FedSoc Events

Law in the form of regulation is increasingly made, enforced, and adjudicated by administrative agencies, e.g. the OSHA vaccine mandate. Does this growth in administrative law threaten individual liberties or is it a more efficient and expert-driven way to govern?
Featuring:

Clegg Ivey, Director of Engagement, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Prof. William S. Jordan III, C. Blake McDowell, Jr. Professor of Law, University of Akron
Patrick Strawbridge, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC
Moderator: Hon. Alice Batchelder, Senior Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Featuring:
Hon. William H. Pryor, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Introduction given by:
Hon. Chad A. Readler, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Stablecoins are unique types of digital tokens that have emerged out of the cryptocurrency revolution and have taken center stage in the debate about crypto regulation. Tied to the value of an asset or fiat currency such as the dollar, stablecoins were initially created to ease the trade between different cryptocurrencies and crypto exchanges. Yet they have taken on innovative and beneficial new uses that both increase financial inclusion at home and provide vital assistance to those facing oppression and financial instability, as some argue that the situation in Ukraine demonstrates.
But as stablecoins gain prominence, concerns have arisen over risks they might pose to the financial system. Some, such as Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Pat Toomey, have argued for light-touch regulation for stablecoin issuers that would simply require disclosure of reserves and redemption policies. Others have called for strict bank-like regulation on stablecoins with reserve requirements that specify the amount of assets stablecoin issuers must hold and backstop guarantee programs similar to deposit insurance. The President’s Working Group on Financial Markets of the Biden Administration recently recommended that federal laws should only allow stablecoins to be issued by “insured depository institutions” such as banks and savings associations. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is also sending signals that it considers stablecoins as well as other cryptocurrencies to be “securities,” and will subject them to regulatory enforcement under securities laws, despite, as some argue, the lack of clear authority by Congress.
This webinar explores the potential of stablecoins as a payment instrument, the inefficiencies of the current payment system, and the appropriate level of regulation that allows for beneficial innovation in this sector.
Featuring:

Paul Jossey, Principal Attorney, Jossey PLLC; Adjunct Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute; Opinion Contributor, CoinDesk, National Review and other publications
Timothy Massad, Research Fellow, Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University; Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown Law School; Former Chairman, Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Moderator: John Berlau, Senior Fellow & Director of Finance Policy, Competitive Enterprise Institute; Author, George Washington, Entrepreneur: How Our Founding Father’s Private Business Pursuits Changed America and the World

10:10 - 10:20 Remarks from Chief Justice Candidate Brunner
10:20 - 10:30 Remarks from Chief Justice Candidate Kennedy speaks
10:30 - 11:45 Associate Justice Panel
Featuring:

Hon. Jennifer Brunner, Supreme Court of Ohio
Hon. R. Patrick DeWine, Supreme Court of Ohio
Hon. Patrick Fischer, Supreme Court of Ohio
Hon. Terri Jamison, Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals
Hon. Sharon L. Kennedy, Supreme Court of Ohio
Hon. Marilyn Zayas, Ohio First District Court of Appeals
Moderator: Robert Alt, President & CEO, The Buckeye Institute

Please join the Evansville Lawyers Chapter for a Zoom webinar with Omar Andino Figueroa, Deputy Solicitor General of Puerto Rico. He will speaking on "The Application of the Constitution to the Territories."
Friday, April 8, 2022
12:00pm Central Time

Many originalists are well-versed in The Federalist Papers. They rely on these documents to better understand the original meaning of the Constitution. But to understand the original meaning of the Constitution, originalists cannot read The Federalist Papers alone. Rather originalists must look to both sides of the original debates. The Anti-Federalists are half of the story, and, when it comes to the Bill of Rights, they may be almost the whole story. The Symposium will begin with an introduction into the Anti-Federalists—who they were, why they were called “Anti-Federalists,” and why originalists should read their essays today.
Featuring:

Judge Andrew S. Oldham, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit


Judge Amul R. Thapar, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

In the contemporary debates over the nature of executive power, two ideas are perennially prominent and intractably controversial: the unitary executive theory and nondelegation doctrine. While many prominent lawyers and judges have advocated a unitary model of the executive, it is still controversial whether the Constitution requires that the President sit at the top of the executive pyramid. And while the Court has refused to seriously revitalize the nondelegation doctrine in recent cases, voices on and off the bench persist in calling for limits on the executive’s ability to exercise lawmaking power.
While these debates have modern salience, they actually predate the Constitution. Which provokes the question: what did the Federalists and Anti-Federalists have to say about these topics? In what ways were their debates different from ours, and in what ways are things the same? How do their discussions shed light on our modern arguments? These questions and more will be explored by our learned panelists.
Featuring:

Moderator: Honorable Paul B. Matey, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Prof. Jennifer Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law and Co-Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Anotnin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Prof. Julian Davis Mortenson, James G. Phillipp Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Prof. Saikrishna Prakash, James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law—Albert Clark Tate, Jr., Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Michael Rappaport, Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Professor of Law; Director, Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism, University of San Diego School of Law

One of the principal disagreements between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists surrounded the role of the new Constitution in relation to state authority.
Federalists argued that the Constitution would make the federal Constitution plenary only in certain areas while preserving the role of the states. The Anti-Federalists feared that the federal Constitution would result in a nationalized government where states would play no role and the federal government would overwhelm any semblance of state authority. Panelists will debate what the Federalists meant when they argued for a plenary, but limited federal Constitution, the different views they held, and whether the Federalists or Anti-Federalists were correct.
Featuring:

Moderator: Honorable Trevor N. McFadden, United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Prof. John Mikhail, Carroll Professor of Jurisprudence, Georgetown Law
Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center Stanford Law School

This panel will center discussion on the role of the states in our constitutional order—by focusing on states’ highest courts and their role in promoting individual rights and the development of the law. The roundtable will also explore the relationship between the state and federal courts, both historical and contemporary, as well as some of the pivotal moments that produced our modern balance of power. The speakers will also suggest ways that judges in each level of government, along with legislators and lawyers, might help improve the balance of power between states and the federal government.
The panelists will discuss the relationship between states and their municipalities. The question of localism was central to the Federalists’ and Anti-Federalists’ debates about the role of government. It was especially significant in respect to the competing interests of agrarian and urban citizens that motivated much ideological conflict in the period. Speakers will discuss how Anti-Federalist preferences for localism and Federalist preferences for nationalization helped produce our modern balance of governmental powers and legal culture. The roundtable will debate whether they see a return to localism soon and, if so, what implications this might have for constitutional governance.
Featuring:

Moderator: The Honorable Neomi Rao, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
The Honorable Goodwin H. Liu, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of California
The Honorable Jeffrey S. Sutton, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Prof. Julia D. Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law