FedSoc Events

On April 5, 2019, the Federalist Society's Ohio lawyers chapters hosted the 2019 Ohio Chapters Conference in Columbus, OH. The first panel of the conference discussed "The Law and Policy of Redistricting Reform".
The Supreme Court will hear argument this term in cases presenting the question whether courts may strike down “partisan gerrymanders.” This presents a number of questions. Some are legal: Do state legislatures act unconstitutionally if they draw districts that favor one party or the other? If so, what are courts to do about it? Others relate to policy: Are so-called “partisan gerrymanders” even troubling? Is there a chance of meaningful reform at the state level? And what does Ohio’s experience with redistricting reform teach us about this? The panel will address these questions and more.
Featuring:

Kathleen Clyde, Portage County Commissioner
Hon. Larry Obhof, Ohio Senate President, 22nd District
Misha Tseytlin, Troutman Sanders & Former Solicitor General, State of Wisconsin
Moderator: Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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 April 5, 2019, the Federalist Society's Ohio lawyers chapters hosted the 2019 Ohio Chapters Conference in Columbus, OH. The second address of the conference came from Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost.

Hon. Dave Yost, Attorney General, State of Ohio
Introduction: Matthew Byrne, Jackson Lewis PC

* * * * *
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 April 5, 2019, the Federalist Society's Ohio lawyers chapters hosted the 2019 Ohio Chapters Conference in Columbus, OH. The conference opened with an address by Judge Alice Batchelder.

Hon. Alice Batchelder, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Introduction: Robert Alt, The Buckeye Institute

* * * * *
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 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The roundtable discussion covered "Federalism's Contribution to Economic Liberty: Catalyzing Technological Advancement and Economic Growth".
Does the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee economic liberty? If not, what role might states play in advancing economic liberty? Frustrated with the federal government’s inability or unwillingness to solve regulatory or competition-based problems, some states have taken matters into their own hands. This panel will address how states have been, and still can be, laboratories of democracy when it comes to regulation and catalyzing economic growth. It will also address how federal regulators can work with, not against, states to accomplish these goals.
Using case studies ranging from emerging technologies to marijuana deregulation, the panel will explore the state’s role in our modern federal system, with special attention paid to modern interpretations of both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause.
Discussion will focus on demonstrating the ways in which states can remain flexible in fostering innovation—both technological and regarding social policy—while ensuring that consumers are adequately protected from dangerous product or service testing or other offerings. This flexibility enables states to attract, test, and encourage competition in emerging and innovative technologies, as well as long-existing technologies with lowered barriers to entry.

Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Ms. Dana Berliner, Senior Vice President and Litigation Director, Institute for Justice
Hon. Clint Bolick, Arizona Supreme Court
Hon. Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General
Prof. Allan Ides, Professor of Law and Christopher N. May Chair, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles
Moderator: Hon. Chad Readler, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth 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 March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The fourth panel discussed "Blockchain-Backed Cryptocurrencies: Order Without Law in the Digital Age".
In the wake of skyrocketing Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency prices, the SEC has argued that cryptocurrencies should be regulated as securities. Yet, many of those responsible for developing cryptocurrencies view them as an efficient, reliable way of storing and exchanging value without government interference or regulation. This panel will discuss the likelihood that cryptocurrencies will play a meaningful role in the global economy, and if and how they should be regulated.

Ms. Mary Beth Buchanan, General Counsel, Kraken Cryptocurrency Exchange
Mr. Jim Harper, Former Executive Vice President, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Prof. Gary Marchant, Regent’s Professor of Law and Director for the Center for Law, Science and Innovation, ASU Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law
Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
Moderator: Hon. John B. Nalbandian, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth 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 March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The third panel explored "Economic Liberty in Criminal Justice: Business Crimes and Economic Sanctions".
Although criminal justice is often associated with non-economic issues—such as those raised by violent crimes and long prison sentences—the system regularly implicates individual economic liberty, as can be seen in the prohibition and prosecution of certain commercial and financial interactions. Sometimes individuals are held strictly liable for their actions even in the absence of force, fraud, or direct harm. In turn, the government may impose a variety of economic sanctions for purported wrongdoing, with fines, fees, and forfeitures levied in legal processes which often seem bereft of basic procedural protections. This panel will explore these and other criminal justice issues and the implications for individual economic liberty.

Prof. Beth A. Colgan, Assistant Professor of Law, UCLA Law
Prof. Erik Luna, Amelia D. Lewis Professor of Constitutional and Criminal Law, ASU Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law
Ms. Christina Sandefur, Executive Vice President, Goldwater Institute
Mr. Peter J. Wallison, Senior Fellow and Arthur F. Burns Fellow in Financial Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute
Moderator: Hon. Elizabeth L. Branch, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh 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 March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The second panel asked "Is Economic Protectionism a Legitimate State Interest?".
The Tenth Circuit held in Powers v. Harris that “intra-state economic protectionism, absent a violation of a specific federal statutory or constitutional provision, is a legitimate state interest.” The Second Circuit agrees. In contrast, the Fifth and Sixth Circuits have struck down laws aimed at protecting local economic actors as unjustified by state police power. Does a state violate the Equal Protection Clause when it restricts economic liberty for the sole purpose of economic protectionism? For example, is the Equal Protection Clause violated when a state doesn’t make an activity or ownership of a certain type of property per se illegal, but the state employs economic “checkpoints” to significantly discourage the activity or specified property ownership (i.e., guns, pornography, etc.).
This panel will also explore the impact of cronyism on emerging technologies and federalism. For example, had Uber and Lyft not been so successful in expeditiously building themselves up before being taken seriously by regulators and traditional industry competitors (i.e., taxi companies), the taxi companies likely could have, and would have, lobbied to pass legislation and create regulations making ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft illegal, or so cost prohibitive as to preclude the ridesharing industry from ever being financially viable.

Prof. Paul Bender, Dean Emeritus and Professor of Law, ASU Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law
Dr. Yaron Brook, Chairman of the Board, Ayn Rand Institute
Prof. Roderick M. Hills, Jr., William T. Comfort, III Professor of Law, NYU Law
Prof. Todd J. Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School
Moderator: Hon. Edith H. Jones, 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 March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The first panel discussed "The Original Understanding of 'Privileges of Immunities'".
Scholars contest the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1873, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to state economic regulations under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the Slaughter-House Cases. Since then, the Privileges or Immunities Clause has been best known as a “practical nullity.” However, Justice Thomas provided a strong challenge to this interpretation in his McDonald v. City of Chicago concurrence.
This panel explores whether the Fourteenth Amendment was principally concerned with equality, guaranteeing fundamental rights, or both. If the Fourteenth Amendment does guarantee fundamental rights, does it merely incorporate the bill of rights against the states, or does it do more and provide protections for economic liberty? And was the Amendment intended to accomplish these purposes through a substantive notion of “due process” or through the Privileges or Immunities Clause? Is the fundamental-rights view inconsistent with judicial restraint? This panel will discuss these fundamental questions concerning the Fourteenth Amendment’s original meaning, and whether maintaining an expansive notion of substantive due process or resurrecting the Privileges or Immunities Clause would be an ill-conceived invitation to judicial activism.

Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown Law
Prof. Kurt T. Lash, E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of Law
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Visiting Assistant Professor, ASU Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law
Prof. Rebecca E. Zietlow, Charles W. Fornoff Professor of Law and Values, University of Toledo College of Law
Moderator: Judge Amul R. Thapar, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth 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 March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The symposium opened with a keynote lecture by Prof. Richard Epstein on "Is Lochner v. New York Constitutionally Indefensible?"
KEYNOTE TOPIC: Is Lochner v. New York Constitutionally Indefensible?
Is Lochner v New York constitutionally indefensible? It is commonly asserted that there are only four cases in American constitutional history that are beyond the pale: Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v United States, and Lochner v. New York. The stark contrast between decisions that have thwarted economic and social liberties and the one case that defends it, should itself be sufficient to explain why economic liberties today deserve increased constitutional protection. In this lecture, Professor Epstein will examine the yawning gulf between Lochner and these three other decisions.
Featuring:

Grant Frazier, ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law
Dean Douglas Sylvester, ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law
Prof. Richard Epstein, New York University School of Law

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 law enforcement landscape is ever-changing, with modern issues such as the challenges associated with electronically stored information, encryption, cyber warfare, fentanyl, and election disinformation campaigns requiring new solutions. Even preceding issues regarding border security, criminal immigration enforcement, firearms trafficking, and organized crime present new challenges for law enforcement efforts in Washington D.C., Virginia, Maryland, and the nation at large. Please join us for an event focusing on some of the most prominent and pressing challenges facing twenty-first century law enforcement.
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:

G. Zachary Terwilliger, United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia
Robert K. Hur, United States Attorney, District of Maryland
Moderator: Jessie K. Liu, United States Attorney, District of Columbia
Introduction: Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society