FedSoc Events

The Federalist Society

About

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.

Available on

Community

758 episodes

Courthouse Steps Decision: Vega v. Tekoh

On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Vega v. Tekoh. In a 6-3 decision, the Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Court held that a violation of the prophylactic rules described in Miranda v. Arizona does not provide a basis for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Sotomayor joined. Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward. Featuring: John Elwood, Partner, Arnold & Porter; head of the firm's Appellate and Supreme Court practice

36m
Jul 25
Courthouse Steps Decisions: Denezpi and Ysleta

On June 13 and 15, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Denezpi v. United States and Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas respectively. Both cases dealt with issues of Native American law. In Denezpi, a 6-3 Court ruled that the double jeopardy clause does not bar successive prosecutions of distinct offenses arising from a single act, in a case where a man was prosecuted in both a federal district court and a Court of Indian Offenses. In Ysleta, the Court ruled 5-4 that the state of Texas could not control gambling activities on the lands of the Ysleta del sur Pueblo Native tribe. Please join our legal experts to discuss these cases, the legal issues involved, and their implications for the future of Native American law in America. Featuring: Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig --- To register, please click the link above

1h 1m
Jul 25
Biden’s Antitrust Agenda: Mission Creep or Mission Achieved?

Whether in academia, on Capitol Hill, among federal and state enforcers, or in the plaintiff and defense bars, few topics are debated as hotly as the future of antitrust law. The Biden administration's ambitious competition policies and enforcement goals are evolving against the backdrop of this larger debate – and to strong fanfare in some quarters. Certain academics, practitioners, and politicians view the Biden administration's approach as a renaissance, one that embodies the Neo-Brandeisian revolution and is a much-needed return to the original intent of U.S. antitrust law.Others are more skeptical, and consider the Biden administration's more expansive approach inconsistent with current law or sound policy. These skeptics believe the Biden administration's approach goes beyond legitimate objectives for antitrust policy and enforcement, and that the new efforts of the Biden FTC or DOJ amount to mission creep, or worse.This webinar will feature Elyse Dorsey, Amanda Lewis, David J. Shaw, and Jonathan Wolfson discussing antitrust developments under the Biden administration and offering various evaluations of the administration's approach. Featuring: Elyse Dorsey, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP Amanda Lewis, Partner, Cuneo Gilbert & Deluca, LLP David J. Shaw, Partner, Morrison & Foerster Moderator: Jonathan Wolfson, Chief Legal Officer and Policy Director, Cicero Institute --- To register, please click the link above

59m
Jul 18
Courthouse Steps Decision: Carson v. Makin

On June 21, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Carson v. Makin. In a 6-3 opinion, the Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The Court held that Maine's "nonsectarian" requirement for otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments to parents who live in school districts that do not operate a secondary school of their own violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined, and in which Justice Sotomayor joined as to all but Part I-B. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion. Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward. Featuring: Arif Panju, Managing Attorney, Institute for Justice

54m
Jul 18
Fireside Chat: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Live Not By Lies

Nearly fifty years ago, Alexander Solzhenitsyn released the text of a four-page essay titled Live Not By Lies. The account of his eight-year imprisonment as a political dissident in a Russian gulag had just been published in the West. In retaliation, the Russian government exiled Solzhenitsyn to Zurich. The day before his expulsion from Russia, Solzhenitsyn released the text and eventually made his way to America. In his essay, Solzhenitsyn argued that the totalitarian regime which had silenced a generation of his fellow Russians existed only because lies were allowed a foothold. Out of an understandable desire to conform—“not to stray from the herd, not to set out on our own, and risk suddenly having to make do without the white bread, the hot water heater, a Moscow residency permit”—individuals had allowed crushing authoritarian violence to take over little by little. Liberation was still possible, but it had to begin with the individual and a “personal non participation in lies.” In the essay, Solzhenitsyn calls on his fellow Russians to “stand straight as . . . honest m[e]n” so that the "rule [of the lies] hold not through [us].” Solzhenitsyn’s insight into psychology and human society is evergreen—and well worth revisiting today. Join us for a Fireside Chat to discuss Solzhenitsyn’s famous essay and more. Featuring: Professor Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law Moderator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit --- To register, click the link above.

1h 0m
Jul 11
Freedom of Thought Dinner & Panel

We recognize the risks of agency overreach when rulemaking seeks to impose ESG considerations on business. But to what extent have private banks and institutional investors also been able to leverage their economic power to shape firm behavior on climate and other ESG questions – outside of the democratic process? And if we worry that the administrative state lacks political accountability for contentious policy choices, should we also be concerned about the role of private economic influence? Join us for a dinner at the Mayflower Hotel as our panelists discuss these questions and more. Dinner tickets will be available when purchasing conference tickets at a discount to logged in members. Login or Join today! Featuring: Christina Parajon Skinner, Assistant Professor of Legal Studies and Business Ethics, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, Univeristy of Virginia School of Law Matthew Stoller, Director of Research, American Economic Liberties Project Hon. C. Boyden Gray, Founding Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit Reading Materials: The New Separation of Ownership and Control: Institutional Investors and ESG - Julia Mahoney Banks and Climate Governance - Christina Skinner

1h 34m
Jul 06
Regulating the New Crypto Ecosystem: Necessary Regulation or Crippling Future Innovation?

This event is sold out. We will take walk-ins at the door if room becomes available. Cryptocurrency. Decentralized finance. Nonfungible tokens. Once only experts on the cutting edge of financial services were familiar with these terms. Now, with the emergence of digital assets within the global financial system, crypto, DeFi, and NFTs are becoming part of the mainstream financial services lexicon. The rapidly emerging crypto ecosystem faces uncertainty within a regulatory regime designed for very different institutions and securities. In response, on March 9, 2022, President Biden issued an executive order, “Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets,” which ordered agencies to submit policy recommendations based upon multiple principles such as: providing consumer protection, ensuring U.S. financial system stability, mitigating systemic financial risk, responsibly developing digital assets, and examining the creation of a U.S. Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). Supporters of increased financial regulation over cryptocurrency see this as a necessity to provide security essential to ensuring financial stability and consumer protection within the digital asset space. Others view these federal regulatory efforts as a threat to future opportunities for economic innovation. SEC Commissioner Hester M. Peirce and an expert panel including Jerry Brito, Ryan Selkis, C. Todd Phillips, moderated by J.W. Verret, will address current and future efforts at regulation of cryptocurrency and its implications for innovation, financial stability, and consumer protection. Schedule: 12:00pm - Lunch 12:30pm - Opening Remarks Hon. Hester M. Peirce, Commissioner, United States Securities and Exchange Commission 12:45pm - Panel Ryan Selkis, Co-Founder and CEO, Messari Todd Phillips, Director, Financial Regulation and Corporate Governance, Center for American Progress Jerry Brito, Executive Director, Coin Center Moderator: Prof. J.W. Verret, Associate Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University Lunch will be provided. The event is free, but advance registration is required. This event will be livestreamed on the web page. Registration is not required to watch the livestream.

1h 7m
Jun 27
Regulating the New Crypto Ecosystem: SEC Commissioner Hon. Hestor M. Peirce

Cryptocurrency. Decentralized finance. Nonfungible tokens. Once only experts on the cutting edge of financial services were familiar with these terms. Now, with the emergence of digital assets within the global financial system, crypto, DeFi, and NFTs are becoming part of the mainstream financial services lexicon. The rapidly emerging crypto ecosystem faces uncertainty within a regulatory regime designed for very different institutions and securities. In response, on March 9, 2022, President Biden issued an executive order, “Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets,” which ordered agencies to submit policy recommendations based upon multiple principles such as: providing consumer protection, ensuring U.S. financial system stability, mitigating systemic financial risk, responsibly developing digital assets, and examining the creation of a U.S. Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). Supporters of increased financial regulation over cryptocurrency see this as a necessity to provide security essential to ensuring financial stability and consumer protection within the digital asset space. Others view these federal regulatory efforts as a threat to future opportunities for economic innovation. At a live Regulatory Transparency Project event, SEC Commissioner Hester M. Peirce addressed current and future efforts at regulation of cryptocurrency and its implications for innovation, financial stability, and consumer protection. Featuring: Hon. Hester M. Peirce, Commissioner, United States Securities and Exchange Commission Introduction: Moderator: Prof. J.W. Verret, Associate Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

