FedSoc Events

Governor Rick Scott of Florida delivered a short address at the 2018 Annual Florida Chapters Conference.

Hon. Richard L. Scott - Governor, Florida
Introduction: Daniel Nordby – General Counsel, Governor of Florida

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

2018 Annual Florida Chapters Conference
Welcome and Opening Remarks:

Elena Crosby - Director of Constituent Services, Office of US Senator -Marco Rubio; Orlando Lawyers Chapter President, The Federalist Society
Hon. Jimmy Patronis - Chief Financial Officer, Florida

Session I: Departures from the American Rule on Attorney’s Fees
Panelists:

Bruce J. Berman – Shareholder, Carlton Fields
Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick – Vanderbilt University Law School
Hinda Klein – Partner, Conroy Simberg
R. Hugh Lumpkin – Managing Partner, Ver Ploeg & Lumpkin
Moderator: Hon. Robert Luck - Third District Court of Appeal, Florida

Remarks:

Hon. Ron DeSantis - U.S. House of Representatives, Florida 6th District


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

No clause in the Constitution draws more judicial encomia to liberty than the Free Speech Clause. But as Justice Robert Jackson warned, extending freedom of speech to unworthy expression can actually “belittle great principles of liberty.” Courts today regularly confront opportunities to expand free speech protection--for example, whether there is a speech right to flash one’s headlights to warn oncoming drivers of police speed traps or whether law enforcers can restrict the social-media posts of their own officers. The Ninth Circuit has already confirmed the right to view executions, but current litigation seeks to expand the scope of that right.
On the other hand, our law also recognizes many categories of unprotected expression--libel, fraud, perjury, intimidation, mislabeled drugs, and exposure of military secrets, to name a few. What these categories have in common is a conclusion that speech’s harm can--and often does--outweigh its supposed entitlement to protection. The panel will explore the intersection of criminal law and procedure with First Amendment jurisprudence with a particular focus on evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of further expanding free speech protections.

Dominic Draye, Solicitor General, Arizona
Professor Thane Rosenbaum, NYU Law School
Steve Simpson, Ayn Rand Institute
Joseph Tartakovsky, Deputy Solicitor General, Nevada
Moderator: Hon. Tim Tymkovich, U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Introduction: Joe Peters, Assistant Attorney General, Colorado Attorney General's Office

With federal proposals like the DISCLOSE Act sidelined by Republicans in Congress, some state governments officials, including state secretaries of state, have sought to place limitations on campaign speech through other methods. State legislators have proposed new state laws against “dark money” and advocated new disclosure regimes as well as increased restrictions on speech and political engagement by key public officials who coordinate on a national level. City lawmakers have proposed public financing regimes as well as matching funds, which are often far more restrictive than with state law. State Secretaries of State have proposed rules to implement failed campaign finance reform proposals and impose heightened donor disclosure regulations as well as requiring more detailed financial disclosures from non-profit organizations. Do these campaign speech proposals and increased pushes toward greater disclosure lead to more transparency and freer and fairer elections, or do these efforts infringe upon First Amendment rights?

Professor Richard L. Hasen, Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science, University of California, Irvine
Professor Brad Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law, Capital University Law School
Moderator: Hon. Carlos T. Bea, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Introduction: Joseph Rose, Gubson Dunn & Crutcher LLP

Although the First Amendment makes no distinction between types of speech, courts have consistently offered so-called “commercial speech” less protection than non-commercial speech. Under the Central Hudson test, courts balance the interests of regulators against the interests of those engaged in commercial speech. These interests can lead to limitations on how pharmaceutical companies communicate information about lawful treatments with patients, doctors, and insurance companies; how lawful products like tobacco or liquor are advertised; and how businesses express themselves. What limitations should courts permit government to impose on commercial speech, if any? Should Central Hudson be reconsidered? And what about occupational speech? Should “commercial speech-level restrictions” be imposed on individuals who offer advice in the fields of interior design, investing, or parenting, for example? How or should concerns about economic liberty be factored in? And do state constitutions provide broader protections for commercial speech than the federal Constitution? If so, should cases like Nike vs. Kasky be overturned?

Bradley Benbrook, Founding Partner, Benbrook Law Group
Erik Jaffe, Law Office of Erik Jaffe
Amanda Shanor, Yale Law PhD Candidate
Moderator: Christina Sandefur, Executive Vice President, Goldwater Institute
Introduction: Lisa Ezell, Vice President & Director of Lawyers Chapters, The Federalist Society

Free speech on college campuses has been under attack in recent years, increasingly from students who have protested speakers whom they disagree with politically. These protests have succeeded in both cancelling events and creating disturbances through blockades, shouts, and even violence as was the case at Middlebury College. What responsibilities do universities hold to protect a climate that encourages the open and respectful exchange of ideas? Should “hate speech” be protected or are special protections needed to protect students from “offensive” discourse? What do universities owe students and speakers to protect their personal safety if protests break out?

Marieke Tuthill Beck-Coon, Director of Litigation, The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education,
Harmeet K. Dhillon, Founding Partner, Dhillon Law Group
Professor Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School
Elizabeth Wydra, President, Constitutional Accountability Center
Moderator: Hon. Sandra Ikuta, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Introduction: Joshua McDaniel, Horvitz & Levy LLP

With January 2018 marking roughly a decade after the start of the most recent financial crisis, this panel will assess the corresponding legal and regulatory responses to the crisis.
Panelists:

Hilary Allen, Suffolk University Law School
David Zaring, The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania
Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School
Moderator: Robert Ahdieh, Emory Law School

This panel will discuss the operation and effects of rules assigning third party liability for sexual misconduct to universities or other organizations, whether the rules come from tort law or regulation.
Panelists:

Ellen Bublick, University of Arizona College of Law
Gail Heriot, University of San Diego School of Law
Eugene Volokh, UCLA School of Law
Moderator: Brad Areheart, University of Tennessee College of Law

The winners of our Young Legal Scholars Paper Competition will present their papers, and various other attendees will invite feedback on works they have in progress.

Jud Campbell, University of Richmond School of Law: “The Invention of First Amendment Federalism”
Jonathan Mitchell, Stanford Law School: “The Writ-of-Erasure Fallacy”
Lochlan Shelfer, Gibson Dunn: “Intergovernmental Federalism Disputes”
Megan Stevenson, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School: “Assessing Risk Assessment”
Lael Weinberger, University of Chicago JD/PhD candidate: “Rebellion against International Law: Law, Ideology, and the Bricker Amendment”
Commenter: Richard Epstein, NYU School of Law, University of Chicago Law School
Moderator: Josh Teitelbaum, Georgetown University Law Center

This debate will discuss when congressional authorization is required for the use of military force, and whether that authorization must be both specific to a conflict and explicit.

John Harrison, University of Virginia School of Law
John Yoo, UC Berkeley School of Law
Moderator: Jide Nzelibe, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law