FedSoc Events

Multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) accounts for nearly half of all civil cases in federal courts. Although MDLs were designed to be efficient mechanisms for “coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings,” in some instances they have become one-sided forums known for lacking the basic protections afforded to all other cases by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), the Federal Rules of Evidence and appellate review.
Featuring:

David Bernick, Partner, Paul Weiss LLP
Honorable Eduardo Robreno, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Chris Seeger, Founding Partner, Seeger Weiss LLP
Andrew J. Trask, Senior Counsel, McGuireWoods LLP
Moderator: Doug Smith, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) accounts for nearly half of all civil cases in federal courts. Although MDLs were designed to be efficient mechanisms for “coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings,” in some instances they have become one-sided forums known for lacking the basic protections afforded to all other cases by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), the Federal Rules of Evidence and appellate review.
Featuring:

Malini Moorthy, Vice President & Associate General Counsel, Bayer
Timothy A. Pratt, Executive Vice President & General Counsel, Boston Scientific Corporation
Dan Troy, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, GSK
Moderator: Prof. Brian Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University School of Law

Libel law leads two lives. Most famously, there is the life of presidential candidates and the New York Times; of celebrities and the National Enquirer; of exposes in Rolling Stone. The rules here seem settled, with the “actual malice" standard and public/private figure distinctions. President Trump seems to be questioning whether they were settled right -- were they?But there is also the life created by the Internet: of Yelp reviews, of gripe blogs, of consumer complaints on RipOffReport and sites such as BadBoyReport.kr and ShesAHomeWrecker.com. People are finding it easier than ever to widely publicize their grievances, whether accurate or not. Here the questions focus more on remedies than on “actual malice" and similar substantive standards. The traditional compensatory, presumed, and punitive damages remedies are often seen as largely pointless. Criminal libel survives, and is in some measure being revived; should it be? Injunctions against libel, long thought by many to be quintessential unconstitutional prior restraints, are routine; is that good? As to either life of libel law, how can the law punish defamatory falsehoods without unduly deterring accurate accusations?

Mr. Paul Alan Levy, Attorney, Public Citizen Litigation Group
Ms. Libby Locke, Partner, Clare Locke LLC
Prof. Rodney A. Smolla, Dean and Professor of Law, Widener University Delaware School of Law
Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California Los Angeles School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Jerry E. Smith, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Today, every bar, restaurant, sidewalk, road and bridge anywhere in the world has become a terrorist target. Attacks are often conducted by lone wolves or small cells. This makes the acquisition and sharing of intelligence by government agencies an urgent priority. Yet nations must find a balance between surveillance and privacy. The panelists have faced these issues at the highest levels of their governments and will share their views.

Dr. August Hanning, Former State Secretary, The Federal Interior Ministry, Federal Republic of Germany
Mr. Robert Hannigan, Former Director, Government Communications Headquarters, United Kingdom
Hon. Michael Mukasey, Of Counsel, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and former United States Attorney General
Hon. Nathan A. Sales, Ambassador-at-Large and Coordinator for Counterterrorism, United States Department of State
Moderator: Prof. Jamil N. Jaffer, Adjunct Professor, NSI Founder, and Director, National Security Law & Policy Program, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

It has long been understood that broad congressional delegations of rulemaking authority have empowered administrative agencies to play a robust role in setting policy priorities for many subjects, including the environment. This phenomenon is even more evident when realizing that most of the major environmental laws were passed several decades ago and have seen little updating since. Has Congress purposefully, or because of its inattention to passing or amending environmental laws, been ceding its policy-setting authority to others? This panel will consider that question by looking at the role of not just administrative agencies handling environmental issues but also other non-congressional mechanisms for controlling the environmental law and policy agenda.

Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Prof. Donald J. Kochan, Professor and Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development, Chapman University School of Law
Prof. Robert V. Percival, Professor of Law and Director, Environmental Law Program, University of Maryland School of Law
Prof. Michael P. Vandenbergh, David Daniels Allen Distinguished Chair of Law and Director, Climate Change Research Network Co-director, Energy, Environment and Land Use Program, Vanderbilt Law School
Moderator: Hon. Amul Thapar, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

At its August 2016 meeting in San Francisco, the American Bar Association approved a major change to its Rules of Professional Conduct that will affect all lawyers if adopted by their licensing states. In pertinent part, the new Rule 8.4(g) would make it professional misconduct for a lawyer to “harass or knowingly discriminate against persons on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, or socioeconomic status." The new Rule applies to “conduct related to the practice of law" which (1) represents an expansion from the present conduct performed “in the course of representing a client" and (2) new Comment 3 defines conduct to “include[e] the operation and management of a law firm or law practice."

Ms. Paulette Brown, Partner, Locke Lord LLP; Immediate Past President, American Bar Association
Mr. Stephen Gillers, Elihu Root Professor of Law, New York University School of Law
Prof. Ronald D. Rotunda, Professor, Doy and Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman University
Hon. Ken Paxton, State Attorney General, Texas
Moderator: Hon. G. Barry Anderson, Associate Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court

Professor Rotunda's PowerPoint Slides

RESOLVED: Lochner v. New York: Still Crazy After All These Years.
The Tenth Annual Rosenkranz Debate was held on November 18, 2017, during The Federalist Society's 2017 National Lawyers Convention.

Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law Center
Moderator: Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society

Christopher J. Scalia and Edward Whelan have published a definitive collection of beloved Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's finest speeches. The book, Scalia Speaks: Reflections on Law, Faith, and Life Well Lived, covers a breadth of topics, including law, faith, virtue, the justice's pastimes, and his heroes and friends.

Prof. Rachel E. Barkow, Segal Family Professor of Regulatory Law and Policy; Faculty Director, Center on the Administration of Criminal Law, New York University School of Law
Hon. Amy Coney Barrett, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Mr. Christopher J. Scalia, Editor, Scalia Speaks: Reflections on Law, Faith, and Life Well Lived
Mr. M. Edward Whelan III, President, Ethics and Public Policy Center and Editor, Scalia Speaks: Reflections on Law, Faith, and Life Well Lived
Moderator: Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

In recent decades, the President has sought to control the regulatory state through the Office of Management and Budget and through the office within OMB known as OIRA. This panel will discuss whether that is a positive development, and whether presidential review powers should apply to independent as well as executive branch agencies, which could be accomplished by allowing removal of independent agency heads by the President. Would such implementation of the unitary executive lodge too much power in one man, as clearly the Framers feared? Do views on such matters depend on who is the President at any given moment? The panel will also discuss possible changes to notice and comment rulemaking, and what guidance agencies ought to give to their prosecutorial law enforcement personnel.

Prof. Aditya Bamzai, Associate Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Susan Dudley, Director, Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, George Washington University
Prof. Lisa Heinzerling, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law, Georgetown University
Hon. Neomi Rao, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, The Office of Management and Budget
Moderator: Hon. David Barron, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit
Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society