51m
Jun 27
The Return of Supplemental Environmental Projects

On May 5, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a new "Comprehensive Environmental Justice Strategy." One piece of this new strategy was an Interim Final Rule reintroducing the use of Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) in environmental enforcement action settlements. As defined by the Biden administration, SEPs are "local projects that defendants can agree to undertake as part of an enforcement case settlement to help rectify environmental violations." These projects were outlawed under the Trump DOJ due to concerns that their use expands DOJ discretionary authority beyond its statutory limits. The Biden administration, however, argues that "SEPs help to fulfill the goals of the underlying statutes being enforced and can provide important environmental and public health benefits to communities that have been harmed by environmental violations." Join us at 12:00 PM ET on June 15 for a virtual discussion on the return of SEPs featuring three DOJ veterans with a range of views on the issue. Featuring: Michael Buschbacher, Counsel, Boyden Gray & Associates PLLC Justin Savage, Global Co-Lead, Environmental Team, Sidley Austin LLP [Moderator] Annie Donaldson Talley, Partner, Luther Strange and Associates Visit our website – www.RegProject.org http://www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

59m
Jun 27
The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act: Is this the beginning of the end of mandatory employment arbitrat

The “Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act” amended the Federal Arbitration Act to bar mandatory employment arbitration agreements covering sexual harassment and sexual assault claims. This program will feature Prof. Alexander J.S. Colvin and G. Roger King who testified before Congress as the legislation was being considered (see here and here respectively, for their written testimony). The panel will discuss the new statute, its intended purposes, and its impact more broadly on mandatory employment arbitration. The program will also cover why sexual harassment and assault claims, in particular, have been excluded from mandatory arbitration. Will this exclusion for such claims remain unique under the FAA or will it lead towards a ban on mandatory arbitration for employment claims generally? How does the Act connect to the more general issue of class, collective, and joint action waivers in predispute arbitration, and will the Act impact the mass filing strategy that plaintiff side firms are increasingly using? Featuring: Prof. Alexander J.S. Colvin, Kenneth F. Kahn '69 Dean and Martin F. Scheinman Professor of Conflict Resolution, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association Moderator: Christopher C. Murray, Shareholder, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart

1h 1m
Jun 27
Address on Judges and the Law [Archive Collection]

On January 30-31, 1987, the Federalist Society hosted its first-ever national lawyers convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The conference featured an address by Dr. Thomas Sowell on "Judges and the Law" Featuring: Introduction: William Bradford Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice Dr. Thomas Sowell, Hoover Institute

25m
Jun 17
Chevron and the States: A Conversation with Governors' General Counsel about Judicial Deference to State Administrative Agency Interpretatio

Deference doctrines utilized by the federal Judiciary when federal agencies act is the subject of substantial debate and attention. Chevron deference, Skidmore deference, and Kisor/Auer deference are recognizable to many. But less attention is paid to how state legislatures and judiciaries calibrate the balance of separated powers on the same score. In this webinar, Professor Aram Gavoor will lead a balanced discussion and press the governors' General Counsel or Chief Legal Counsel from Florida, Tennessee, and Texas. The program will explore the similarities, differences, and unique features of state judicial deference to administrative agency interpretations of law. Featuring: Ryan D. Newman, General Counsel, Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis Jonathan T. Skrmetti, Chief Legal Counsel , Office of Tennessee Governor Bill Lee James P. Sullivan, General Counsel , Office of Texas Governor Greg Abbott Moderator: Aram A. Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University Law School --- To register, click the link above

1h 0m
Jun 16
Public and Private Regulation: What's Driving ESG?

We recognize the risks of agency overreach when rulemaking seeks to impose ESG considerations on business. But to what extent have private banks and institutional investors also been able to leverage their economic power to shape firm behavior on climate and other ESG questions – outside of the democratic process? And if we worry that the administrative state lacks political accountability for contentious policy choices, should we also be concerned about the role of private economic influence? Join us for a dinner at the Mayflower Hotel as our panelists discuss these questions and more. This registration link above will direct registrants to the Executive Branch Review conference ticket sales page, where dinner tickets will be available at a discount to logged in members. Login or Join today! Featuring: Christina Parajon Skinner, Assistant Professor of Legal Studies and Business Ethics, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, Univeristy of Virginia School of Law Matthew Stoller, Director of Research, American Economic Liberties Project Hon. C. Boyden Gray, Founding Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit Reading Materials: The New Separation of Ownership and Control: Institutional Investors and ESG - Julia Mahoney Banks and Climate Governance - Christina Skinner

1h 34m
Jun 13
Panel One: The Modern Evolution of the Wisconsin Supreme Court

Featuring: Anthony LoCoco, Deputy Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) Colin T. Roth, Partner, Stafford Rosenbaum LLP Ryan J. Walsh, Partner, Eimer Stahl LLP Moderator: Hon. Shelley A. Grogan, Judge, District II, Wisconsin Court of Appeals

1h 20m
Jun 13
Panel Two: U.S. Supreme Court Review

Featuring: Prof. Christopher W. Schmidt, Professor of Law & Co-Director of ISCOTUS, Chicago-Kent College of Law Daniel Suhr, Senior Attorney, Liberty Justice Center Misha Tseytlin, Partner, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP Moderator: Hon. Maria S. Lazar, Judge-Elect, District II, Wisconsin Court of Appeals

1h 18m
Jun 13
Panel 3 - Should the Land of Lincoln Cancel Lincoln?

In midst of the pandemic, among the many urgent public demands, Chicago took the time to assess the propriety of monuments to historical figures like Abraham Lincoln. Cities across the country are grappling with the legacy of such figures, many of whom did not live perfect lives. Chicago's effort was part of a larger social movement to remove from sight, or to hold accountable, historical and contemporary figures, including Christopher Columbus, Thomas Jefferson, Dr. Seuss, Woodrow Wilson, J.K. Rowling, and even Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant. Americans are now regularly “cancelled” for actions and statements made many years ago. Is "cancel culture" an important tool of social justice or a new form of intimidation by the powerful? Does canceling someone work to deter bad behavior? How does cancellation and its potential to chill speech interact with the First Amendment? Speakers: Prof. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, Emerita, New York Law School & Former President, American Civil Liberties Union Jonathan D. Urick, Associate Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Litigation Center Prof. Anders Walker, Lillie Myers Professor of Law; Professor of History, St. Louis University School of Law Moderator: Hon. Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., Senior Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri

1h 31m
May 31
Panel 2 - Better Believe It: Free Exercise and the First Amendment

Leading the charge for abolition during the Civil War-era, among others, were abolitionists with deeply held religious beliefs. Today, virtually everyone supports religious liberty and virtually everyone opposes discrimination. But how do we handle the hard questions that arise when exercises of religious liberty seem to discriminate unjustly? Or when anti-discrimination laws unjustly constrain religious liberty? How do we promote the common good while respecting conscience in a diverse society? For example, many religious liberty questions have arisen in response to the redefinition of marriage, such as when bakers, florists, and photographers who do not wish to prove same-sex wedding services and charge for discrimination. This conflict extends well beyond the LGBT arena, notably in the abortion debate. What counts as discrimination, when is it unjust, and when should it be unlawful? Should the law give religion and conscience special protection at all, and if so, why? Might the protection of religious liberty for all serve the ever so pressing need to calming fear and polarization in today’s society? Speakers: Prof. Thomas C. Berg, James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of Law Justin Edward Butterfield, Deputy General Counsel, First Liberty Institute D. John Sauer, Solicitor General, Missouri Moderator: Hon. James C. Ho, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

1h 12m
May 31
Panel 1 - Different Perspectives on The Fourteenth Amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, dramatically changed constitutional law. How are we to understand these changes? How would an originalist understand these changes? Did the Fourteenth Amendment change our Federalism and, if so, how much? Does the Fourteenth Amendment protect unenumerated rights? Speakers: Prof. Evan D. Bernick, Assistant Professor, Northern Illinois University College of Law Prof. Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University Moderator: Hon. Chad A. Readler, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

1h 7m
May 31
1996 James Madison Lecture [Archive Collection]

On October 9, 1996, the Federalist Society's student chapter at Loyola University School of Law in New Orleans, LA hosted its annual James Madison Lecture, featuring former attorney general Edwin Meese III as the keynote speaker. Featuring: Moderator: Justice Harry T. Lemmon, Louisiana Supreme Court Introductory Remarks: Harvey C. Koch, Partner, Koch & Rouse Introduction: Verne Spears, Member, The Federalist Society Edwin Meese III, Distinguished Fellow, The Heritage Foundation Judge Martin Leach-Cross Feldman, United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana Judge Edith Brown Clement, United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana Judge Eldon Fallon, United Stats District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana Prof. Paul Bayer, Louisiana State University Law Center

1h 33m
May 12
Panel Three: Tech / Consumer Protection & Data Privacy

Across the country, states are looking at how to handle the privacy rights of their citizens regarding "big tech." Illinois, Virginia, California, and Florida have their versions. Ohio is trying to tackle this issue through HB 376. HB 376 is being described as a consumer protection bill, which will protect the selling of data by "big tech" companies and allow recourse for citizens when their data is sold against their direction. Advocates against the bill say that the bill protects "big tech" rather than the people it purports to protect. Featuring: Hon. Brian Stewart, State Representative, Ohio David Straite, Partner, DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC Carl M. Szabo, Vice President & General Counsel, Net Choice Moderator: Hon. J. Philip Calabrese, Judge, United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio

1h 11m
May 12
Panel Two: Is the Administrative State a Threat to Individual Liberty?

Law in the form of regulation is increasingly made, enforced, and adjudicated by administrative agencies, e.g. the OSHA vaccine mandate. Does this growth in administrative law threaten individual liberties or is it a more efficient and expert-driven way to govern? Featuring: Clegg Ivey, Director of Engagement, New Civil Liberties Alliance Prof. William S. Jordan III, C. Blake McDowell, Jr. Professor of Law, University of Akron Patrick Strawbridge, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC Moderator: Hon. Alice Batchelder, Senior Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

59m
May 12
The Application of the Constitution to the Territories

Please join the Evansville Lawyers Chapter for a Zoom webinar with Omar Andino Figueroa, Deputy Solicitor General of Puerto Rico. He will speaking on "The Application of the Constitution to the Territories." Friday, April 8, 2022 12:00pm Central Time

46m
Apr 28
Luncheon & Keynote Address

Featuring: Hon. William H. Pryor, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit Introduction given by: Hon. Chad A. Readler, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

53m
Apr 25
A Discussion on Stablecoins

Stablecoins are unique types of digital tokens that have emerged out of the cryptocurrency revolution and have taken center stage in the debate about crypto regulation. Tied to the value of an asset or fiat currency such as the dollar, stablecoins were initially created to ease the trade between different cryptocurrencies and crypto exchanges. Yet they have taken on innovative and beneficial new uses that both increase financial inclusion at home and provide vital assistance to those facing oppression and financial instability, as some argue that the situation in Ukraine demonstrates. But as stablecoins gain prominence, concerns have arisen over risks they might pose to the financial system. Some, such as Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Pat Toomey, have argued for light-touch regulation for stablecoin issuers that would simply require disclosure of reserves and redemption policies. Others have called for strict bank-like regulation on stablecoins with reserve requirements that specify the amount of assets stablecoin issuers must hold and backstop guarantee programs similar to deposit insurance. The President’s Working Group on Financial Markets of the Biden Administration recently recommended that federal laws should only allow stablecoins to be issued by “insured depository institutions” such as banks and savings associations. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is also sending signals that it considers stablecoins as well as other cryptocurrencies to be “securities,” and will subject them to regulatory enforcement under securities laws, despite, as some argue, the lack of clear authority by Congress. This webinar explores the potential of stablecoins as a payment instrument, the inefficiencies of the current payment system, and the appropriate level of regulation that allows for beneficial innovation in this sector. Featuring: Paul Jossey, Principal Attorney, Jossey PLLC; Adjunct Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute; Opinion Contributor, CoinDesk, National Review and other publications Timothy Massad, Research Fellow, Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University; Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown Law School; Former Chairman, Commodity Futures Trading Commission Moderator: John Berlau, Senior Fellow & Director of Finance Policy, Competitive Enterprise Institute; Author, George Washington, Entrepreneur: How Our Founding Father’s Private Business Pursuits Changed America and the World

1h 3m
Apr 25
Panel One: The Role of a Justice in the Ohio Supreme Court System

10:10 - 10:20 Remarks from Chief Justice Candidate Brunner 10:20 - 10:30 Remarks from Chief Justice Candidate Kennedy speaks 10:30 - 11:45 Associate Justice Panel Featuring: Hon. Jennifer Brunner, Supreme Court of Ohio Hon. R. Patrick DeWine, Supreme Court of Ohio Hon. Patrick Fischer, Supreme Court of Ohio Hon. Terri Jamison, Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals Hon. Sharon L. Kennedy, Supreme Court of Ohio Hon. Marilyn Zayas, Ohio First District Court of Appeals Moderator: Robert Alt, President & CEO, The Buckeye Institute

1h 40m
Apr 14
Banquet, Founders & Foes (An Exchange)

Many originalists are well-versed in The Federalist Papers. They rely on these documents to better understand the original meaning of the Constitution. But to understand the original meaning of the Constitution, originalists cannot read The Federalist Papers alone. Rather originalists must look to both sides of the original debates. The Anti-Federalists are half of the story, and, when it comes to the Bill of Rights, they may be almost the whole story. The Symposium will begin with an introduction into the Anti-Federalists—who they were, why they were called “Anti-Federalists,” and why originalists should read their essays today. Featuring: Judge Andrew S. Oldham, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Judge Amul R. Thapar, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

52m
Apr 05
V: Modern Debates, Old Insights: The Federalists, Anti-Federalists, and Executive Power (Panel)

In the contemporary debates over the nature of executive power, two ideas are perennially prominent and intractably controversial: the unitary executive theory and nondelegation doctrine. While many prominent lawyers and judges have advocated a unitary model of the executive, it is still controversial whether the Constitution requires that the President sit at the top of the executive pyramid. And while the Court has refused to seriously revitalize the nondelegation doctrine in recent cases, voices on and off the bench persist in calling for limits on the executive’s ability to exercise lawmaking power. While these debates have modern salience, they actually predate the Constitution. Which provokes the question: what did the Federalists and Anti-Federalists have to say about these topics? In what ways were their debates different from ours, and in what ways are things the same? How do their discussions shed light on our modern arguments? These questions and more will be explored by our learned panelists. Featuring: Moderator: Honorable Paul B. Matey, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Prof. Jennifer Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law and Co-Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Anotnin Scalia Law School, George Mason University Prof. Julian Davis Mortenson, James G. Phillipp Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School Prof. Saikrishna Prakash, James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law—Albert Clark Tate, Jr., Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law Prof. Michael Rappaport, Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Professor of Law; Director, Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism, University of San Diego School of Law

1h 32m
Apr 04
IV: Resolved: The Federalists Designed a Constitution of Plenary Federal Power (Debate)

One of the principal disagreements between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists surrounded the role of the new Constitution in relation to state authority. Federalists argued that the Constitution would make the federal Constitution plenary only in certain areas while preserving the role of the states. The Anti-Federalists feared that the federal Constitution would result in a nationalized government where states would play no role and the federal government would overwhelm any semblance of state authority. Panelists will debate what the Federalists meant when they argued for a plenary, but limited federal Constitution, the different views they held, and whether the Federalists or Anti-Federalists were correct. Featuring: Moderator: Honorable Trevor N. McFadden, United States District Court for the District of Columbia Prof. John Mikhail, Carroll Professor of Jurisprudence, Georgetown Law Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center Stanford Law School

1h 11m
Apr 04
III: 21st Century Federalism: A View from the States (Roundtable)

This panel will center discussion on the role of the states in our constitutional order—by focusing on states’ highest courts and their role in promoting individual rights and the development of the law. The roundtable will also explore the relationship between the state and federal courts, both historical and contemporary, as well as some of the pivotal moments that produced our modern balance of power. The speakers will also suggest ways that judges in each level of government, along with legislators and lawyers, might help improve the balance of power between states and the federal government. The panelists will discuss the relationship between states and their municipalities. The question of localism was central to the Federalists’ and Anti-Federalists’ debates about the role of government. It was especially significant in respect to the competing interests of agrarian and urban citizens that motivated much ideological conflict in the period. Speakers will discuss how Anti-Federalist preferences for localism and Federalist preferences for nationalization helped produce our modern balance of governmental powers and legal culture. The roundtable will debate whether they see a return to localism soon and, if so, what implications this might have for constitutional governance. Featuring: Moderator: The Honorable Neomi Rao, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit The Honorable Goodwin H. Liu, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of California The Honorable Jeffrey S. Sutton, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Prof. Julia D. Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law

1h 37m
Apr 04