Cover image of FedSoc Events
(53)
News & Politics

FedSoc Events

Updated 12 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

53 Ratings
Average Ratings
39
8
2
1
3

It’s great

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

Fantastic .....JW

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

iTunes Ratings

53 Ratings
Average Ratings
39
8
2
1
3

It’s great

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

Fantastic .....JW

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

FedSoc Events

Updated 12 days ago

Read more

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

Rank #1: Ownership Limits in an Increasingly Competitive Audio Marketplace: Is Now the Time For a New Tune?

Podcast cover
Read more
On June 25, 2019, the Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group presented an event on "Ownership Limits in an Increasingly Competitive Marketplace" at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. The second part of the event featured a panel discussion.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sets limits on the number of broadcast radio stations an entity can own. As required by Congress, the FCC reviews its media ownership rules every four years to determine whether the rules are in the public interest and to repeal or modify any regulation it determines does not meet this criteria. There have been radical changes in the media marketplace since 1996 when the current local radio ownership limits were adopted. And in today’s changing marketplace – where some of the large companies in America, including Google, Amazon, and Facebook, are no longer on the audio marketplace sidelines – important questions have been raised as to whether existing limits need to be modified.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Agenda:
12:15 p.m. - Q&A Session with Commissioner Brendan Carr, Federal Communications Commission
12:45 p.m. - Panel Discussion with:

Jeffrey Warshaw, Founder and CEO, Connoisseur Media
Gordon Borrell, CEO, Borrell Associates, Inc.
Francella Ochillo, Vice President, Policy & General Counsel, National Hispanic Media Coalition
Moderator: Prof. Michelle Connolly, Professor of the Practice of Economics, Duke University
Jul 10 2019
52 mins
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
1 hour 20 mins
Play

Rank #3: 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
1 hour 33 mins
Play

Rank #4: 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
1 hour 23 mins
Play

Rank #5: 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
1 hour 28 mins
Play

Rank #6: 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
1 hour 26 mins
Play

Rank #7: A New Approach to Antitrust Law: Transparency

Podcast cover
Read more
Antitrust enforcers in the post-Microsoft era, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, have been under more or less continuous criticism as insufficiently active. Proponents of this view have offered a number of routes to more vigorous and creative enforcement, ranging from re-writing the core statutes to address high tech industries and following the lead of the European Commission to adopting a “Brandeisian” approach, which focuses on a variety of concerns beyond consumer welfare, including employment, privacy, and environmental sustainability.
As an alternative to these “tear it all down” approaches, could greater transparency be a more effective response? Concerns regarding the level and type of enforcement activity are arguably rooted in widespread misunderstanding of the process, particularly with respect to merger review. Has the time come to update the DOJ/FTC guidelines on horizontal mergers, the licensing of intellectual property, the operation of information exchanges, and other issues? Are agency processes and decisional factors sufficiently well understood? Has the Supreme Court’s antitrust docket hampered or improved transparency? Such questions are particularly timely in light of the FTC’s ongoing hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century.

Hon. Frank Easterbrook, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Ms. Deb Garza, Partner, Covington & burling
Mr. Eric Grannon, Partner, White & Case
Prof. Douglas Melamed, Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
Moderator: Hon. John B. Nalbandian, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Dec 11 2018
1 hour 24 mins
Play

Rank #8: Agency Rulemaking: Unnecessary Delegation or Indispensable Assistance?

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

Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato Institute
Prof. Donald Kochan, Professor in Law and the Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law
Prof. Robert Percival, Professor of Law and Director, Environmental Law Program, University of Maryland School of Law
Brianne Gorod, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center
Moderator: Jeff Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell LLP
Jul 10 2019
1 hour 23 mins
Play

Rank #9: Panel 1: Approaches to Constitutional and Statutory Interpretation

Podcast cover
Read more
On October 19, 2018, the Federalist Society's Pennsylvania chapters hosted the 2018 Pennsylvania Chapters Conference in Philadelphia. The first panel discussed their different approaches to constitutional and statutory interpretation.

Hon. Anne E. Covey, Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
Prof. Michael Moreland, University Professor of Law and Religion, Villanova University, Charles Widger School of Law and Director, Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law
Hon. David N. Wecht, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Moderator: David R. Osborne, President and General Counsel, The Fairness Center
Nov 02 2018
1 hour 16 mins
Play

Rank #10: 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
1 hour 25 mins
Play

Rank #11: Masterpiece Cakeshop and Its Implications

Podcast cover
Read more
The Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission was unexpectedly based on religious free exercise (rather than free speech) and the evidence of bias in the proceedings of the state commission. This panel will explore the opinions in Masterpiece Cakeshop and the implications of the case for the First Amendment’s religion and speech guarantees. Among the topics discussed will be the differences among the majority and concurring opinions on the free exercise and free speech issues, whether the free exercise holding will have wider reach beyond the specific facts about the Colorado commission’s handling of the case, and implications of Masterpiece Cakeshop for other cases involving freedom of speech or religion and anti-discrimination laws, such as Arlene’s Flowers Inc. v. Washington, which was remanded for consideration in light of the Masterpiece decision.

Prof. Thomas C. Berg, James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas, Minnesota School of Law
Prof. Gerard V. Bradley, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
Ms. Louise Melling, Deputy Legal Director and Director of Center for Liberty, ACLU
Moderator: Hon. Andrew S. Oldham, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Nov 15 2018
1 hour 16 mins
Play

Rank #12: Panel I: Can the Other Branches Help Restore Congress?

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 first panel asked "Can the Other Branches Help Restore Congress?"
Madison famously asserted that “ambition must be made to counteract ambition,” but how would he advise the current federal government Branches in support of the separation of powers? Are there opportunities for each Branch to encourage or even compel Congress to shoulder the constitutional responsibilities that are central to the Legislative Branch's nature and purpose? How can we effectively address this important restoration work from both within and without?
Featuring:

David Hoppe, President, Hoppe Strategies
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
Dr. Philip Wallach, Senior Fellow, Governance, R Street
Hon. Peter J. Wallison, Senior Fellow and Arthur F. Burns Fellow in Financial Policy Studies, AEI
Moderator: Thomas G. Hungar, Partner, Gibson Dunn
Introduction: Nathan Kaczmarek, Director, Article I Initiative; Director, Regulatory Transparency Project

As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Mar 06 2019
1 hour 41 mins
Play

Rank #13: The Future of Libel Law

Podcast cover
Read more
Libel law leads two lives. Most famously, there is the life of presidential candidates and the New York Times; of celebrities and the National Enquirer; of exposes in Rolling Stone. The rules here seem settled, with the “actual malice" standard and public/private figure distinctions. President Trump seems to be questioning whether they were settled right -- were they?But there is also the life created by the Internet: of Yelp reviews, of gripe blogs, of consumer complaints on RipOffReport and sites such as BadBoyReport.kr and ShesAHomeWrecker.com. People are finding it easier than ever to widely publicize their grievances, whether accurate or not. Here the questions focus more on remedies than on “actual malice" and similar substantive standards. The traditional compensatory, presumed, and punitive damages remedies are often seen as largely pointless. Criminal libel survives, and is in some measure being revived; should it be? Injunctions against libel, long thought by many to be quintessential unconstitutional prior restraints, are routine; is that good? As to either life of libel law, how can the law punish defamatory falsehoods without unduly deterring accurate accusations?

Mr. Paul Alan Levy, Attorney, Public Citizen Litigation Group
Ms. Libby Locke, Partner, Clare Locke LLC
Prof. Rodney A. Smolla, Dean and Professor of Law, Widener University Delaware School of Law
Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California Los Angeles School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Jerry E. Smith, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Nov 21 2017
1 hour 30 mins
Play

Rank #14: Panel 3: Emerging Religious Liberty Issues in Ohio

Podcast cover
Read more
On April 5, 2019, the Federalist Society's Ohio lawyers chapters hosted the 2019 Ohio Chapters Conference in Columbus, OH. The third and final panel explored "Emerging Religious Liberty Issues in Ohio".
Intensifying public debates over religious liberty have spilled into the courts, with some cases making their way to the United States Supreme Court. Ohio is no stranger to this national trend. Panelists will discuss Tree of Life Christian Schools v. City of Upper Arlington, an Ohio zoning dispute involving religious liberty claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), for which a petition for writ of certiorari was recently filed in the United States Supreme Court after the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sided with the city. Panelists will also discuss the Ohio Constitution's provision regarding religious liberty, which explicitly refers to “the rights of conscience," and discuss if and how this provision of the Ohio Constitution should be interpreted differently than the First Amendment with respect to religious liberty issues.
Featuring:

Jeremiah Galus, Legal Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
Holly Gross, Vice President of Government Relations at the Columbus Chamber of Commerce
Philip Williamson, Associate, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Moderator: Matthew Byrne, Of Counsel, Jackson Lewis P.C.

* * * * *
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 30 2019
1 hour 10 mins
Play

Rank #15: The Pros and Cons of Plea Bargaining

Podcast cover
Read more
The Black’s Law Dictionary defines Plea Bargaining as: “[t]he process whereby the accused and the prosecutor in a criminal case work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval. It usually involves the defendant’s pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that possible for the graver charge.” Plea Bargaining as a concept dates farther back than the American justice system itself. However, over the past few decades it has occurred with more and more frequency to reach its’ current unprecedented level in our criminal justice system.
Today, over 95 percent of criminal convictions are a result of Plea Bargaining, which has contributed to an evolving and controversial national debate over whether Plea Bargaining has gone too far. The positives of Plea Bargaining are apparent. It is a much more efficient process than juries, and a much more inexpensive process than trials. However, some opponents of plea bargaining point to the dangerous potential for coercion, insisting that the imbalance of power between prosecutor and defendant can often lead to a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, some criticize Plea Bargaining because it infringes upon the right of the American citizen to participate in the jury process. The debates over the correct response to the frequency of Plea Bargaining will continue to grow as the effects are felt by the entirety of the American Criminal Justice System.

Hon. Stephanos Bibas, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Mr. Greg Brower, Shareholder, Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber, Shreck
Prof. Carissa Hessick, Anne Shea Ransdell and William Garland "Buck" Ransdell, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law
Mr. Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice, Cato Institute
Moderator: Hon. Lisa Branch, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Nov 15 2018
1 hour 27 mins
Play

Rank #16: Keynote Address by Vice President Michael R. Pence

Podcast cover
Read more
The seventh annual Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 8, 2019, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC. The conference closed with a keynote address by Vice President Michael R. Pence.
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:

Hon. Michael R. Pence, Vice President of the United States
Introduction: Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President, The Federalist Society
May 28 2019
33 mins
Play

Rank #17: Revisiting Judicial Deference

Podcast cover
Read more
The seventh annual Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 8, 2019, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC. The luncheon panel was titled "Revisiting Judicial Deference."
The Department of Justice position taken in Kisor v. Wilke seems to acknowledge that Auer deference is in jeopardy and is a marked difference in tone from how DOJ has continued to strongly defend executive authority in its arguments and briefing in the lower appellate courts. Historically, two key defenses in this area have been the now-controversial deference doctrines of Chevron (requiring courts to defer to executive agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes they administer) and Auer/Seminole Rock (requiring courts to defer to executive agency interpretations of their own regulations). Is the administration making a strategic retreat in an attempt to protect those doctrines from a Court where a majority of its members have signaled an openness to revisiting them? Or does this reflect a commitment to the judicial use of traditional tools of textual interpretation to overcome ambiguity, reining in agency autonomy, and discouraging congressional delegations of lawmaking authority to agencies? Furthermore, with cert pending in United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Postal Regulatory Commission, thirteen states in amicus arguments see a new opportunity to reconsider Chevron. As Chevron and Auer/ Seminole Rock form significant parts of the superstructure of the modern administrative state, what does this mean for the future of the constitutional balance?
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:

Dr. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service and former Dean, Chapman University's Fowler School of Law; Senior Fellow, Claremont Institute
Mr. Roman Martinez, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP
Prof. David Vladeck, A.B. Chettle Chair in Civil Procedure, Georgetown University Law Center
Prof. Adam White, Assistant Professor and Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University
Moderator: Ms. Sarah M. Harris, Partner, Williams & Connolly
Introduction: Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
May 28 2019
1 hour 6 mins
Play

Rank #18: 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
1 hour 13 mins
Play

Rank #19: Lunch and Keynote Address by Jeffrey Sutton

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

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

51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law
Nov 02 2018
1 hour 1 min
Play

Rank #20: Eighth Annual Rosenkranz Debate- The Constitution and Morality - 11-14-2015

Podcast cover
Read more
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.
Nov 19 2015
1 hour 18 mins
Play

Similar Podcasts