FedSoc Events

In February, Russia began a full-scale military action against Ukraine. This war in Ukraine constitutes the latest in a series of incidents since the end of the Cold War in which Russia has sought to reassert authority over former Soviet states. In this case, as in incidents past, Russia has offered a familiar series of purported legal justifications pertaining to the right of self-determination of peoples and permitted exceptions to international law’s prohibition on the use of force.
Notwithstanding those arguments, from the outset, many in the international community condemned Russia’s actions as violating fundamental norms of international law. Soon afterward, observers pointed to evidence of war crimes by the Russian military. Now, more than nine months into the conflict, questions remain. What can be said for Russia’s claims, Ukraine’s options, international expectations, and modern conflicts? What effect may this have on traditional legal expectations of the civilized world? Additionally, with the prospect of a costly and protracted war impacting global security and the people of the region for generations to come, what are the best and worst possible outcomes? Our panel of experts will discuss these issues.
Featured:

Mr. Michael Allen, Managing Director and Partner, Beacon Global Strategies
Hon. Marshall S. Billingslea, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute; Former Special Presidential Envoy, U.S. Department of State
Maj. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap Jr., Professor of the Practice of Law, Duke University School of Law; Executive Director, Center on Law, Ethics and National Security, Duke University School of Law; Retired USAF Major General
Prof. Angela Stent, Senior Nonresident Fellow, The Brookings Institution
Moderator: Hon. Chad Readler, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court released a 6-3 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Court overruled Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, holding that the Constitution confers no right to abortion.
The Dobbs decision poses critical questions about the Court’s past and future. Is the decision a misguided action or an overdue correction? How will Dobbs frame judicial and legislative disputes over abortion in years to come? What does Justice Alito’s lead decision, together with Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh’s concurrences, project about the Court’s future rulings? Our panel of experts will discuss these issues and more.
Featuring:

Prof. Mary Anne Case, Arnold I. Shure Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School
Prof. David D. Cole, National Director, American Civil Liberties Union
Prof. Sherif Girgis, Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
Ms. Carrie Campbell Severino, President, JCN
Moderator: Hon. Elizabeth "Lisa" Branch, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

There are no federal speech police, but law enforcement is not the only way that executive officials and agencies take aim at disfavored speech and speakers. In recent months, officials have pressed social-media companies to ban those accused of spreading Covid or election-related “misinformation,” announced a task force to investigate parents speaking out at local school-board meetings, and looked on as financial service providers dropped controversial clients their regulators might find presented “reputational risk.” Meanwhile, agencies increasingly wield broadly-worded anti-discrimination laws to encourage institutions and businesses to police speech by students, faculty, and employees. Is officials’ use of “soft power” over speech a new phenomenon, or is it merely more visible in the age of social media and regulatory oversight? And what role should the First Amendment play when officials stop short of punishing speech?
Featuring:

Prof. Enrique Armijo, Professor of Law, Elon University School of Law
Mr. Mark Chenoweth, President and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Mr. Joe Cohn, Legislative and Policy Director, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
Mr. Michael Ellis, General Counsel, Rumble
Moderator: Hon. Britt C. Grant, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

While many Americans take broadband access for granted, in certain predominantly rural areas broadband access remains limited. In addition to private funding, federal and state efforts have spent billions of dollars to address this problem over the years with varying degrees of effectiveness, and there are billions in funding currently flowing out for more broadband projects as a result of pandemic-era funding bills. Most recently, the Infrastructure bill has provided another $42 billion in funding on top of the existing efforts—but will this close the gap once and for all or will we look back at this as a case of opportunity (and funds) lost? Should the country prioritize speed and low cost or taking the time to get every American connected to fiber? With a range of important viewpoints represented, this panel will discuss the largest federal effort to promote broadband connectivity.
Featuring:

Ms. Shirley Bloomfield, Chief Executive Officer, NTCA–The Rural Broadband Association
Mr. Veneeth Iyengar, Louisiana State Executive Director for Broadband Development and Connectivity, ConnectLA; Chairman of the Board, Innovation Catalyst
Hon. Michael O’Rielly, President, MPORielly Consulting Inc.; Former Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
Moderator: Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC) are the subject of global debate. While proponents see CBDC as a new tool to promote financial stability and inclusion, critics point out that the Federal Reserve would acquire vast new powers to potentially implement a comprehensive government social credit system. In theory, CBDC could be programmed to be used for only designated purposes, on specific items or at particular merchants. To stimulate the economy, CBDC could be programmed to expire in a certain limited time or deposited directly into certain individual’s bank accounts. These concerns about the risks posed by CBDC have been foreshadowed by the actions of American banks and payment processors to refuse to serve certain individuals, non-profit organizations, or merchants. Actions by foreign governments illustrate the potential danger of comprehensive government control over personal financial transactions. China has banned cryptocurrencies and developed its own CBDC, which will enable the Chinese government to monitor and control personal transactions and behavior. In Canada, the government froze the bank accounts and cryptocurrency wallets of anti-vaccine mandate protestors and those who had made donations to support them.
If the U.S. were to adopt a CBDC, how can the privacy and financial freedom of Americans be protected? Furthermore, how can the U.S. avoid some of the troubling trends seen in other countries and the troubling potential expansion of administrative power as it weighs the issue ofCBDCs?
Featuring:

Hon. Randal Quarles, Chairman & Co-Founder, The Cynosure Group; Former Vice Chair, Federal Reserve; Former Chair, Financial Stability Board
Prof. Steven L. Schwarcz, Stanley A. Star Distinguished Professor of Law & Business, Duke University Law School
Prof. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia School of Law; Former Chair, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Taskforce on Federal Consumer Financial Law
Moderator: Hon. Joan Larsen, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Featuring

Hon. Michael S. Lee, United States Senate, Utah

Law schools are the gatekeepers of the legal profession and thus wield substantial influence on the law’s future shape. In recent times, law schools have increasingly viewed themselves less as charged with training lawyers to serve their clients’ needs and more as engines of social justice. Is that an appropriate role for law schools? How compatible are the two missions? Does the highly and increasingly ideologically homogeneous character of law school faculties, as shown in many studies, exacerbate the tension between those missions?
Featuring:

Dean Mark Alexander, Arthur J. Kania Dean and Professor of Law, Charles Widger School of Law, Villanova University
Prof. Joshua Kleinfeld, Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
Prof. Paul G. Mahoney, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Dean Dayna Matthew, Dean and Harold H. Greene Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School
Moderator: Hon. Neomi Rao, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

This panel discussion will examine public and private education, with a focus on the relationship—and occasional conflicts—between religious liberty and secular values in that setting. Panel members will discuss the likely impact on religious liberty and parental rights of two landmark Supreme Court rulings from the past Term: Kennedy v. Bremerton (the “praying coach” case) and Carson v. Makin (the Maine tuition assistance case). Other Supreme Court decisions could also be addressed, including Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Troxel v. Granville. Panelists could also discuss the impact on parental rights of recent federal education regulations.
Featuring:

Prof. Nicole Garnett, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
Prof. William P. Marshall, William Rand Kenan Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law; Former Special Assistant Attorney General, Minnesota
Ms. Erin Murphy, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLC
Moderator: Hon. Raymond Kethledge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Supreme Court actions during the 2021-2022 term - opinions, grants and denials of petitions for certiorari, and motions docket orders - captured the attention of the legal community. Emblematic of the trend in judicial analysis was West Virginia v. EPA in which, notwithstanding that every brief cited Chevron for or against deference to the agency’s action, the Court’s opinion never mentioned it. Instead, the Court invoked the major questions doctrine to conclude that the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations had exceeded the authority Congress had granted it in the Clean Air Act. In other decisions as well, the Court applied new degrees of weight to a variety of methodologies, doctrines, and canonical tools in its interpretations of statutes and the authority they grant the agencies assigned to implement them.
This panel will explore what this new trend in judicial analysis means for future challenges to agency actions. Is the SEC’s focus on ESG, for example, within the confines of its statutory mandate? Can ERISA fiduciaries favor ESG concerns over earnings and value considerations? Is DOJ acting within its authority when it requires the target seeking to settle an enforcement action to pay, not a statutorily prescribed fine to the Federal Treasury, but non-parties, unrelated to the enforcement action? Is the Department of Education authorized to forgive student loans? Can the Department of Defense discharge military personnel for refusing a COVID vaccine? These and other questions are likely to be the subject of lively discussion by this panel of experts.
Featuring:

Mr. Ian Gershengorn, Partner, Jenner & Block; Former Acting U.S. Solicitor General
Prof. Jennifer Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law & Co-Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice
Prof. Tom Merrill, Charles Evans Hughes Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; Former Deputy Solicitor General
Mr. Yaakov (Jacob) M. Roth, Partner, Jones Day
Moderator: Hon. Edith H. Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

America’s national conversation about firearms is primarily about mass shootings and gun control. Some experts assert that a deeper conversation, however, should include relevant data, the problems of suicide, street and gang crime, and domestic violence. Others point out that we should examine what isn’t being done by local authorities from an enforcement standpoint, as well as how well existing federal criminal firearms statutes are being investigated and prosecuted. They assert that combating violent crime is a state responsibility, with federal support only supposed to fill in the “interstate gaps.”
This panel will discuss the foregoing considerations and pursue a more nuanced conversation about the problem of gun violence, established enforcement roles, and possible policy solutions.
Featuring:

Mr. Thomas Abt, Chair, Violent Crime Working Group and Senior Fellow, Council on Criminal Justice
Mr. Paul Carrillo, Community Violence Initiative Director, Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Hon. Erica H. MacDonald, Partner, Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath LLP; Former U.S. Attorney, District of Minnesota; Former District Judge, First Judicial District, Minnesota
Rev. Mark V. Scott, Associate Pastor, Azusa Christian Community
Moderator: Hon. Amul Thapar, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit