FedSoc Events

At both the federal and state levels, bureaucrats wield power to make decisions that substantially impact the exercise of religion. From interpreting and enforcing public accommodations laws to administering vast regulatory regimes and deciding how all of these laws interact with RFRAs, agencies headed by political appointees are often charged with determining --- at least in the first instance --- the extent to which generally applicable law will impinge on religious freedom. Who will be required to provide contraceptive coverage; how will religious accommodations be extended, and to whom? Must bakers and photographers with religious objections service gay weddings? Must doctors perform surgeries on patients that violate their faith and medical judgment? Even without a change in legislation, the answers to such questions often flip after new administrations appoint new agency heads. This panel will discuss whether the administrative state places religious freedom in too precarious a position, and if so, what can and should be done about it.

Prof. William P. Marshall, William Rand Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law
Mr. Mark L. Rienzi, Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Professor of Law, Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America
Ms. Melissa Rogers, Nonresident Senior Fellow in Governance Studies, The Brookings Institute
Mr. Roger Severino, Director, Office for Civil Rights, United States Department of Health and Human Services
Moderator: Hon. Diarmuid O'Scannlain, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

In 2011, Congress created a new administrative tribunal in the U.S. Patent Office with the power to cancel previously granted patents, called the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB). The PTAB has become a flashpoint of controversy. Some companies and organizations defend it as an important tool for eliminating invalidly issued patents. Critics have highlighted a wide range of concerns, including, among others, not providing patent-owners with basic due process protections and a structural bias against patents that has led to inordinately high “kill" rates. In Oil States v. Greene's Energy Group, the Supreme Court will decide whether assigning such power to an administrative agency is consistent with the constitutional requirements of Article III, the Seventh Amendment, and the nature of patents as property rights. At the intersection of patent law, administrative law, and constitutional law, Oil States is a blockbuster case in the October 2017 term that will impact the governmental branches, the law and the innovation economy.

Prof. Gregory Dolin, Co-director of the Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of Law
Prof. John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Arti K. Rai, Elvin R. Latty Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law
Mr. Robert Greene Sterne, Director, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox PLLC
Moderator: Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School, and former Commissioner, United States International Trade Commission

On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara 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.

Mr. Donald F. McGahn, II, White House Counsel
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.

Concern with “the regulatory state" often focuses on reforms to formal institutional structures and legal doctrines such as Chevron deference. But arguably these formal constraints only touch the tip of the iceberg regarding the issues of individual liberty and the rule of law raised by concerns about the regulatory state, because they fail to appreciate the myriad ways in which regulators exercise informal influence to accomplish ends that they might not be able or willing to achieve through more formal processes. In particular, the deep entanglement between the government and the banking system involves regulatory activity that is outside of the public eye. Commentators and practitioners who raise such concerns point to unwilling banks that felt pressured to take TARP money, implementation of Operation Choke Point, and some enforcement theories applied in the name of lending discrimination. Commentators on the other side of the argument point out the extent to which financial services affect not only individual lives but the welfare of the community and the nation, including the danger of financial crises. What does the experience of the financial services industry and its regulation tell us about concerns and challenges going forward?

Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law
Prof. Hal S. Scott, Nomura Professor of International Financial Systems and Director, Program on International Financial Systems, Harvard Law School
Mr. Peter J. Wallison, Senior Fellow, Arthur F. Burns Fellow in Financial Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute
Prof. Arthur E. Wilmarth, Jr., Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School
Moderator: Hon. Carlos T. Bea, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Attorney General Jeff Sessions delivered this address at the 2017 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. He was introduced by former Attorney General Ed Meese.

Hon. Jeff Sessions, United States Attorney General
Introduction: Hon. Ed Meese, former United States Attorney General

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt delivered this address at the 2017 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. He was introduced by Ambassador C. Boyden Gray.

Hon. Scott Pruitt, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency
Intoduction: Hon. C. Boyden Gray, Founding Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates

We have seen two consecutive years of an alarming increase in violent crime, at least in some major urban areas. This comes after an entire generation of decreasing crime, to the point that crime rates are half what they were in the early 1990's. Why has crime started to rise again, and what should be done about it? Are incarceration rates a factor?

Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center
Ms. Heather Childs, Vice President & Compliance Counsel, Capital One
Mr. Adam Gelb, Director, Public Safety Performance Project, The Pew Charitable Trusts
Hon. Michael Mukasey, Of Counsel, Debevoise & Plimpton and former United States Attorney General
Mr. George J. Terwilliger III, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP
Moderator: Hon. David Stras, Associate Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court

As an advisor to Woodrow Wilson, Louis Brandeis observed that “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." Concerns about market concentration – with particular focus on the tech sector and such issues as use of, and access to, consumer data – have generated renewed interest in a Brandeisian approach, which has also found its way into the Democratic Party's “Better Deal." Has the time come for this New Brandeis Movement or is it merely, as others would have it, “hipster antitrust"? Should antitrust enforcement encompass such concerns as jobs, wages, data privacy, and viewpoint diversity in media, or is the consumer welfare standard's narrower focus on prices and consumer choice still appropriate? Would broadening antitrust's mandate raise rule of law concerns? And is this a genuinely new debate or is it a return to the familiar concern that “antitrust dosesn't fit the tech sector," which drove the George W. Bush era Antitrust Modernization Commission?

Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law and President, Cass & Associates, PC
Prof. Daniel Crane, Frederick Paul Furth Sr. Professor of Law, The University of Michigan Law School
Hon. Douglas H. Ginsburg, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Mr. Jonathan S. Kanter, Partner, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
Mr. Barry C. Lynn, Executive Director, Open Markets Institute
Moderator: Hon. Brett Kavanaugh, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

President Trump's administration has helped renew interest in federalism among Democrats and liberals. Is there now more opportunity for cross-ideological support for this important structure of the Constitution? Or do continuing divisions on the nature of federalism such as the debate between competitive and cooperative federalism make this an unpromising alliance?

Prof. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Jurisprudence, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman University
Dean Heather K. Gerken, Dean and Sol & Lillian Goldman Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Prof. Abbe R. Gluck, Professor of Law and Faculty Director, Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy, Yale
Law School
Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law, School George Mason University
Moderator: Hon. William H. Pryor Jr., United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit