FedSoc Events

On November 10, 2020, The Federalist Society's Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The panel covered "Freedom of Association in the Legal Profession."
The Code of Judicial Conduct for federal judges and the Code of Judicial Conduct template for state judges, as modified by the States, both recognize the propriety of judges engaging in extrajudicial activities that are consistent with their role as judges, and counsel judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in those activities. The federal and state templates differ, at least in part, because federal and state judges are selected in different ways. Put simply, we do not want our judges to hide in an ivory tower, but we also want them to behave as judges when providing the benefit of their experience. And, while we want judges to interact with the bar and the public, lawyers must be aware on the limitations on such judicial contacts. As a result, the notion of maintaining public confidence in the judiciary will be evaluated and enforced in different ways in each arena.
In January 2020, a draft advisory opinion from the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Codes of Conduct suggesting that federal judges ought not to be members of the Federalist Society or the American Constitution Society, but may be members of the American Bar Association, became public. That draft advisory opinion was based less on the actual activities of those organizations than on a belief that the public participation of judges in those organizations would further contribute to a public perception that judges are not non-partisan actors. The draft opinion was withdrawn, but its effects have lingered as lawyers, judges, law clerks, and law students have had to tiptoe around its implications.
This panel will consider some fundamental questions that swirl around the extrajudicial activities of judges, including those raised by the now withdrawn draft advisory opinion. For example, what are the core values that support the federal and state rules, and how do they differ? To the extent that we focus on public confidence in the judiciary, how should we evaluate it? Is public confidence in the judiciary capable of empirical evaluation or a matter of a priori judgment? Whose judgment matters: That of an average person? A reasonable person? A reasonable lawyer? A regulator applying one of those artificial constructs? What rules apply to a judge’s membership, holding office in, or participation in an organization, or writing and speaking?
Featuring:

Hon. Thomas B. Griffith, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (ret.)
Mr. W. William Hodes, Owner and President, The William Hodes Law Firm
Hon. William H. Pryor Jr., United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

*******
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 November 13, 2020, The Federalist Society's Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The panel discussed "Emergency Powers and the Rule of Law."
The coronavirus pandemic spotlighted an issue that’s been increasingly relevant the last few years: the extra powers that government gets in emergencies. At the federal level, presidents have been declaring emergencies under the Watergate-era National Emergencies Act—which doesn’t itself grants powers but triggers over a thousand statutes—in a host of circumstances, sometimes controversial (like President Trump’s southern-border declaration in February 2019), others barely noticed (assorted economic sanctions under various presidents). Many of these seem to be permanent; we’re still living under declarations responding to the 1979 Iranian hostage-taking and 2006 Belarusian election fraud. At the state level, the police power to govern for the public health, safety, welfare, and morals has run into legitimacy problems, both as legislatures grumble that they’re not consulted for months on end and as citizens question seemingly arbitrary lines drawn around “essential” services that interfere with both enumerated and unenumerated constitutional rights. How do we reconcile the need for governments at all levels to move quickly with both federalism and the separation of powers?
Featuring:

Dr. John Eastman, Professor of Law, Dave E. Fowler Law School, Chapman University
Mr. Ilya Shapiro, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
Ms. Elizabeth B. Wydra, President, Constitutional Accountability Center
Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law; Co-Faculty Director, Korea Law Center; Director, Public Law & Policy Program, University of California, Berkeley School of Law
Moderator: Hon. James C. Ho, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

*******
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 November 13, 2020, The Federalist Society's Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The panel covered "Agency Leaders on Cryptocurrency, Blockchain, and the Evolution of a Central Bank Digital Currency."
The pandemic has accelerated the establishment of digital currencies, including central bank digital currencies (CBDC). One of the biggest draws of cryptocurrency and even the blockchain, in general, is its leaning towards decentralization. Even so, CBDCs are now in active pilot programs across the world with the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, the European Central Bank and the People’s Bank of China all exploring the technology.
Proponents of CBDCs argue they will bring multiple advantages for an average consumer, including fast and cheap cross-border transactions, pseudo-anonymity, personal data protection, and international operability. However, Alexander Hamilton might ask if it is tendency of CBDCs to increase public and private credit. “The former gives power to the state, for the protection of its rights and interests; and the latter facilitates and extends the operations of commerce among individuals. Industry is increased, commodities are multiplied, agriculture and manufacturers flourish: and herein consists the true wealth and prosperity of a state."
Featuring:

Mr. Brian P. Brooks, Acting Comptroller of the Currency, Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency, United States Department of the Treasury
Hon. Brent J. McIntosh, Undersecretary for International Affairs, United States Department of the Treasury
Hon. Hester M. Peirce, Commissioner, United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Moderator: Hon. Paul S. Atkins, Chief Executive Officer, Patomak Global Partners, LLC; Former Commissioner, United States Securities and Exchange Commission

*******
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 November 13, 2020, The Federalist Society hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. This special session covered "The Future of the Second Amendment's Right to Keep and Bear Arms: From the Supreme Court to Social Unrest in the Streets‎."
With contrasting views from the two Presidential candidates, as well as the nomination of Judge Amy Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Second Amendment has once again become one of the foremost topics of discussion in the legal and political world.
Second Amendment issues have arisen in 2020 like never before. ‎The year started with “Second Amendment sanctuaries” in which almost all counties in Virginia, and many in other states, declared that proposed infringements on the right to keep and bear arms would not be enforced. The Virginia governor declared a state of emergency because of a planned protest in Richmond by gun owners, and although 22,000 protesters, many of them legally armed, attended, there was no reported violence. More recently, rioting and civil unrest have raised questions about citizens arming themselves and the use of potentially deadly force.
What constitutional protections, if any, are available to property owners wishing to protect their lives, livelihood, property, and communities? What is the correct constitutional analysis of restrictions on fundamental rights, including the Second Amendment, enacted in the midst of a nationwide pandemic and what role, if any, do traditional “police powers” play in analyzing those restrictions? What are the constitutional implications, if any, of criminal cases capturing headlines concerning the use of firearms by individual Americans such as Mark and Patricia McClosky, and Kyle Rittenhouse? The panel will discuss the Second Amendment implications of these timely issues.
Featuring:

Mr. Deepak Gupta, Founding Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLC
Mr. John Ohlendorf, Associate, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC
Prof. Mark W. Smith, Senior Fellow in Law and Public Policy: Presidential Scholar, The King’s College
Moderator: Hon. Thomas M. Hardiman, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Introduction: Hon. Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

*******
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 November 12, 2020, The Federalist Society hosted a virtual address by Justice Samuel Alito as a part of the 2020 National Lawyers Convention.
Featuring:

Hon. Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice, United States Supreme Court
Introduction: Hon. Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

*******
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 November 12, 2020, The Federalist Society hosted a virtual address by Judge Janice Rodgers Brown as part of the 2020 National Lawyers Convention.
Featuring:

Hon. Janice Rogers Brown, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (ret.); Former Associate Judge, California Supreme Court
Introduction: Mrs. Lisa Ezell, Vice President and Director, Lawyers Chapters, The Federalist Society

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

On November 12, 2020, The Federalist Society hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The topic of the panel was "The Presidency and the Rule of Law."
The U.S. Constitution states that the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” It also requires the President, before taking office, to swear (or affirm) that he or she will “faithfully execute the office of President of the United States.” Many believe that the Constitution, in creating a Presidency with sufficient energy to lead the country, contemplates that the President will have considerable discretion in how to go about this. At the same time, over the years, norms have developed to reinforce the idea that in the United States, executive power is to be exercised pursuant to law, and not as a tool to punish political enemies or to protect friends.
How does the rule of law both constrain and protect the Presidency? What role do norms play? Have the norms surrounding the President’s exercise of executive power eroded, and if so, why? What role have Congress, the media, social media, and other factors played? The panel will discuss these and other matters including possible reforms.
Featuring:

Mr. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, Former White House Counsel
Hon. Jack L. Goldsmith, Professor of Law, Harvard University; Former Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice
Amb. C. Boyden Gray, Founding Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates; Former White House Counsel; Former Ambassador to the European Union
Hon. Theodore B. Olson, Partner, Gibson Dunn; Former United States Solicitor General
Moderator: Hon. Edith H. Jones, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

*******
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 November 12, 2020, The Federalist Society hosted a virtual address by Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia as a part of the 2020 National Lawyers Convention.
Featuring:

Hon. Eugene Scalia, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor
Introduction: Mr. Eugene Meyer, President and CEO, The Federalist Society

*******
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 November 12, 2020, the Federalist Society hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The panel covered "Law, Social Justice, Wokeness, and Protests: Where Do We Go From Here?".
Historically, the rule of law and the concept of justice it represents supply two key roots of the American experiment. Some think the ideology underlying many of the recent protests challenges this experiment at its core and that its concept of justice arguably differs from that of our Framers. Indeed for some social justice advocates the concepts of the rule of law, justice, reason and discussion all are suspect at best and tools of oppression at worst. Are the protesters who hold this ideology reform minded or revolutionary? Do the critics of this movement underestimate the powerful currents behind the protests? What are possible or desirable responses to this challenge?
Featuring:

Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Prof. Randall Kennedy, Michael R. Klein Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President and CEO, The Federalist Society (representing Prof. John O. McGinnis)
Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor of Constitutional Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
Prof. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law Emerita, New York Law School; Former President, American Civil Liberties Union
Moderator: Hon. Kenneth K. Lee, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

*******
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 November 11, 2020, The Federalist Society's Professional Civil rights Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The panel covered "Modern Quandaries of Law Enforcement."
The debates surrounding the doctrine of qualified immunity and cultural impact of law enforcement have seen renewed vigor in past months, as citizens across the country question how reform, if appropriate, is best implemented. While qualified immunity finds its roots in the common law practice of extending protections to state actors performing their legal duty, its American origins are less definitive, which prompted Justice Thomas to comment “qualified immunity doctrine appears to stray from the statutory text” in late June.
Some scholars have suggested modifying policing strategies (i.e. “defund”) or doing away with the doctrine of qualified immunity will protect the rights of individuals against corrupt or prejudiced law enforcement officials, but there is significant pushback from everyday citizens, judges, and Presidents alike. Our panel of policy and legal experts will debate the pros and cons of both topics in this 75-minute virtual presentation.
Featuring:

Mr. Larry H. James, Managing Partner, Crabbe Brown & James LLP
Ms. Heather Mac Donald, Contributing Editor, City Journal, Manhattan Institute
Mr. Robert McNamara, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Mr. Charles “Cully” Stimson, Senior Legal Fellow and Manager, National Security Law Program, The Heritage Foundation
Moderator: Hon. Patrick J. Bumatay, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

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