FedSoc Events

U.S. businesses operating in the global economy, and non-U.S. businesses operating or looking to invest in the United States, must account for an increasingly prominent national security and personal security law architecture applicable to international trade and investment. Businesses in the United States are both the world’s largest foreign direct investors, and the largest single national beneficiary of foreign direct investment from other countries. But as markets and investment opportunities have become increasingly global, protection of national security interests has become an important consideration for many governments. While the term "national security" naturally conjures up images of military and intelligence matters, the link between trade, investment, and national security has become more prominent for policymakers. Although national security reviews of foreign investment, such as the process conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), perhaps receive the most public and media attention, there are a host of other security-related concerns that must be navigated by companies operating in the global environment: requests to assist the home state government with intelligence and criminal investigations; ensuring that products and services sold outside of the U.S. are done in compliance with applicable U.S. and foreign trade sanctions and import/export licensing regimes; and maintaining data privacy/security and robust cybersecurity protections. Our panel of seasoned general counsels and national security experts will explore the intersection of private sector commerce and national security.

Mr. William J. Haynes II, Former General Counsel of the Department of Defense
Mr. Timothy J. Keeler, Partner, Mayer Brown
Prof. Randal S. Milch, Co-Chair, NYU Center for Cybersecurity; Distinguished Fellow, Center on Law and Security; Professor of Practice, New York University School of Law
Mr. Donald J. Rosenberg, Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Qualcomm Inc.
Moderator: Mr. Eric J. Kadel, Jr., Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP

Antitrust enforcers in the post-Microsoft era, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, have been under more or less continuous criticism as insufficiently active. Proponents of this view have offered a number of routes to more vigorous and creative enforcement, ranging from re-writing the core statutes to address high tech industries and following the lead of the European Commission to adopting a “Brandeisian” approach, which focuses on a variety of concerns beyond consumer welfare, including employment, privacy, and environmental sustainability.
As an alternative to these “tear it all down” approaches, could greater transparency be a more effective response? Concerns regarding the level and type of enforcement activity are arguably rooted in widespread misunderstanding of the process, particularly with respect to merger review. Has the time come to update the DOJ/FTC guidelines on horizontal mergers, the licensing of intellectual property, the operation of information exchanges, and other issues? Are agency processes and decisional factors sufficiently well understood? Has the Supreme Court’s antitrust docket hampered or improved transparency? Such questions are particularly timely in light of the FTC’s ongoing hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century.

Hon. Frank Easterbrook, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Ms. Deb Garza, Partner, Covington & burling
Mr. Eric Grannon, Partner, White & Case
Prof. Douglas Melamed, Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
Moderator: Hon. John B. Nalbandian, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Stare decisis – “to stand by things decided” – is the doctrine under which courts follow their own precedents, and precedents of superior courts. Proponents of stare decisis assert that it promotes predictability in the law, reduces revisiting settled issues, and increases reliance on judicial decisions, all while enhancing the legitimacy of the judicial branch. Critics of stare decisis assert that a court decision in error should not be followed blindly, and over-reliance on stare decisis can cause errors to become set in concrete. A handful of recent opinions suggest that some in the judiciary might be open to revisiting the contours of the doctrine of stare decisis. Should it be reevaluated? Does it matter whether the issue under consideration is statutory or constitutional? Does the time in history of the original decision matter? What is the future of this doctrine?

Prof. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center
Hon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Mr. Kannon K. Shanmugam, Partner, Williams & Connolly LLP
Moderator: Hon. Amy Coney Barrett, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

On November 16, 2018, Secretary Alex Azar offered an address on the unintended consequences of health care regulation in the United States.

Hon. Alex Azar, Secretary, United States Department of Health & Human Services
Introduction: Mr. Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

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.
On November 16, 2018, Judge Jeffrey Sutton offered the annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture. Sutton reflected on the roles of state constitutions, state courts, and state governments in the formation of American constitutional law.

Hon. Jeffrey Sutton, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society

For more on Barbara Olson and the Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture Series, follow this link.

On November 15, 2018, Sen. Mike Lee (UT) gave the opening address at the Federalist Society's 2018 National Lawyers Convention. Lee discussed the sharp divisions in modern politics and the role of conflict in our constitutional republic.

Hon. Mike S. Lee, United States Senate, Utah
Introduction: Mr. Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President, The Federalist Society

Mr. Richard Brookhiser, Senior Editor, National Review and Author, John Marshall: The Man Who Made the Supreme Court
Hon. S. Kyle Duncan, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Hon. Kevin Newsom, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Mr. David B. Rivkin, Jr., Partner, BakerHostetler
Moderator: Hon. William H. Pryor, Jr., United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

To what extent can the legal community engage in social media: a critical means to connect and network in the 21st century? To what degree are judges held to higher standards when posting, liking, and retweeting what may be controversial content? In this day and age, when much of America gets its news from social media, the legal community can ill afford to disengage. Justice Don Willett of the Texas Supreme Court, who has been dubbed “the most famous judge on Twitter,” due to his commentary on sports, family, politics, and cultural issues, said he errs on the side of self-censorship: “Usually what goes through my mind before I hit the tweet button is, did I misspell or mis-grammatize anything, but also, is this worth polluting the interwebs with for posterity?”
The possibility of endangering a citizen’s view of their lawyer or an unbiased judiciary seems clear. Critics of the practice argue that a judge should have a more controlled demeanor than is conducive to frequent, polarizing online posting. On the other hand, David Lat, founder of the popular Above the Law blog, has the view that we should be more concerned about what judges and lawyers are writing in their opinions and briefs than online on personal accounts. This panel aims to discuss the tenuous ground on which advocates and judges must tread in the coming years.

Prof. Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law
Mr. John Browning, Shareholder, Passman & Jones
Hon. Stephen Dillard, Chief Judge, Georgia Court of Appeals
Mr. David Lat, Founder, Above The Law
Moderator: Hon. Don Willett, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit