FedSoc Events

On July 29, 2019, The Federalist Society's practice groups cosponsored a panel titled "Citizenship: The Road Ahead" at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC.
After the Supreme Court's decision in Department of Commerce v. New York at the end of the latest term, is there a road forward for addressing citizenship on the US census or otherwise collecting the relevant data? In what ways can executive power be practiced or limited in this subject?
*******
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:

Prof. John S. Baker, Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University
Hon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
David B. Rivkin Jr., Constitutional Litigator
Moderator: Stuart S. Taylor, Jr., Freelance Journalist and Author

On July 19, 2019, the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative cosponsored a two-part panel with the Constitutional Sources Project at the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, DC. The topic of the first panel was early state constitutions and their influence on the legislative branch.
The concept of states serving as important test cases for national governance dates back to the founding of the country. This panel will discuss how lessons from the state constitutions and legislatures prior to and during the American founding were incorporated into our federal government, and in particular, the powers enumerated to Congress and the structure of the branch itself. The event is the first in a two-part series of Capitol Hill luncheons focusing on the important role the states have played in the past and how they may still serve to offer solutions to the modern Congress. This event is co-sponsored by the Constitutional Sources Project.
*******
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:

Lynn Uzzell, Lecturer, University of Virginia, University of Richmond
John Dinan, Professor of Politics, Wake Forest University
Mark Graber, Regents Professor, University System of Maryland
Moderator: Julie Silverbrook, Executive Director, The Constitutional Sources Project
Introduction: Nathan Kaczmarek, Director, Article I Initiative | Director, Regulatory Transparency Project, The Federalist Society

On June 25, 2019, the Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group presented an event on "Ownership Limits in an Increasingly Competitive Marketplace" at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. The second part of the event featured a panel discussion.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sets limits on the number of broadcast radio stations an entity can own. As required by Congress, the FCC reviews its media ownership rules every four years to determine whether the rules are in the public interest and to repeal or modify any regulation it determines does not meet this criteria. There have been radical changes in the media marketplace since 1996 when the current local radio ownership limits were adopted. And in today’s changing marketplace – where some of the large companies in America, including Google, Amazon, and Facebook, are no longer on the audio marketplace sidelines – important questions have been raised as to whether existing limits need to be modified.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Agenda:
12:15 p.m. - Q&A Session with Commissioner Brendan Carr, Federal Communications Commission
12:45 p.m. - Panel Discussion with:

Jeffrey Warshaw, Founder and CEO, Connoisseur Media
Gordon Borrell, CEO, Borrell Associates, Inc.
Francella Ochillo, Vice President, Policy & General Counsel, National Hispanic Media Coalition
Moderator: Prof. Michelle Connolly, Professor of the Practice of Economics, Duke University

On June 18, 2019, the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative and Regulatory Transparency Project hosted a panel on "Agency Rulemaking: Unnecessary Delegation or Indispensable Assistance?" at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.
In his recent article, “Strategic Institutional Positioning: How We Have Come to Generate Environmental Law Without Congress,” published in the Texas A&M Law Review, Donald Kochan lays out the argument that delegation of authority to agencies serves the interests of both sides of Congress. Those ostensibly elected to oppose further regulation can argue that any proposed rule changes are out of their control. Conversely, representatives elected to increase regulation can blame agency heads for not following the intent of the authorizing statute. However, both sides avoid blame by the electorate.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a system? Should specialized bureaucrats do the lion’s share of rulemaking? Or should elected Senators and Congressman, often without the same level of expertise, write the rules that govern our nation?
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position or particular legal or public policy issues. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:

Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato Institute
Prof. Donald Kochan, Professor in Law and the Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law
Prof. Robert Percival, Professor of Law and Director, Environmental Law Program, University of Maryland School of Law
Brianne Gorod, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center
Moderator: Jeff Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell LLP

On June 11, 2019, the Federalist Society's Litigation Practice Group hosted a panel titled "Third Party Litigation Financing: A Distorting or Reinforcing Practice?" at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.
Third party litigation financing (TPLF) is the practice of external financiers investing in lawsuits in exchange for a percentage of any settlement or judgment. TPLF is a global industry with approximately $100 billion available to funders and firms. Proponents argue that the practice makes it possible for marginalized plaintiffs to bring difficult cases that wouldn't otherwise be brought. Critics, however, claim that it harms the legal system, distorting the plaintiff and defendant roles and making lawsuit settlements more difficult and expensive. Are these criticisms fair? Or do the benefits outweigh the objections? Join us on June 11 for an expert panel who will consider these questions and more.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:

Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School
Andrew Grossman, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato Institute
Prof. Erin M. Hawley, Associate Professor at the University of Missouri School of Law, Legal Fellow at the Independent Women's Forum
Hon. Luther Johnson Strange, III, Former Senator, State of Alabama
Moderator: Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

On June 25, 2019, the Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group presented an event on "Ownership Limits in an Increasingly Competitive Marketplace" at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. The first part of the event featured a Q&A session with FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) sets limits on the number of broadcast radio stations an entity can own. As required by Congress, the FCC reviews its media ownership rules every four years to determine whether the rules are in the public interest and to repeal or modify any regulation it determines does not meet this criteria. There have been radical changes in the media marketplace since 1996 when the current local radio ownership limits were adopted. And in today’s changing marketplace – where some of the large companies in America, including Google, Amazon, and Facebook, are no longer on the audio marketplace sidelines – important questions have been raised as to whether existing limits need to be modified.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Agenda:
12:15 p.m. - Q&A Session with Commissioner Brendan Carr, Federal Communications Commission
12:45 p.m. - Panel Discussion with:

Jeffrey Warshaw, Founder and CEO, Connoisseur Media
Gordon Borrell, CEO, Borrell Associates, Inc.
Francella Ochillo, Vice President, Policy & General Counsel, National Hispanic Media Coalition
Moderator: Prof. Michelle Connolly, Professor of the Practice of Economics, Duke University

On June 5, 2019, the Federalist Society's Mississippi Gulf Coast Lawyers Chapter hosted a forum for the Mississippi candidates for attorney general at William Carey University in Hattiesburg, Mississippi.
*******
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:

Opening Remarks: Dr. Scott Hummel, William Carey University
Rep. Mark Baker, Mississippi House of Representatives
Andy Taggart, Taggart, Rimes & Graham, PLLC
Moderator: T. Russell Nobile, The Federalist Society's Mississippi Gulf Coast Lawyers Chapter

On June 5, 2019, the Federalist Society's Litigation Practice Group hosted a panel at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. The topic of the panel was "ALI: Unbiased Analyzer or Agenda Driver?"
The American Law Institute is a well-respected, nearly century-old body of jurists and legal practitioners that produces documents called “Restatements,” which have traditionally distilled and clearly restated the opinions of a majority of state courts on difficult questions of common law. But recently, some in the legal community have raised concern that ALI is putting out problematic Restatements that are more aspirational in nature and that run counter to its mission; others claim that ALI is simply interpreting the law. Meanwhile, states are considering and passing laws that would prevent judges from referring to certain ALI Restatements when deciding cases.
*******
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:

John Fund, National Affairs Columnist, National Review and Fox News Analyst
Victor E. Schwartz, Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP
Seth P. Waxman, Partner, WilmerHale and former United States Solicitor General
Edward Whelan, President, Ethics and Public Policy Center
Moderator: Hon. Susan G. Braden (Ret.), Chief Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims

On May 30, 2019, the Federalist Society's Article I Initiative hosted a panel at the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The panel discussed "All the President's Budgets: Who should be setting federal budget priorities?"
The power of the purse is often cited as central to the framers' design for the legislative branch. Each year, however, the modern Congress waits for the executive branch to complete and deliver its annual budget before beginning its own formal budgeting process. Why has this sequence developed? What are the costs and benefits for the executive to prepare extensive budget priorities that, in recent years, are largely ignored once announced?
*******
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:

Molly Reynolds, Senior Fellow of Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution
Steve Redburn, Professorial Lecturer in Public Policy and Public Administration, George Washington University
Moderator: Anne DeCesaro, Republican Staff Director, Worker and Family Support Subcommittee, Committee on Ways and Means, US House of Representatives
Introduction: Nathan Kaczmarek, Director, Article I Initiative | Director, Regulatory Transparency Project, The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies

On May 23, 2019, the National Security Institute and the Federalist Society co-hosted an event about U.S. strategy in Syria and the Middle East. The second panel was titled "U.S. Policy in Syria: Stay In, Get Out, or Triple Down?"
*******
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:

Norm Roule, NSI Visiting Fellow, Former Natl. Intelligence Mgr. for Iran Office of the DNI
Dana Stroul, Senior Fellow in The Washington Institute’s Beth and David Geduld Program on Arab Politics
Katherine Zimmerman, Research Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute
Moderator: Jamil N. Jaffer, NSI Founder and Executive Director