FedSoc Events

The 2022 Missouri Chapters Conference took place on January 24, 2022, at the Missouri State Capitol in Jefferson City, MO. The topic of the conference was "Freedom of Thought".

Public K-12 schools across the country have introduced elements of critical race theory into their curriculums. The Biden Administration has produced a federal rule that would prioritize funding for history and civics programs shaped by CRT. Meanwhile, lawmakers in 16 states have introduced or passed legislation seeking to limit the teaching of critical race theory within public institutions. And parents across the country have pushed back against school boards adopting CRT and filed litigation to that effect. What is critical race theory? And are states and localities within their rights in designing and limiting curricula and what can and cannot be taught in public schools, or do laws that do so potentially violate First Amendment rights or other applicable law?

Featuring:

Reverend Michael Barber, S.J., Professor of Philosophy, Saint Louis University
Josh Hammer, Opinion Editor, Newsweek and Research Fellow, Edmund Burke Foundation
Kimberly Hermann, General Counsel, Southeastern Legal Foundation
Dave Roland, Director of Litigation, Freedom Center of Missouri
Moderator: Mark Bremer, Partner, Shands, Elbert, Gianoulakis & Giljum, LLP and President, St. Louis Lawyers Chapter

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

The 2022 Missouri Chapters Conference took place on January 24, 2022, at the Missouri State Capitol in Jefferson City, MO. The topic of the conference was "Freedom of Thought".

Some social media companies are inviting the government to impose new content moderation and censorship requirements. Others say that in a free market system, consumers should be able to choose social media networks based on those networks’ content moderation policies. Still others suggest that Big Tech could be regulated as a common carrier, barring large platforms from discriminating against messages based on their content. Which is the best approach?

Featuring:

Josh Divine, Chief Counsel to Senator Josh Hawley, United States Senate
Lyrissa Lidsky, Dean and Judge C.A. Leedy Professor of Law, University of Missouri
Amy Peikoff, Chief Policy Officer, Parler
Moderator: Edward Greim, Partner, Graves Garrett LLC and President, Kansas City Lawyers Chapter
* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

The 2022 Missouri Chapters Conference took place on January 24, 2022, at the Missouri State Capitol in Jefferson City, MO. The topic of the conference was "Freedom of Thought".
How should we think about “lawyer-shaming”? At the close of the Trump administration, we saw an effort to deter law firms from re-hiring attorneys leaving the Department of Justice and to encourage corporate America to decline to work with firms that had re-hired such attorneys. And efforts have since moved on to targeting firms with clients involved in the fossil fuel industry.
Further, in the past year we have seen a spate of bar complaints filed against both lawyers holding or seeking political office and against lawyers representing or even merely advising political candidates and officeholders.
There has been controversy in years past over attorney pro bono work on behalf of detainees accused of terrorism.
As a matter of legal ethics and as a matter of industry norms, how should we think about such efforts and is there a consistent principle that should govern? Should law firms hire attorneys with a diversity of viewpoints? When are politically motivated bar complaints appropriate and when are they unethical?
Featuring:

Stephen Davis, Partner, True North Law
Charles Hatfield, Partner, Stinson LLP
Gary Myers, Earl F. Nelson Professor of Law and former Law School Dean, University of Missouri - Columbia
Moderator: Jennifer Bukowsky, Executive Director, Show-Me Defenders and President, Jefferson City Lawyers Chapter

* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

On March 26, 1999, the Federalist Society co-sponsored the Stranahan National Issues Forum with the University of Toledo College of Law. The title of the conference was "Education Reform at the Crossroads: Politics, the Constitution, and the Battle over School Choice." The final panel explored "School Choice in Action."
In recent years, school choice has to moved beyond an abstract topic for free-market theorists and constitutional scholars. Today, school-choice programs — public and private — and similar education-reform policies aimed at increasing choice and competition are up and running the country. Speakers at this panel — leading students, critics, and evaluators of school-coice programs — will discuss candidly the available data and empirical evidence relating to the choice programs, and will also survey and evaluate the different and local programs.
Featuring:

Roberta Holt, Director, Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program
Ann Payne, Founder, Aurora Academy
Prof. John Witte, University of Wisconsin
Brother Bob Smith, President, Messemer High School
Dr. Myron Lieberman, Education Policy Institute

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

On March 26, 1999, the Federalist Society co-sponsored the Stranahan National Issues Forum with the University of Toledo College of Law. The title of the conference was "Education Reform at the Crossroads: Politics, the Constitution, and the Battle over School Choice." The penultimate panel covered "School Choice: The Next Civil Rights Crusade?"
School choice is more than an education-reform porposal. To many supporters of vouchers and charter schools, these policy innovations are crucial elements in the effort to vindicate the civil and political ights of low-income parents and members of racial minorities. At the same time, many school choice critics suggest that vouchers will constitute a set-back for public-school integration. Speakers at this panel— civil-rights leaders, school-choice activists, and academics— will discuss these problems, and also explore the connection between school choice and parents' First Amendment freedoms, as well as the historical and consitutional tradition of viewing a well-educated citizenry as the key to democratic and republican government and education as the key to meaningful exercise of civil rights.
Featuring:

Introduction Ted Cruz, Attorney, Cooper, Carvin & Rosenthal
Prof. Joseph Vitteritti, New York University
Jennifer Grossman, Director of Education, Cato
Michael Meyers, President, New York Civil Rights Coalition
Clint Bolick, Cofounder, Institute for Justice

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

The Federalist Society's Student Division &Columbus School of Law Student Chapter present
Feddie Night Festivus:Blackman vs. Everybody!
FeaturingUnprecedented Feats of Jurisprudential Strength
This event will be livestreamed via YouTube
Thursday, December 23, 20218:00 PM ET
Featuring:

Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law

Feddie Night Fights is a series of online events hosted by the Student Division and a rotating Student Chapter each month.

On March 26, 1999, the Federalist Society co-sponsored the Stranahan National Issues Forum with the University of Toledo College of Law. The title of the conference was "Education Reform at the Crossroads: Politics, the Constitution, and the Battle over School Choice," and featured a keynote address by Linda Chavez.
Featuring:

Introductory Remarks: Ted Cruz, Attorney, Cooper, Carvin & Rosenthal
Award: Corey Swanson, Cofounder, Stranahan National Issues Forum
Introduction: Dean Albert Quick, The University of Toledo College of Law
Linda Chavez, President, Center for Equal Opportunity

The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". The conference concluded with the annual Hon. Robert H. Bork Memorial Lecture, featuring remarks by Judge Laurence H. Silberman on "The Job of Attorney General—A Historical Perspective."
Judge Laurence H. Silberman will be delivering remarks on "The Job of Attorney General—A Historical Perspective."
Featuring:

Hon. Laurence H. Silberman, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". The final showcase panel explored "Law, Science, and Public Policy."
"Science" as a concept enjoys the trust of the public. Indeed, some make "I trust the Science" a centerpiece for their appeal to the voting public, and this evidently has had some success.
By contrast, others in the scientific community stress that scientific methods explicitly exclude "trust". The noted physicist Richard Feynman remarked that "science begins with the distrust of experts". Instead, process in science relies on an "ethic" of impersonal objectivity, respect for data, self-questioning, a willingness to stand corrected, and open discourse. Its methods involve constructing models for reality that best fit objective assessments of available data, followed by a search for data that might contradict those models. Scientists are therefore (supposed to be) anti-advocates, willing to concede when their models were wrong; the most successful scientists even enjoy conceding, as it means that knowledge has advanced.
However, scientists, being human, are inherently imperfect practitioners of scientific methods. Historians document many examples where scientists have advocated their own (wrong) ideas over others simply because they were their own, obstructed opposing points of view, and otherwise behaved as 'politically' as in any other field of human endeavor. However, the process and its "ethic" has historically allowed models for reality to improve, and those improvements are known by the technology that has emerged based on them. As one example without science, improvements in civilized transport advanced haltingly over millennia. With science, citizens may now buy tickets to suborbital space flight.
Consequently, public policy decision-makers often rely on science (or at least they say they do) when making laws and regulations in many areas, including economics, criminal law, environmental regulations technology and bioethics.
However, the law is in many ways anti-science. Scientists, practicing their methods, commit to seeking out and weighting more heavily data that oppose their theory; they are (supposed to be) anti-advocates. In contrast, clients hire lawyers expressly to be their advocates.
This creates a natural tension when scientists are called upon to advise public policy. Many who call themselves "scientists" are willing to participate as advocates in public policy. This has been shown clearly in fields like anthropogenic climate change, economic stimulus packages and, most recently, in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic.
How should we as lawyers assure that science is used properly in the public space, to make policy conform to reality, and not for political goals?
The panel will address two areas with this as background:

The FDA, CDC, and public health regulation. The COVID pandemic uncovered many problems in the way medical science is used to manage public health crises. with public policy.
Should scientific presentations be paternalistic? Is it ever justified to withhold, distort, or misrepresent science for fear that the truth will do damage by being misunderstood or misused?

Featuring:

Dr. Steven Benner, Distinguished Fellow, The Westheimer Institute at the Foundation for Applied State Room Molecular Evolution
Prof. I. Glenn Cohen, James A. Attwood and Leslie Williams Professor of Law, Deputy Dean, and Faculty Director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics, Harvard Law School
Ms. Christina Sandefur, Executive Vice President, Goldwater Institute
Moderator: Hon. Kenneth Lee, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". The final day of the conference featured the thirteenth annual Rosenkranz Debate.
RESOLVED: Concentrated corporate power is a greater threat to individual freedom than government power
Featuring:

Mr. John Allison, Executive in Residence, Wake Forest University School of Business; Former President and CEO, Cato Institute; Former President and CEO, BB&T
Mr. Ashley Keller, Partner, Keller Lenkner LLC
Moderator: Hon. Douglas H. Ginsburg, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit