FedSoc Events

Our distinguished panel of judges discussed the unique roles of both appellate judges and trial court judges. Topics that were explored include judicial philosophy, the use of originalism in both state and federal courts, the differences in the roles of a trial court judge and an appellate court judge, and the importance of state constitutions in protecting individual liberty. Panelists also discussed their path to the bench.
Featuring:

Moderator: Hon. Duane Benton, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Hon. Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., Senior Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri
Hon. Matthew T. Schelp, Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri
Hon. Cristian M. Stevens, Judge, Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District of Missouri
Hon. John Torbitzky, Judge, Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District of Missouri

This panel explored the concept of whether what has come to be called “inclusive language," including some of the examples referenced in Kelly Frickleton’s recent Kansas City Counselor article, is something that lawyers have an ethical duty to use under Rule 4-8.4 of the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.4 of the Kansas Rules, or perhaps under some other provision. We explored not only the “whether,” but also the “why." We also explored the question of whether the imposition of any penalty on a lawyer for failing to use this language would be constitutional.
Featuring:

Moderator: Karen Donnelly, Partner, Copilevitz Lam & Raney
Ted Frank, Director of Litigation and Senior Attorney, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute
Kelly Frickleton, Associate, Bartimus Frickleton Robertson Rader P.C.
Edward D. Greim, Partner, Graves Garrett LLC

The panel is sponsored by our Civil Rights practice group and will focus on the issues in, and potential outcome of, Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College.
One of the most closely anticipated cases of the coming Supreme Court term involves a challenge to the use of racially preferential undergraduate student admissions practices at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. This panel will examine the issues raised by those cases, the possible outcomes, and their likely impact on the future of higher education and beyond. Will these cases mark the end of race-as-a-factor in holistic admissions practices? If so, will universities comply with the Court’s decision, or will they evade it? And what will be the ramifications in other sectors, such as the workplace? Is a color-blind society possible in our time?
Featuring:

Mr. Michael A. Carvin, Partner, Jones Day
Hon. Gail L. Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law; Member, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; Former Civil Rights Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Prof. Eric Segall, Ashe Family Chair Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law
Moderator: Hon. Kevin C. Newsom, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

The reach of bar associations, including the ABA, extends further than many realize. From evaluating judges, accrediting law schools, disciplining lawyer speech outside of work, to taking political positions, bar associations play a major role in our profession and in American life. Should bar associations focus just on legal practice? Should they continue to be involved in staking out policy positions? What about the ABA’s role in accrediting law schools? Are there any limits on their regulatory power?
Featuring:

Mr. William Adams, Jr., Managing Director, Accreditation and Legal Education, American Bar Association; Former Dean, Western State College of Law
Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt Law School
Hon. Theodore B. Olson, Partner Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP; Former U.S. Solicitor General
Mr. Daniel Thies, Shareholder, Webber & Thies PC
Moderator: Hon. David R. Stras, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

The 2022 National Lawyers Convention will take place November 10-12, 2022 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference is "The Current State of the Legal Profession." The final day of the conference will feature the fourteenth annual Rosenkranz Debate.
RESOLVED: The U.S. Constitution limits the role of state courts and executives in redistricting under Article I, Section 4, Clause I.
Featuring:

Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Prof. John Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, Berkeley Law, University of California
Moderator: Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Professor of Law, Georgetown Law

The Biden Administration began with executive orders on an environmental policy agenda, directing a “whole of government” approach to climate change and environmental justice. These policies called for all federal agencies to prioritize regulatory action on equity and climate across numerous economic sectors. And they have, pushing out an economy-transforming regulatory agenda as Congress has remained largely deadlocked on most of the Administration’s priorities. More recently, some of the Administration’s allies have been calling on President Biden to exercise “emergency powers” to address climate change.
At the same time, the Supreme Court started and ended its last term by telling the administrative state that it cannot simply act in place of Congress. Relevant here, in West Virginia v. EPA, the Court rejected EPA’s claim that it had statutory authority under the Clean Air Act to devise emissions caps. The Court adopted the “major questions doctrine” to explain that executive branch agencies cannot rely on general statutory authority to justify particularly sweeping actions. And the Court faces similar considerations of agency authority in a pending challenge to the federal assertions of jurisdiction over private property under the Clean Water Act, with a decision expected by the end of the year.
This panel will explore the consequences of West Virginia v. EPA and other recent Supreme Court decisions for these “whole of government” approaches and what these new limits may mean for future challenges to environmental regulations on climate and environmental justice, and other efforts to use emergency powers to achieve regulatory goals not otherwise expressly authorized in statute. A distinguished panel of experts will discuss a range of interesting topics.
Featuring:

Mr. Sean Donahue, Partner, Donahue & Goldberg LLP
Prof. Lisa Heinzerling, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Mr. Derrick Morgan, Executive Vice President, The Heritage Foundation
Ms. Lindsay See, Solicitor General, West Virginia
Moderator: Hon. Lawrence VanDyke, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Under the Constitution, two branches of government are formally involved in the selection of federal judges. The President makes the nomination and Senators provide their advice and consent. Yet, the third branch of government often plays a role in that process: federal judges can influence the selection of other judges. This influence can manifest itself in several ways. First, judges can reach understandings with the executive branch to take senior status if the President nominates a specific person to fill the vacancy. Second, rather than taking senior status at a date certain, judges can condition their status change upon the appointment of their successor. Third, judges who reach such an understanding, and who are not satisfied with the President’s ultimate nomination, can rescind their decision to take senior status. Fourth, in the District of Columbia, one federal judge actually chairs the committee that can nominate judges for the District’s regional courts over the President’s authority. This panel will explore the ethical issues of federal judges choosing other judges.
Featuring:

Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
Mr. David Lat, Founder, Original Jurisdiction; Founder, Above the Law
Mr. Rob Luther III, Of Counsel, Jones Day, Former Associate Counsel to the President
Mr. Michael Fragoso, Republican Leader for Nominations, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Moderator: Hon. Stephen Alexander Vaden, U.S. Court International Trade

In June 2022, the Supreme Court decided the much-anticipated case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, requiring courts to follow the text, history and tradition of the Second Amendment in evaluating the constitutionality of modern-day gun control laws. Our panel will discuss what Bruen means for Second Amendment rights, gun control laws, and the landscape of litigation over them as well how courts have been applying Bruen.
Featuring:

Mr. Stephen Halbrook, Senior Fellow, Independent Institute
Prof. William Merkel, Associate Professor of Law, Charleston School of Law
Prof. Mark Smith, Visiting Fellow in Pharmaceutical Public Policy and Law, Department of Pharmacology, University of Oxford; Presidential Scholar and Senior Fellow in Law and Public Policy, The Kings College; Distinguished Scholar and Senior Fellow of Law and Public Policy, Ave Maria School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Steven J. Menashi, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

The 2022 National Lawyers Convention will take place November 10-12, 2022 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference is "The Current State of the Legal Profession." The conference will conclude with the annual Hon. Robert H. Bork Memorial Lecture, featuring remarks by Judge A. Raymond Randolph.
Featuring:

Hon. A. Raymond Randolph, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

ABA Model Rule of Professional Responsibility 1.2(b) states: “A lawyer's representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client's political, economic, social or moral views or activities.” The comment on the rule further explains: “Legal representation should not be denied to people who are unable to afford legal services, or whose cause is controversial or the subject of popular disapproval. By the same token, representing a client does not constitute approval of the client's views or activities.” These principles date back at least to John Adams’ defense of the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre and have long been viewed as essential to the adversarial system.
Increasingly, however, in the minds of some, these principles are better honored in the breach – at least in the case of the powerful. There are all kinds of representation that lawyers simply should refuse to undertake – ranging from the House of Representatives seeking to intervene to defend a previously enacted law, to GITMO detainees, to the Defense of Marriage Act, to tobacco companies, to oil companies, to gun manufacturers, to former President Trump – regardless of the legal merits of the matters at issue. Lawyers who undertake such representations, it is argued, should incur severe reputational and professional consequences, and other clients should punish firms that take on these matters by taking their business elsewhere, even if there is no direct conflict. To these minds such representation sends the wrong message about the role of law in society. At the same time, in the view of many of the proponents of these exceptions, it remains essential that lawyers continue to represent certain kinds of unpopular clients, such as defendants accused of violent crimes, without fear of adverse professional repercussions. To them that is fundamental to the proper role for lawyers in society.
Can these two visions coexist? What is the proper role of the lawyer?
Featuring:

Ms. Lisa Blatt, Partner, Williams & Connolly; Former Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General
Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLC; Former U.S. Solicitor General
Mr. Kannon Shanmugam, Partner, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP; Former Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General
Hon. Seth Waxman, Partner, Wilmer Hale; U.S. Former Solicitor General
Moderator: Hon. S. Kyle Duncan, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit