FedSoc Events

Artificial Intelligence is now part of daily life. AI has improved efficiency, predicted outcomes with accuracy, and even created innovations. At the same time, however, AI and its capabilities are evolving faster than the laws and regulations governing its use. AI presents new challenges to intellectual property—from inventorship and authorship issues to liability. This panel will explore the intersection of AI and Intellectual Property rights. In the copyright context, it must be determined who is the owner of AI-generated works to whether it is fair use to train AI models using copyrighted works. In the patent context, it must be determined whether AI can be an inventor and whether AI can or should be used to assist in the drafting of patents. It is also not settled who has the power to regulate AI—the USPTO and other federal agencies, or only Congress? These are all questions that will eventually be answered by the courts or legislation. This panel will explore these questions and more as it looks to try and answer how we can move forward in a world filled with AI while ensuring the protection of intellectual property rights.
Featuring:

Mr. Jordan Gimbel, Associate General Counsel, Microsoft
Hon. Melissa Holyoak, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
Hon. Darrell Issa, United States Representative (CA 48th District)
Hon. Paul Redmond Michel, Former Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Moderator: Hon. Ryan T. Holte, United States Court of Federal Claims & Jurist-In-Residence Professor of Law, The University of Akron School of Law

In the twentieth century, state supreme courts and legislatures limited the practice of law to licensed law school graduates and prevented nonlawyers from investing in law firms. This regulatory structure has not yielded a sufficient supply of affordable legal services to keep pace with demand: despite government and charitable funding and pro bono work, over 90% of the basic civil legal needs of low-income Americans now go unmet.
As lawyers have taken an interest in regulatory reform in this century, some have begun to scrutinize our own profession and explore whether innovative structural changes can help close this justice gap. The experts on this panel will equip attendees to consider reform in their states by examining the pros and cons of three such changes: (1) licensing legal paraprofessionals to perform limited legal services; (2) allowing nonlawyers to invest in legal service providers; and (3) reforming legal education and licensure to increase the supply of lawyers, especially in underserved geographic and practice areas.
Featuring:

Hon. Clint Bolick, Justice, Supreme Court of Arizona
Hon. Charles Canady, Chief Justice, Florida Supreme Court
Ms. Danielle Hirsch, Managing Director, Court Consulting Division, National Center for State Courts
Ms. Lucy Ricca, Executive Director, Deborah L. Rhode Center on the Legal Profession, Stanford Law School
Moderator: Hon. J. Brett Busby, Justice, Texas Supreme Court

Featuring:

Ms. Rebecca Dormon, Labor Consultant, People Results
Mr. Pepper Crutcher, Partner, Balch & Bingham LLP
Mr. Bradford J. Kelley, Shareholder, Littler
Moderator: Hon. Chad A. Readler, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Last term, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Rahimi, which built upon the text-first, history-second methodology articulated by the Supreme Court in Heller and reaffirmed in Bruen. Many hot button Second Amendment issues are percolating through the lower courts and are likely to reach this Supreme Court in the coming terms. This panel will discuss Rahimi's impact on the text and history methodology as applied to legal challenges to "gun free zones", bans on semi-automatic rifles and "high capacity" magazines, age restrictions, and restrictions on misdemeanants. The panel will also discuss several important methodological issues that are common to many Second Amendment litigations, including the debate whether 1791 or 1868 is the correct time to determine the meaning of the Second Amendment.
Featuring:

Prof. William Merkel, Associate Professor, Charleston School of Law
Mr. Mark W. Smith, Senior Fellow, Ave Maria School of Law and Host of the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment Channel
Mr. David Thompson, Partner, Cooper & Kirk
Moderator: Hon. Amul Thapar, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

(Ticketed event)
On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society believes that it is most fitting to dedicate an annual lecture on limited government and the spirit of freedom to the memory of Barbara Olson. She had a deep commitment to the rule of law and understood well the relationship between respecting limits on government power and the preservation of freedom. And, significantly, Barbara Olson was an individual who never took freedom for granted in her own life, even in her final terrifying moments-her inspiring and energetic human spirit is a testament to what one can achieve in a world that places a premium on human freedom. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals.
Featuring:

Prof. Jonathan R. Turley, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law; Director of the Environmental Law Advocacy Center; Executive Director, Project for Older Prisoners, The George Washington University Law School

Theories of nuisance, market-share, and consumer protection liability have become increasingly popular among plaintiffs who cannot trace an alleged harm to any specific defendant. Recently, states and local governments have sought to impose market-share liability on companies based on allegedly misleading statements (or silence) about the potential effects of their products. These cases raise difficult legal issues that remain underdeveloped because the risk of a crippling damages award often pressures companies to settle claims early in litigation.
Featuring:

Mr. Theodore J. Boutrous, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Mr. Elbert Lin, Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Mr. Oramel H. Skinner, III, Executive Director, Alliance For Consumers
Moderator: Hon. William H. Pryor, Jr., Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Over the past year, college campuses have been filled with student protests and demonstrations. A large number of these protests involved students camping out on campus for weeks, taking over administrative and academic buildings, harassing and threatening other students and faculty members, and destruction of property. Many administrators have refused to discipline students or enforce their policies because of First Amendment concerns. Instead, they contend the First Amendment prohibited them from punishing the students or enforcing their policies because the students were engaged in protected speech. When it comes to protests and demonstrations, what does the First Amendment protect? When does protected speech cross the line into unprotected conduct? What duties does a public university have to protect its students from harassment and intimidation? How does a university determine what speech is likely to incite imminent violence?
This panel will examine the scope and limits of the First Amendment, especially as it relates to public colleges and universities.
Featuring:

Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law
Dean Thomas J. Miles, Dean & Clifton R. Musser Professor of Law and Economics, The University of Chicago Law School
Prof. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, Emerita, New York Law School; Former President, American Civil Liberties Union
Prof. Eugene Volokh, Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution; Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Distinguished Research Professor, UCLA School of Law
Moderator: Hon. David R. Stras, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

As international courts have addressed issues arising from the Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Hamas wars, we will explore whether engagement with the ICC and ICJ institutions is beneficial or harmful to the United States and how U.S. policymakers should approach these courts.
Feature:

Hon. Charles Brower, Judge, Iran-United States Claims Tribunal and Arbitrator Member, Twenty Essex Chambers
Prof. Diane Desierto, Professor of Law and Global Affairs, Notre Dame Law School; Faculty Director, LL.M. in International Human Rights Law; Global Director, Notre Dame Law School Global Human Rights Clinic
Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law; Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University Law
Prof. Michael A. Newton, Professor of the Practice of Law and Professor of the Practice of Political Science, Vanderbilt Law School
Moderator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Featuring a conversation addressing regulation of artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, tech platform regulation, privacy, spectrum policy, broadband funding and other government spending, and consumer protection issues.
Featuring:

Ms. Robin Colwell, Principal, BGR Government Affairs, LLC
Mr. Scott Blake Harris, Co-Founder and Managing Partner, Crest Hill Advisors
Mr. Umair Javed, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, CTIA
Prof. Mario Loyola, Research Assistant Professor, Florida International University; Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
Moderator: Hon. Michael H. Park, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Featuring:

Hon. Eric Schmitt, United States Senator, Missouri
Moderator: Mr. Elbert Lin, Former Solicitor General, West Virginia; Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP