FedSoc Events

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 panel discussed "The Separation of Powers and Political Polarization."
Political polarization is a great problem of our time. This panel would consider the separation of powers deformation that is a factor in polarization. Executive branch administrative decisions tend to be more extreme than legislative solutions, particularly when, as is usually the case, the houses of Congress and the President are divided among the parties. Thus, Congress’s delegation of policy decisions to the executive branch results in extreme regulations that can shift radically between administrations, creating government by whiplash. The panel would consider whether institutional restorations, like the curbing of delegation and Chevron, might help in restoring a constitution of compromise.
Featuring:

Prof. Neal E. Devins, Sandra Day O’Connor Professor of Law & Professor of Government, William & Mary Law School
Prof. Victoria Nourse, Ralph V. Whitworth Professor in Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Hon. Ajit Pai, Nonresident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Former Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
Prof. Michael Rappaport, Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Professor of Law & Director for the Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism, University of San Diego School of Law
Moderator: Hon. William H. Pryor Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh 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?". This panel discussed "Federal Consent Decrees: Good Governance, an Expansion of Federal Power, or Both?"
In a 1987 article entitled Why Hold Elections?, Professor Michael McConnell noted a trend that had been emerging since the 1970s: the use of consent decrees to settle federal lawsuits against state and local governments. These decrees are entered as judgements enforceable by contempt, but without full litigation. Nonetheless, these decrees often contain hundreds of requirements that dictate the policies, budgets, and personnel of local government agencies for years or even decades. Professor McConnell thus warned: "To the extent that consent decrees insulate today's policy decisions from review and modification by tomorrow's political processes, they violate the democratic structure of government. They should be repudiated before they become a common part of the legal landscape."
In 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memo noting that consent decrees "raise sensitive federalism concerns" and announcing a new set of policies governing (and limiting) DOJ’s use of consent decrees.
In April 2021, Attorney General Garland repudiated the Sessions memo, stating that the "Department will return to the traditional process that allows the heads of litigating components to approve most settlement agreements, consent decrees, and the use of monitors in cases involving state and local governmental entities."
This panel will explore the important topic of federal court consent decrees to settle claims against state and local governments. Panelists will explore the history of such decrees and the arguments for and against their use. Panelists will also discuss the dueling approaches to DOJ’s use of such decrees, as outlined in the Sessions and Garland memos.
Featuring:

Mr. Andrew McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National Review Institute; Contributing Editor, National Review
Mr. Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP; Former Acting Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
Prof. Robert Percival, Robert F. Stanton Professor of Law; Director of the Environmental Law Program, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law
Mr. Benjamin S. Wolf, Former Legal Director and Institutional Reform Project Director, ACLU of Illinois
Moderator: Hon. Elizabeth “Lisa” Branch, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

What role should publicly traded corporations play in democratic politics?
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 first showcase panel discussed "Social Activism and Corporate Leadership."
Corporate resources are increasingly being used to advance social justice policy goals. This corporate engagement includes advocacy for what’s presented as the “corporate perspective” on divisive social questions. It also includes the use of economic leverage to influence public opinion, affect government policy, and induce private agreements to policy choices that have not been adopted through the political process.
To some, this is a positive development: it is all to the good for corporations to advance a just cause. Their public leadership and their market power can help bring the country and the world along. To others, this is an abuse and confusion of power. The goals of the “social justice” and “woke” movements are among the most hotly contested questions of American politics and culture, and they should be resolved through democratic processes without corporations putting a thumb on the scale.
We will explore these questions both as matters of principle and matters of law.
As a matter of principle, should corporations have unfettered discretion to influence any sphere of American life? Is such discretion good for the democratic process, and is it good for individual liberty? Is the libertarian perspective -- that private actors should be largely able to do what they want, and if they overstep, market competition will fill the gap – adequate to this dynamic? Is there any limiting principle to corporations using economic power to influence politics?
As a matter of law, are corporations permitted to use whatever levers are available to them to influence matters of politics? Is corporate leadership permitted to do so in publicly traded companies? Should corporate endorsement or support of a policy position or candidate be considered a reportable lobbying expense or campaign contribution and, if so, how should it be valued? What existing legal frameworks might apply to these questions? How does Citizens United fit into this picture?
Featuring:

Prof. Margaret Blair, Professor of Law Emerita & Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise Emerita, Vanderbilt University Law School; Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
Prof. Jonathan Macey, Sam Harris Professor of Corporate Law, Corporate Finance, and Securities Law, Yale Law School
Prof. Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Luigi Zingales, Robert C. McCormack Distinguished Service Professor of Entrepreneurship and Finance and George G. Rinder Faculty Fellow, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Moderator: Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth 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 opening address was given by Judge Amul Thapar.
Featuring:

Hon. Amul R. Thapar, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

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 second panel covered "School Choice in the Courts."
The United States Supreme Court recently declined to review the Wisconsin Supreme Court's holding that Milwaukee's school-voucher program does not violate the First Amendment's Religion Clause, and the Arizona Supreme Court upheld tax credits. Other recent federal-court decisions have embraced many of the constitutional arguments advanced by school choice proponents. In the months to come, other courts in Ohio, Maine, and Vermont, are likely to address this same issue. However, given the twists and turns of the Supreme Courts's Religion Clause jurisprudence, only the Supreme Court will be able to resolve the constitutional questions surrounding vouchers. At this panel, leading constitutional scholars and litigators will discuss various aspects of the problem of school choice programs' constitutionality.

Featuring:

Leonard Leo, The Federalist Society
Richard W. Garnett, Attorney, Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin
Jeffrey Sutton, Of Counsel, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue
Steven R. Shapiro, National Legal DIrector, American Civil Liberties Union

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 first panel discussed "The History and Politics of School Choice."
School choice is a "hot" political topic, one that cuts across current party lines and ideological boundaries. School choice efforts have succeeded in some States, yet failed in others. What are the "politics of school choice?" How can and do voucher proponents and opponents frame their case to appeal to the public? What arguments "work?" Is there room for consensus and compromise? Speakers at this panel will be experienced observers of the political scene and students of public opinion who will place the rhetorical and political struggles over school choice in perspective.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:

Mr. Andrew Coulson, Senior Research Associate, Social Philosophy Policy Center
Mr. Dal Lawrence, Former President, Toledo Federation of Teachers
Mr. Richard Leonardi, President, Buckeye Institute
Councilwoman Fannie Lewis, Cleveland City Council
Moderator Mr. Douglas Haynes, Vice President of Education Policy, John Locke Foundation

Featuring:

Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law

Featuring:

Brian Barnes, Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC
Antonio García-Martínez, Author, Chaos Monkeys, and ex-Advisor, Twitter
Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor, Stanford Law School, and Co-Chair, Oversight Board
Chris Pavlovski, Founder and CEO, Rumble.com
Moderator: Olivia Jackson, General Counsel, Oversight Board
Introduction: Jonathan Breit, Stanford Law School ’22

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

Featuring:

A. Douglas Melamed, Professor, Stanford Law School, and ex-General Counsel, Intel
Aaron Schur, Deputy General Counsel, Yelp
Hal Singer, Managing Director, Econ One
Dina Srinivasan, Author, The Antitrust Case Against Facebook
Alan Sykes, Professor, Stanford Law School
Moderator: Ted Ullyot, Former General Counsel, Facebook
Introduction: Austin Peters, Stanford Law School '22

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

Featuring:

Paul Grewal, Chief Legal Officer, Coinbase
Interviewer: Katie Biber, Chief Legal Officer, Brex
Introduction: Theodore Furchtgott, Stanford Law School '22

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