FedSoc Events

There is a folk wisdom that connects the American War of Independence’s “no taxation without representation” with today’s skepticism of Washington, DC and centralized power. The Anti-Federalists were a broad coalition, but most Anti-Federalists shared a dislike of a strong centralized government and believed that many small republics would best protect the individual. Some Anti-Federalists argued that without a bill of rights the Constitution would not be able to sufficiently protect the rights of individuals and the states. Even after ratification, some Founders, such as Jefferson, Mason, and Henry, maintained that the Federalists had in fact “betrayed” the “popular Revolutionary Spirit of ’76” and its desire for “general and individual liberty.” However, once the Jefferson-led Democrat-Republicans—primarily made up of and appealing to the old Anti-Federalist coalition—took office they did not seek to abolish, or significantly alter, this new form of governance. Why not? Did the Anti-Federalists plant the seeds, and prefer to nurture the growth of populism in America?
Featuring:

Moderator: The Honorable Lisa Branch, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University
Prof. Michelle Kundmueller, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Old Dominion University
Prof. G. Edward White, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law

Theories of originalism and living constitutionalism currently vie for approval in the courts. Originalists find that popular sovereignty can only come from ratification and legislation. Living constitutionalists fear binding the living by the votes of the dead. What would Jefferson, Madison, or Hamilton think of this debate? Did the founding era public expect the original public meaning to control interpretive debates? Were the American Founders themselves originalists? In a related question, the panel will also explore the usefulness of The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist essays as interpretive tools for identifying the original public meaning of the Bill of Rights. Just how persuasive are the Anti-Federalist concerns considering their position was ultimately lost and the Constitution was ratified? How much did the “losing” arguments contribute to the original public meaning and what light do the founding era debates shed on the proper tools for constitutional interpretation?
Featuring:

Moderator: The Honorable William H. Pryor, United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit
Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University
Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law

Before the National Student Symposium begins, the Federalist Society's Faculty Division will host a panel of young legal scholars, presenting prize winning papers with comments from more senior scholars in Brown 102 at the University of Virginia School of Law. All early arrivals are welcome to sit in and hear some of the exciting scholarship these young legal scholars are working on before the National Student Symposium. For more information, visit https://fedsoc.org/events/2022-young-legal-scholars-panel.

The Federalist Society's Faculty Division hosted a panel of young legal scholars before the National Student Symposium began, presenting prize winning papers with comments from more senior scholars in Brown 102 at the University of Virginia School of Law.
Featuring:
The Irrepressible Myth of Jacobson v. Massachusetts

Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
Commenter Prof. Julia D. Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law

Election Emergencies: Voting in Times of Pandemic\

Prof. Michael T. Morley, Sheila M. McDevitt Professor, Florida State University College of Law
Commenter Prof. Bertrall Ross, Justice Thurgood Marshall Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law

Of Statutes and Spirits: Interpretation on the English High Courts, c. 1800-2020

Jonathan Green, Law Clerk to Judge Neomi Rao, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Commenter Prof. Bernadette Meyler, Carl and Sheila Spaeth Professor of Law, Stanford Law School

Reconstructing Reconstruction Era Rights

Prof. Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University
Commenter Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University

Featuring:

Welcome: Jessica Mann, Symposium Chair, University of Virginia School of Law
Opening Remarks: Dean Risa L. Goluboff, Arnold H. Leon Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Keynote Address: Gov. Glenn Youngkin, 74th Governor of Virginia

In January 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) finalized its SUNSET Rule. Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) requires agencies to have a written plan to review their significant regulations every ten years to determine their impact on small entities (and to determine whether the regulations should be amended or rescinded based on the findings of the review). Because HHS found it was not reviewing all its significant regulations, it issued the SUNSET Rule to better incentivize review. Under the SUNSET Rule, all HHS regulations must be assessed every ten years to determine whether they are significant under the RFA and if they are, the review called for by the RFA must be performed. If the assessment or review of a regulation is not conducted every ten years, the regulation would expire.

Critics of the rule argue that committing HHS to reassessing the economic impacts of many of the department’s existing regulations is a large undertaking and it establishes an extreme penalty for noncompliance. Last fall, HHS issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to rescind the SUNSET Rule, and reports suggest a final repeal may be near. This webinar will discuss the SUNSET rule, the effort to repeal it, and possible future actions in this area.

Featuring:


Jonah Hecht, Attorney, McGonigle; former Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Prof. William Funk, Lewis & Clark Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, Lewis & Clark Law School
Moderator: Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Small Business Legal Center

Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

On April 7-9, 1995, the Federalist Society held its fourteenth annual National Student Symposium at the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, Illinois. The subject of the conference was "Originalism, Democracy, and the Constitution." The penultimate panel explored "The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Featuring:

Moderator: Prof. John C. Harrison, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Akhil R. Amar, Yale Law School
Prof. Earl M. Maltz, Rutgers University School of Law
Prof. Michael W. McConnell, University of Chicago Law School
Prof. Jeffrey Rosen, George Washington University Law School

On April 7-9, 1995, the Federalist Society held its fourteenth annual National Student Symposium at the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, Illinois. The subject of the conference was "Originalism, Democracy, and the Constitution." The fifth panel discussed "Is Originalism Possible? Historical Indeterminacy."
Featuring:

Moderator: Prof. Stephen B. Presser, Northwestern University School of Law
Prof. Suzanna Sherry, University of Minnesota Law School
Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Boston University School of Law
Prof. Gary Lawson, Northwestern University School of Law
Thomas B. McAffee, Southern Illinois University School of Law

The first panel of the Federalist Society's Eighth Annual Florida Chapters Conference featured an impressive group of lawyers and professors to discuss redistricting in Florida since the previous decade. Judge Meredith Sasso of Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal moderated the discussion.
Featuring:

Phillip Gordon, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC
Dr. Michael McDonald, Professor of Political Science, University of Florida
Prof. Michael Morley, Professor of Law, Florida State University College of Law
Moderator: Hon. Meredith Sasso, Florida's 5th District Court of Appeal

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moodey delievered the opening remarks at the Federalist Society's Eighth Annual Florida Chapters Conference. She was introdueced by Richard Martin, the Florida Office of the Attorney General Chief of Staff.
Featuring:

Hon. Ashley Moody, Attorney General of Florida

Forida Governor Ron Desantis and former White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany held a fireside chat at the Federalist Society's Eighth Annual Florida Chapters Conference. Jason Gonzalez of Shutts & Bowen LLP introduced the speakers.
Featuring:

Gov. Ron DeSantis, 46th Governor of Florida
Kayleigh McEnany, Former White House Press Secretary