Cover image of FedSoc Events
(60)
News
Politics

FedSoc Events

Updated 2 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 Sep 22, 2020

The Best Episodes Ranked Using User Listens

Updated by OwlTail 2 days ago

Rank #1: 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

Rank #2: 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

Rank #3: 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 #4: 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 #5: 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 #6: 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 #7: 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

Rank #8: Panel 1: The Original Understanding of “Privileges or Immunities”

Podcast cover
Read more
On March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The first panel discussed "The Original Understanding of 'Privileges of Immunities'".
Scholars contest the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1873, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to state economic regulations under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the Slaughter-House Cases. Since then, the Privileges or Immunities Clause has been best known as a “practical nullity.” However, Justice Thomas provided a strong challenge to this interpretation in his McDonald v. City of Chicago concurrence.
This panel explores whether the Fourteenth Amendment was principally concerned with equality, guaranteeing fundamental rights, or both. If the Fourteenth Amendment does guarantee fundamental rights, does it merely incorporate the bill of rights against the states, or does it do more and provide protections for economic liberty? And was the Amendment intended to accomplish these purposes through a substantive notion of “due process” or through the Privileges or Immunities Clause? Is the fundamental-rights view inconsistent with judicial restraint? This panel will discuss these fundamental questions concerning the Fourteenth Amendment’s original meaning, and whether maintaining an expansive notion of substantive due process or resurrecting the Privileges or Immunities Clause would be an ill-conceived invitation to judicial activism.

Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown Law
Prof. Kurt T. Lash, E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of Law
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Visiting Assistant Professor, ASU Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law
Prof. Rebecca E. Zietlow, Charles W. Fornoff Professor of Law and Values, University of Toledo College of Law
Moderator: Judge Amul R. Thapar, 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.

Apr 17 2019

1hr 47mins

Play

Rank #9: Luncheon Debate: Resolved: The Supreme Court Should Overrule Qualified Immunity

Podcast cover
Read more
On January 3, 2019, the Federalist Society hosted a luncheon debate on qualified immunity. The debate was a part of the 21st Annual Faculty Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Featuring:

William Baude, University of Chicago Law School
Christopher Walker, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
Moderator: Tara Leigh Grove, William & Mary Law School

Jan 30 2019

1hr 16mins

Play

Rank #10: Banquet and Discussion with Justice Clarence Thomas

Podcast cover
Read more

Feb 12 2020

1hr 27mins

Play

Rank #11: 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 #12: The Future of Antitrust: Is the Consumer Welfare Standard Still Up to the Task or Is It Time for a 'Better Deal'?

Podcast cover
Read more
As an advisor to Woodrow Wilson, Louis Brandeis observed that “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." Concerns about market concentration – with particular focus on the tech sector and such issues as use of, and access to, consumer data – have generated renewed interest in a Brandeisian approach, which has also found its way into the Democratic Party's “Better Deal." Has the time come for this New Brandeis Movement or is it merely, as others would have it, “hipster antitrust"? Should antitrust enforcement encompass such concerns as jobs, wages, data privacy, and viewpoint diversity in media, or is the consumer welfare standard's narrower focus on prices and consumer choice still appropriate? Would broadening antitrust's mandate raise rule of law concerns? And is this a genuinely new debate or is it a return to the familiar concern that “antitrust dosesn't fit the tech sector," which drove the George W. Bush era Antitrust Modernization Commission?

Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law and President, Cass & Associates, PC
Prof. Daniel Crane, Frederick Paul Furth Sr. Professor of Law, The University of Michigan Law School
Hon. Douglas H. Ginsburg, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Mr. Jonathan S. Kanter, Partner, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
Mr. Barry C. Lynn, Executive Director, Open Markets Institute
Moderator: Hon. Brett Kavanaugh, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Nov 17 2017

1hr 10mins

Play

Rank #13: Congressional Redistricting: Gerrymandering and the People’s House

Podcast cover
Read more
Congressional redistricting is the process by which voter district boundaries are drawn for the election of representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives. Historically Congressional districts have been based on numerous factors including population, geography, ethnic groupings, voting records, and the preferences of political parties. Manipulation of districts for partisan gain, or gerrymandering, has been around since before 1812 when Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry redistricted his state to the benefit of his party. One of Governor Gerry’s districts carved out voters in an unusual shape that some felt resembled a salamander and the now commonplace portmanteau, combining the Governor’s name with salamander, was coined.
Until the 1960’s challenges to redistricting plans were generally considered to present non-justiciable political questions. Since then there have been several prominent court challenges and this term the Supreme Court is once more weighing the constitutionality of legislative districts, this time in Wisconsin, in Whitford v. Gill.
But beyond the important legal issues raised by these cases lies the impact redistricting may be having on the makeup and environment within the Legislative branch. Some contend that with advances in technology the partisan control of how districts are drawn has become too exacting and manipulative and resulted in a detrimental increase in polarization. Others argue that partisan redistricting has been a part of our system for over 200 years, other more important factors are driving Congressional dysfunction, and even if the current system is scrapped, no alternative could eliminate bias. Our panel will explore these and other important topics.
Featuring:

Jay Cost, Contributing Editor, Weekly Standard
Hon. Christopher Shays, Former Congressman
Moderator: Nathan Kaczmarek, Deputy Director, Article I Initiative, The Federalist Society

Dec 06 2017

1hr 13mins

Play

Rank #14: 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 #15: Rulemaking by Adjudication: Who Am I to Judge?

Podcast cover
Read more
When Congress delegates to a federal agency the responsibility for implementing, administering, and enforcing a law, it also authorizes the agency to make and promulgate rules about how it will do that. These rules will often be issued first as a notice of proposed rulemaking, giving the public the opportunity to comment before the regulation becomes final and goes into effect. Many agencies, however, also avail themselves of another, less well-known rule-making tool: adjudication. Rather than promulgate a regulation, these agencies often announce and apply new policies - even ones that will have broad applicability – in the form of decisions resolving disputes with the agency. These decisions are then applied as precedent by the agency. Some agencies including the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Elections Commission, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and other federal agencies, essentially announce and implement all policies this way. That agencies use adjudication to announce and implement policy is not new, but critics contend that it eliminates fair notice of the rule and avoids public participation in its development.
Policy implemented through notice-and-comment rulemaking is generally applied prospectively only, and has the benefit of the agency having solicited and, ideally, responded to public comments. Policy implemented through adjudication, however, has not had the benefit of public input. Further, the application is generally retroactive. To avoid retroactive application of a rule, regulated parties can be inclined to simply comply with an agency's demands, thus depriving the public of a fair test of the agency’s position. Finally, agency adjudication – performed by an agency’s administrative law judge, and appealable to agency leadership who may wish to use the case to make new policy - can be seen to be biased.
How weighty are these concerns? What is the proper role of agency adjudication? What deference, if any, should courts give policies agencies announce through adjudication? What safeguards could be designed and implemented to prevent the misuse of agency adjudication?

Prof. Jack Beermann, Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law
Mrs. Allyson N. Ho, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
Mr. Stephen A. Vaden, Principal Deputy General Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture
Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Associate Professor of Law, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Jan 08 2019

1hr 27mins

Play

Rank #16: Eleventh Annual Rosenkranz Debate & Luncheon

Podcast cover
Read more
RESOLVED: District courts do not have the authority to enter universal injunctions.

Prof. John Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Mr. Neal Katyal, Partner, Hogan Lovells US LLP
Moderator: Hon. Beth A. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, United States Department of Justice
Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society

Jan 07 2019

1hr 13mins

Play

Rank #17: 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 #18: Session I: Stare Decisis and Precedent

Podcast cover
Read more
On February 1-2, 2019, the Federalist Society held its annual Florida Chapters Conference in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. The first session discussed "Stare Decisis and Precedent".
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy position. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Welcome and Opening Remarks:

Michelle Suskauer, President, The Florida Bar
Introduction: Daniel Woodring, Principal Attorney, Woodring Law Firm

Panelists:

W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis
Prof. Randy J. Kozel, Associate Dean for Faculty Development, University of Notre Dame Law School
Richard H. Levenstein, Shareholder, Nason Yeager
Prof. Stephen E. Sachs, Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Feb 25 2019

1hr 36mins

Play

Rank #19: 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 #20: Showcase Panel II: Congress and the Administrative State

Podcast cover
Read more

Nov 18 2017

1hr 52mins

Play