FedSoc Events

CLE credit for this event is available at On-Demand CLE.
Featuring:

Ms. Erin E. Murphy, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLC
Mr. Patrick Strawbridge, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC
Hon. Seth P. Waxman, Partner, WilmerHale; Former United States Solicitor General
Moderator: Hon. Timothy M. Tymkovich, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

In recent years federal executive branch agencies have enacted a “whole of government” approach to hot-button topics like environmental, social, governance (ESG) and cryptocurrency regulation. This theory of policy administration combines the efforts of multiple executive branch agencies with different expertise and authorities toward achieving a singular objective.
Some of the agencies marshaled to address cryptocurrency regulation include the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), and the banking regulators. Jurisdiction is often complicated by the nature of a particular asset, administration changes, and agency leaders’ personalities and priorities.
How does current cryptocurrency regulatory policy align with the statutory authority and original purpose of these agencies? Are the agencies fulfilling legislative mandates to protect investors and promote safety and soundness? Or are they stretching their authority to achieve a policy outcome in the absence of legislative authorization?
This panel will examine the issue of cryptocurrency regulation and statutory authority of executive agencies.
Featuring:

Mr. Brian P. Brooks, Partner, O’Melveny & Myers; Former Acting Comptroller of the Currency
Prof. Chris Brummer, Agnes Williams Sesquicentennial Professor of Financial Technology, Georgetown Law
Ms. Caitlin Long, Founder & CEO, Custodia Bank
Prof. Christopher L. Peterson, John J. Flynn Endowed Professor of Law, University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law
Moderator: Hon. Patrick J. Bumatay, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Trying to sort out what originalism means in practice requires integrating insights from all levels of the legal system, from academicians (both legal and historical), lawyers (from private practice, public interest, business, and government), and the bench (both trial and appellate and both state and federal). In this Roundtable, participants representing many of those elements of the legal culture offer insights on the current state of originalism in legal practice. Is there an identifiable "legal culture" to which originalism can be applied? If so, what should lawyers be doing that they are not doing? What should academics be doing that they are not doing? What should judges be doing that they are not doing?
Featuring

Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLC
Hon. Britt Grant, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Hon. James C. Ho, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Prof. Bernadette Meyler, Carl and Sheila Spaeth Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
Hon. Jason Miyares, Attorney General, Commonwealth of Virginia
Hon. Elizabeth Wydra, President, Constitutional Accountability Center
Moderator: Hon. Joan Larsen, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Overflow: Chinese Room

In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in New York Times v. Sullivan treating public figures to a different, more onerous standard when they were the victims of defamator falsehoods than in traditional libel cases. Recently, Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch have expressed skepticism about the constitutional infirmity of this decision. Our panelists will provide their perspectives on this decision and whether the Court should reconsider it.
Featuring:

Joe Cohn, Legislative and Policy Director, FIRE
Prof. Carson Holloway, Professor of Political Science and Department Chair, University of Nebraska Omaha
Jered Ede, Clare Locke
Carol Jean LoCicero, Managing Partner, Thomas & LoCicero, PL
Moderator: Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP

Featuring:

Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, Meese Center, The Heritage Foundation
Henry Whitaker, Solicitor General, Florida
Moderator, Hon. Raag Singhal, Judge, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida

Featuring:

Hon. John B. Nalbandian, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

PRESS: Please email Michael Mead ([email protected]) to register.

The First Amendment forbids public officials from censoring disfavored speech and speakers. But what happens if public officials enlist private parties to do the censorship? In recent years, public officials and agencies have pressed social-media platforms to silence dissenting views on public health and other “misinformation,” insurers and financial institutions to drop clients engaged in unpopular or controversial advocacy, and health-care providers to dismiss attorneys challenging government policy. Further, there’s no way to know how many private decisions to silence speech and speakers have been influenced or coerced by government actors.
Is this phenomenon inevitable in an age of unprecedented opportunity to reach large audiences? Should there be greater transparency when public officials wield their power to influence the exercise of First Amendment rights? What’s the line between encouragement and coercion, and is that the right line to separate constitutional from unconstitutional censorship? What are the prospects that agencies will police themselves and refrain from wielding their power and influence to suppress dissension and debate? Should Congress or the President address third-party censorship and, if so, how exactly? Our panelists will address these questions and more.

The Supreme Court continues to accept for review cases that challenge agency authority on separation of powers grounds, and its decisions may fundamentally reshape the modern administrative state. This term, it heard challenges to the jurisdiction of federal courts to hear challenges to agency proceedings (Axon v. FTC; SEC v. Cochran), and to the Biden administration’s authority to forgive student loan debt (U.S. Department of Education v. Brown; Biden v. Nebraska). Next term, it will hear a constitutional challenge to the funding structure of an independent regulatory agency (CFPB et. al. v. Com. Fin. Services Assn.). And pending in the certiorari queue is a case that raises a triumvirate of issues about the SEC’s administrative proceedings: whether they violate the Seventh Amendment, the non-delegation doctrine, and/or the President’s removal power (SEC v. Jarkesy).
This panel will discuss the constitutional questions raised by these cases, the potential effect of the Court’s decisions on agency structure and practices, the rebalancing of power between the three branches, and the future of the administrative state.

Antitrust law has made recent headlines for a host of reasons, ranging from Chairwoman Lina Kahn’s approach to running the Federal Trade Commission to the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division’s high-profile cases against tech giants such as Google. In this lunch session, former FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz, a Democrat, will join former FTC Commissioner Noah Joshua Phillips, a Republican, and moderator Judge Neomi Rao to discuss recent developments in the antitrust world and debate what might come next, including for the future of independent executive branch agencies in general.