restrictions on political speech, while others push for stricter regulations. -- This panel will weigh in on whether decisions like Citizens United are correct as a matter of law, and if they are desirable from a policy perspective. The panel will also discuss the jurisprudential foundations of Citizens United—including the landmark case of Buckley v. Valeo—and where future fights over campaign finance regulations are likely to occur. -- This panel was presented at the 2017 National Student Symposium on Saturday, March 4, 2017, at Columbia Law School in New York City, New York. -- Featuring: Prof. Brad Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law, Capital University Law School; Former FEC Commissioner; Prof. Richard Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law; Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University School of Law; and Prof. Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Fellow, Brennan Center for Justice; Associate Professor of Law, Stetson University College of Law. Moderator: Hon. Richard J. Sullivan, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York.
15 Mar 2017
The Evolution of Justice Scalia's Views on Administrative Law 11-19-2016
For all of his many contributions to modern American jurisprudence, no area of law bears Justice Scalia's imprint more than administrative law. Indeed, he dedicated his entire career to it: from teaching at Virginia and Chicago, to serving in the Ford Administration, to his regulatory policy and legal writings at the American Enterprise Institute, to his service on the D.C. Circuit and ultimately the Supreme Court, he left a body of work unmatched by any modern Supreme Court justice. Whether writing in defense of particular doctrine or in criticism of it, his opinions and essays fundamentally shaped modern administrative law. Yet even late in his career, he continued to reflect and rethink his views, especially on questions such as Chevron deference and Seminole Rock deference. This panel collects some of the nation's most significant administrative law minds, to reflect on his legacy and evolution. -- This panel was held on November 19, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. Ronald A. Cass, President, Cass & Associates, PC and Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law; Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Prof. E. Donald Elliott, Senior of Counsel at Covington & Burling, Professor (Adjunct) of Law, Yale Law School; and Prof. Lisa Heinzerling, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Moderator: Mr. Eugene Scalia, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. Introduction: Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor, PLLC.
24 Nov 2016
Eighth Annual Rosenkranz Debate- The Constitution and Morality - 11-14-2015
The Eighth Annual Rosenkranz Debate was held on November 14, 2015, during The Federalist Society's 2015 National Lawyers Convention. RESOLVED: The Constitution is designed for a moral and religious people and it's wholly unsuited for the government of any other. -- Featuring: Prof. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University and Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University School of Law. Moderator: Hon. William H. Pryor Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalsit Society.
19 Nov 2015
Justice Scalia's Jurisprudence and National Security 11-8-2016
This panel will consider Justice Scalia's legacy in national security law, revisiting his opinions in major national security cases, including Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and Boumediene v. Bush. It will also discuss the influence Justice Scalia's jurisprudence has exerted on national security law more broadly and his views on the role of the courts reviewing national security policy. -- This panel was held on November 18, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Bradford R. Clark, William Cranch Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School; Ms. Elizabeth Goitein, Co-Director, Liberty & National Security Program, Brennan Center for Justice; Mr. Adam Klein, Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security; and Prof. Stephen I. Vladeck, Professor of Law, The University of Texas at Austin School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Jerry E. Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
23 Nov 2016
Examination of the Obama Administration’s Protection of Religious Liberty 11-12-2015
With the U.S. Supreme Court cert grant in the Little Sisters of the Poor case, religious liberties is once again in the legal and media spotlight. What is the recent record of the government in protecting religious liberty? Our panel will discuss everything from the contraceptive mandate and its exemptions to ministerial hiring, RLUPA, the faith-based initiative, the Planned Parenthood controversy, and everything in between. -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, November 12, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Dr. Stanley Carlson-Thies, Founder & Senior Director, Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance; Mr. William P. Marshall, William Rand Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law; Mr. William L. Saunders, Senior Vice President of Legal Affairs, Americans United for Life; and Mr. Adam J. White, Counsel, Boyden Gray & Associates. Moderator: Hon. Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
18 Nov 2015
Ferguson, Baltimore, and Criminal Justice Reform 11-13-2015
Criminal justice and policing reform are much in the news lately, sparked by events that garner national media coverage. This panel will assess the need for reform, and the road forward. How do media narratives about policing square with the empirical evidence? What are the most effective methods of policing, and how can they best be promoted? What is the proper way to balance police activity and the crime rate? In the current atmosphere, is legitimate police activity chilled? Must law enforcement officers responding to calls pause to consider their potential personal liability? -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 13, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. Arthur Loevy, Partner, Loevy & Loevy; Mr. Tim Lynch, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, The Cato Institute; Dr. David B. Muhlhausen, Research Fellow in Empirical Policy Analysis, Center for Data Analysis, The Heritage Foundation; Mr. Michael P. Tremoglie, Former Philadelphia Police Officer; and Mr. Robert L. Woodson, Sr., Founder and President, Center for Neighborhood Enterprise. Moderator: Hon. David Stras, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of Minnesota. Introduction: Hon. Gail Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law.
18 Nov 2015
Address by Senator Ted Cruz 11-18-2016
Senator Ted Cruz delivered this address at the 2016 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 18, 2016. He was introduced by Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups at The Federalist Society.
23 Nov 2016
Young Legal Scholars Paper Presentations - 1-5-2017
This panel was held on January 5, 2017 during the 19th Annual Faculty Conference in San Francisco, CA. -- Young Legal Scholars Paper Presentations -- Prof. Daniel Hemel (University of Chicago Law School) & Prof. Aaron Nielson (Brigham Young University School of Law): "Chevron Step One-and-a-Half"; Prof. Ryan Holte (Southern Illinois College of Law) & Prof. Christopher Seaman (Washington & Lee University School of Law): “Patent Injunctions on Appeal: An Empirical Study of the Federal Circuit’s Application of eBay”; Prof. Stephen Sachs (Duke Law School): “Pennoyer Was Right: Jurisdiction and General Law”; Prof. Christopher Walker (Ohio State University College of Law): “Legislating in the Shadows”; and Mr. Ilan Wurman (Winston & Strawn): “As-Applied Nondelegation”. Commenter: Prof. Richard Epstein, New York University School of Law, University of Chicago Law School. Moderator: Prof. Amy Coney Barrett, Notre Dame Law School.
23 Jan 2017
Florida and the Future of Trade Policy 2-4-2017
This panel, Florida and the Future of Trade Policy, was held on February 4, 2017, at the 2017 Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's BoardWalk Inn at the Walt Disney World® Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. -- Featuring: Alice Ancona, Director of Global Outreach for the Florida Chamber of Commerce; Stephen Ezell, Vice President, Global Innovation Policy, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation; Dr. Thomas Palley, Senior Economic Policy Advisor, AFL-CIO; and Bryan Riley, Jay Van Andel Senior Policy Analyst, Trade Policy, The Heritage Foundation. Moderator: Judge Jonathan Gerber, Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal. Introduction: Morgan W. Streetman, Founder and Principal, Streetman Law. Remarks: Daniel Woodring, Principal Attorney, Woodring Law Firm.
10 Feb 2017
The Legacy of Justice Scalia 2-3-2017
This panel, The Legacy of Justice Scalia, was held on February 3, 2017, at the 2017 Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's BoardWalk Inn at the Walt Disney World® Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. -- Featuring: Prof. John Baker, Professor Emeritus, LSU Law Center; Rachel Kovner, Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States; Prof. Michael Morley, Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law, Barry University; and Hon. Jeff Sutton, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Moderator: Hon. Ricky Polston, Justice, Florida Supreme Court. Introduction: Jordan E. Pratt, Deputy Solicitor General, Florida Office of the Attorney General.
10 Feb 2017