FedSoc Events

Oral argument was held in U.S. v. Rahimi on November 7, 2023. The case asks whether 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(8), which prohibits possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders violates the Second Amendment on its face. What does the Court's jurisprudence foretell about the decision? Is there an obvious originalist answer?
Featuring:

Prof. William G. Merkel, Associate Professor, Charleston School of Law
Prof. Mark W. Smith, Senior Fellow, Ave Maria School of Law
Mr. David H. Thompson, Managing Partner, Cooper & Kirk
Moderator: Hon. Lawrence VanDyke, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Overflow: Cabinet & Senate Rooms

Is the National Labor Relations Board doing more than any other federal agency to impose broad restrictions on non-coercive speech, based exclusively on whether the speaker is an employer? Under other statutes, speech prohibitions require evidence of actual threats, unlawful retaliation or potential injury to health and safety, and the National Labor Relations Act expressly protects the right to express “views,” “argument” and “opinion” unless the message “contains” an illegal threat or promise. The NLRB General Counsel is prosecuting numerous complaints claiming it is “inherently” coercive and “per se” unlawful for employers to address certain subjects in the workplace.
This session will involve diverse views about important questions: Where do these cases leave the First Amendment? Does commerce regulation override the First Amendment? Does the NLRB have authority to prohibit workplace discussions by employers regarding certain subjects? And what role exists in this critical area for the courts?
Featuring:

Hon. Philip A. Miscimarra, Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Craig Becker, General Counsel, American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations
Moderator: Hon. Chad A. Readler, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Featuring:

Prof. John C. Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Hon. Randolph Moss, United States District Court, District of Columbia
Hon. Andrew S. Oldham, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Prof. Jed H. Shugerman, Boston University School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

(Ticketed event)
On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society believes that it is most fitting to dedicate an annual lecture on limited government and the spirit of freedom to the memory of Barbara Olson. She had a deep commitment to the rule of law and understood well the relationship between respecting limits on government power and the preservation of freedom. And, significantly, Barbara Olson was an individual who never took freedom for granted in her own life, even in her final terrifying moments-her inspiring and energetic human spirit is a testament to what one can achieve in a world that places a premium on human freedom. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals.
Featuring:

Ms. Bari Weiss, Founder & Editor, The Free Press
Introduction: Mr. Theodore W. Ullyot, Co-Chairman, Board of Visitors, The Federalist Society

The U.S. Supreme Court’s originalist jurisprudence has been on display in its most recent terms – consider the constitutional analysis in major cases like Bruen and Dobbs. But is the Court’s originalism sound? In his newly released book, Mere Natural Law, Professor Hadley Arkes argues that the Court’s ascendant mode of interpretation insufficiently relies upon the natural moral law. Critics assert that such reliance would be difficult, if not impossible, to moor to objectively discernible standards. This panel brings together several of the most formidable constitutional scholars of a generation to discuss natural law and constitutional conservatism alongside Professor Arkes.
Featuring:

Prof. Hadley P. Arkes, Founder and Director, James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights and the American Founding & Edward N. Ney Professor in American Institutions Emeritus, Amherst College
Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Hon. Edith H. Jones, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Moderator: Prof. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence & Director, James Madison Program, Princeton University

Overflow: Chinese Room

Recent years have seen unprecedented controversies about election rules, including mail-in ballots and drop boxes, partisan and racial gerrymandering, early voting, ballot harvesting, and methods of vote counting. Because election laws have partisan consequences, the legislators who make election laws, the officials who administer elections, and the judges who decide election cases are often suspected of exercising power so as to increase their own side’s electoral chances. As we look ahead to future elections, this panel will consider what it means to have a fair election process and how much deference judges should pay to the determinations of officials whose actions in formulating and applying election laws may have partisan motivations.
Featuring:

Hon. Michael G. Adams, Secretary of State, Commonwealth of Kentucky
Prof. Richard Briffault, Joseph P. Chamberlain Professor of Legislation, Columbia Law School
Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School
Prof. Richard H. Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law
Hon. Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law, Capital University Law School; Former Commissioner, Federal Election Commission
Moderator: Hon. Thomas M. Hardiman, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Featuring:

Hon. Stewart Baker, Of Counsel, Steptoe & Johnson LLP
Hon. Beth A. Williams, Board Member, United States Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
Mr. Gene C. Schaerr, Partner, Schaerr Jaffe LLP
Prof. John Yoo, Emanuel Heller Professor of Law, University of California Berkeley School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Paul Matey, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Updated 12/20/2023: The Colorado Supreme Court recently decided Former President Donald Trump in ineligible to appear on the 2024 ballot. Read that decision here.
Featuring:

Prof. William Baude, Professor of Law and Faculty Director, Constitutional Law Institute, University of Chicago Law School
Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution
Moderator: Prof. Julia D. Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law and Joseph C. Carter, Jr. Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law

In recent months, the U.S. Senate confirmed a third Democratic Commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission, putting the agency in full force for the first time since January 2021. This panel will focus on the FCC’s likely agenda as we look to 2024. It will also explore the bounds of the Communications Act of 1934, as updated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, when applied to modern technology, areas for possible legislative reform, and how the existing regulatory authority provided by Congress impacts the Commission's initiatives in the year ahead.
Featuring:

Hon. Jonathan Adelstein, President & CEO, The Wireless Infrastructure Association; Former Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
Hon. Mignon Clyburn, Principal, MLC Strategies, LLC; Former Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
Hon. Nathan Simington, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
Moderator: Hon. Michael H. Park, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

This year the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. The Court held that the admissions programs of Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court’s ruling elevates a colorblind reading of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the college admissions context, the decision makes unconstitutional certain policies that would favor one applicant over another on the basis of that applicant’s race. College admissions offices across the country will have to alter the policies they’ve used for decades. How will they adapt? Will facially race-neutral policies aiming to achieve a desired racial balance for accepted classes be created as a proxy? Will colleges attempt to sidestep the ruling or find legally permissible means of achieving their objectives? If so, how will the courts respond?
Some observers argue that the decision in SFFA should be expected to affect diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts outside of college admissions. Will public and private employers have to change their hiring practices? Will competitive K-12 schools adjust their admissions policies? What about scholarships? Government contracting? How far-reaching will the Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment ultimately be?
This panel will provide a comprehensive review of SFFA and explore its consequences.
Featuring:

Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale Law School
Hon. Gail L. Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law
Prof. Randall L. Kennedy, Michael R. Klein Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Mr. Devon Westhill, President & General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity
Moderator: Hon. Stephen A. Vaden, United States Court of International Trade

Overflow: Cabinet & Senate Rooms