FedSoc Events

Judicial Review has been criticized throughout American history as undemocratic, creating what has been known in the modern era as the counter-majoritarian difficulty. Is the Court in fact counter-majoritarian? To what degree? If so, is it a difficulty? What theories of constitutional interpretation best reconcile judicial review with democracy—originalism or living constitutionalism or something else?
Featuring:

Moderator: Hon. James Ho, The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Prof. Tara Leigh Grove, Vinson & Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas School of Law
Prof. Lawrence Sager, Alice Jane Drysdale Sheffield Regents Chair, University of Texas School of Law
Prof. Keith Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University

The United States is constitutionally not one, but fifty-one, democracies. How can they all fit together? The oldest issue in our republic is the relation between the federal and state governments: where does the democratic decision-making power of one leave off and the other begin? The question remains relevant today on such issues as the proper locus of decisions about abortion. But the relation of the states to one another is now also pressing as states deploy their authority to influence the democratic decision making of other states, on issues as disparate as gun and climate policy. Are the proper boundaries between our different democracies best policed by the judiciary or by democratic politics?
Featuring:

Moderator: Hon. Andrew Oldham, The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School
Prof. Jud Campbell, Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law
Prof. Michael S. Greve, Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School

Many aspects of the United States governing structure have been criticized as inconsistent with democracy or at least with majority rule. Elections for the House of Representatives and state legislatures are subject to gerrymandering. The Senate represents large and small states equally and thus unequally weights the voters across the nation. The Electoral College, too, provides electoral advantages to some states over others. And the institutions themselves sometimes depart from majority rule, most notably in the United States Senate with its filibuster. Can these arrangements be justified, or should they be reformed?
Featuring:

Moderator: Hon. Patrick J. Bumatay, The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Prof. Sanford V. Levinson, W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair in Law, University of Texas School of Law
Prof. Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law, Capital University Law School
Prof. Stephanie Barclay, Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Religious Liberty Initiative, Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Lori A. Ringhand, J. Alton Hosch Professor of Law & Josiah Meigs Distinguished Teaching Professor, University of Georgia School of Law

Democracy begins with elections. But the process for voting in our elections has been increasingly a matter of political contestation. This panel will consider these process issues, including the Voting Rights Act, campaign finance reform, early and mail in- balloting, and eligibility to vote, including that of felons and aliens. The panel will also consider the question of how the decision-making over these issues should be divided, between the courts and democratic legislatures as well as between the states and the federal government.
Featuring:

Moderator: Hon. Timothy M. Tymkovich, The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Audrey Perry Martin, Partner, Gober Group
Lee E. Goodman, Partner, Wiley
Prof. Derek T. Muller, Ben V. Willie Professorship in Excellence, University of Iowa College of Law
Prof. Richard Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law

There has been much discussion about threats to democracy over the past year. But conceptions of democracy differ. What does democracy entail in our system? Is the U.S. a democracy, a republic, a democratic republic? What does democracy require and what genuinely threatens it? How do we address such threats?
Featuring:

Moderator: Hon. Edith H. Jones, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Prof. J. Joel Alicea, Co-Director, the Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition, and Assistant Professor of Law, The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law
Prof. Bruce E. Cain, Charles Louis Ducommun Professor in the School of Humanities & Sciences, Director of the Bill Lane Center for the American West, Senior Fellow at the Woods Institute at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, Professor at the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability, Stanford University
Prof. Daniel Lowenstein, Professor of Law Emeritus, UCLA Law
Prof. Stephen I. Vladeck, Charles Alan Wright Chair In Federal Courts, The University of Texas School of Law

George Soros has contended that “there is no connection between the election of reform-minded prosecutors and local crime rates.” When considering some of the largest metropolitan cities on the west coast, such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle, do the violent crime and homicide statistics support this claim? Progressive prosecutors have introduced a range of policies, such as eliminating cash bail, decriminalizing misdemeanor drug possessions, refraining from trying minors as adults, and shifting emphasis on police misdeeds rather than criminal offenses. Do the efforts to reverse tough-on-crime policies have a direct correlation to the rising crime rates in big cities? What is the proper role of a prosecutor? Should prosecutors be practicing more restraint? Does bail reform affect recidivism rates? The panelists will discuss these questions and share their insights on these questions.
Featuring:

Mr. Cully Stimson, Deputy Director, Edwin Meese III Center, Manager, National Security Law Program, and Senior Legal Fellow, Senior Advisor to the President The Heritage Foundation
Mr. McGregor W. Scott, Partner, King & Spalding LLP, Former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California Confirmed
Ms. Lauren-Brooke Eisen, Senior Director, Brennan Center for Justice
Moderator: Hon. Danielle J. Forrest, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Many western states are making significant structural changes to their campaign and election laws. Innovations like ranked-choice voting and new campaign financial disclosures rules are taking hold in many states, including California, Washington, Arizona, and Alaska. These changes are having real impact on the ground, as evidenced by the recent primary election in Alaska, where ranked-choice voting resulted in a Democrat being elected to Congress for the first time in five decades.
Other legislative changes across the west address political speech and its funding sources, including Alaska’s recently enacted ban on so-called “dark money;” Arizona’s Proposition 211 measure, which was passed in the recent election; and Oregon’s consideration of introducing a similar measure on the ballot in 2024. In addition to significant policy debates over the merits of these policies, lawyers are challenging their constitutionality based on First Amendment speech and association grounds. The panel will begin by framing the policy debate, followed by a discussion of the current status of various election-related reforms, including litigation pushing state and federal constitutional challenges to these changes.
Featuring:

Mr. Daniel Suhr, Senior Attorney, Liberty Justice Center
Mr. Kory Langhofer, Managing Partner, Statecraft
Prof. Richard Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law
Mr. Scott Kendall, Of Counsel, Cashion Gilmore & Lindemuth
Prof. Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law
Hon. Terry Goddard, Shareholder, Goddard Law PLC, Former Arizona Attorney General
Moderator: Hon. Patrick J. Bumatay, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

The rising cost of housing and the regulatory state are some of the major issues affecting real property law in the western states. This panel will examine three critical areas regarding government regulation of real property law: short-term rentals, rezoning for multi-family homes, and environmental regulations in the building of new homes. For short-term rentals, panelists will walk through the laws and regulations concerning eligibility to obtain short-term rental permits in order to list one’s home on websites such as Airbnb and VRBO. As for rezoning for multi-family homes, the panel will examine the effects that government regulations have on a possible solution to a housing shortage. The panelists will also analyze how federal and state environmental regulations affect the costs of new housing or improvements to existing housing, and what they mean for stakeholders and the overall community.
Featuring:

Mr. Eric Grant, Partner, Hicks Thomas
Ms. Jennifer L. Hernandez, Partner, Holland & Knight
Mr. Chris Carr, Partner, Paul Hastings
Ms. Karrin Taylor Robson, Founder & President, Arizona Strategies
Moderator: Hon. Lawrence VanDyke, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Featuring:

The Honorable Andrew Bailey, Attorney General, State of Missouri

Attorney General Bailey will offer remarks on Missouri v. Biden and the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs returned the abortion question–whether and how to regulate abortion services–to the States. Many states, including Missouri, now have laws on the books that restrict or prohibit abortion. Dobbs doesn’t end the legal wrangling over abortion—it begins a new chapter that will unfold as litigation arises challenging these state laws. What constitutional challenges could Missouri see to its legislation in coming months and years?
Featuring:

Moderator: Barbara A. Smith, Partner and Co-Chair, Appellate and Supreme Court Group, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner
J. Andrew Hirth, Founder, TGH Litigation LLC
Jesus A. Osete, Attorney, Appellate and Supreme Court Group, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP