FedSoc Events

This panel will consider Justice Scalia's legacy in national security law, revisiting his opinions in major national security cases, including Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and Boumediene v. Bush. It will also discuss the influence Justice Scalia's jurisprudence has exerted on national security law more broadly and his views on the role of the courts reviewing national security policy. -- This panel was held on November 18, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Bradford R. Clark, William Cranch Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School; Ms. Elizabeth Goitein, Co-Director, Liberty & National Security Program, Brennan Center for Justice; Mr. Adam Klein, Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security; and Prof. Stephen I. Vladeck, Professor of Law, The University of Texas at Austin School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Jerry E. Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Has Originalism played a significant role in the Supreme Court's free speech jurisprudence? One scholar has concluded that even Justice Scalia used Originalism in only 30% of his 56 opinions on freedom of expression through the 2010 Term. -- Do landmark freedom of expression opinions square with the original understanding of the First Amendment? The Amendment's protections have been held to cover flag burning, cross burning, commercial advertising, campaign funding, virtual child pornography, violent video games and DVDs, expressive association, protests at military funerals and abortion clinics, false statements of fact, and nude dancing. The Supreme Court has also held that the First Amendment to some extent limits disciplinary measures in public schools, government employment actions, and conditions attached to government benefits. -- This panel will discuss how Originalism has been used in fashioning freedom of expression doctrine, and whether it should be used more (or less). -- This panel was held on November 18, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. David F. Forte, Garwood Visiting Professor, Princeton University; Hon. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Director of the Constitutional Law Center; Stanford Law School, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institute; Prof. David M. Rabban, Dahr Jamail, Randall Hage Jamail and Robert Lee Jamail Regents Chair; University Distinguished Teaching Professor, University of Texas at Austin School of Law; and Prof. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, New York Law School; former President, American Civil Liberties Union. Moderator: Hon. Carlos T. Bea, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Erik S. Jaffe, Sole Practitioner, Erik S. Jaffe, PC.

Justice Scalia first entered public service in 1971, when he was appointed by President Richard Nixon to serve as the General Counsel for the Office of Telecommunications Policy (“OTP") in the White House. From that day in 1971 through his dissent in the Brand X case regarding broadband classification, Justice Scalia brought a deep understanding of technology policy to his career on the Supreme Court. And of course, Justice Scalia was never one to mince words. “It would be gross understatement to say that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is not a model of clarity. It is in many important respects a model of ambiguity or indeed even self-contradiction," he observed in AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Util. Bd. The Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group has brought together a panel of experts to discuss Justice Scalia's legacy on telecommunications and media issues and discuss current litigation through the lens of his jurisprudence. -- This panel was held on November 18, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law; Mr. Henry Goldberg, Goldberg, Godles, Wiener and Wright LLP; and Mr. Richard E. Wiley, Chairman Emeritus, Wiley Rein LLP. Moderator: Hon. Don Willett, Texas Supreme Court.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), in its more than five year existence, has ordered consumer financial service providers to return more than a billion dollars in monetary relief to consumers it believes were victims of practices that it deems unfair, deceptive, abusive, or otherwise violative of its view of regulations and laws. The CFPB has ordered monetary relief for discriminatory lending and proposed regulations that would shutter many low-income lending locations and encourage class actions lawsuits. Proponents of the Bureau point to fines collected and bad practices addressed. Critics assert that Bureau activities actually harm consumers rather than help them. This panel will assess whether the CFPB has been of net benefit or net harm to the people it was created to protect. -- This panel was held on November 18, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. John A. Allison, Chairman, Executive Advisory Council, Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, Cato Institute; Mr. Leonard N. Chanin, Of Counsel, Morrison & Foerster LLP; Mr. Deepak Gupta, Founding Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLC; and Prof. Todd J. Zywicki, Foundation Professor of Law and Executive Director, Law & Economics Center, Antonin Scalia School of Law, George Mason University. Moderator: Hon. Edith Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Introduction: Hon. Wayne A. Abernathy, Executive VP for Financial Institutions Policy and Regulatory Affairs, American Bankers Association.

The Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller recognized for the first time in our history that individual Americans have a right to gun ownership. Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller is widely regarded as a signal success for his originalist approach to constitutional interpretation. This panel will assess Heller's contribution to the law. How originalist was the opinion? Have the lower courts been faithful in applying Heller to issues outside its narrow holding? Is the Court likely to read Heller broadly or narrowly in the future? -- This panel was held on November 18, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. Noel J. Francisco, Partner, Jones Day; Prof. Nelson Lund, University Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; Prof. Michael O'Shea, Professor of Law, Oklahoma City University School of Law; and Prof. Allan Rostron, University of Missouri - Kansas City Law School. Moderator: Hon. Raymond M. Kethledge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Introduction: Hon. Gail Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law.

Senator Ted Cruz delivered this address at the 2016 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 18, 2016. He was introduced by Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups at The Federalist Society.

Governor Nikki Haley delivered this address at the 2016 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 18, 2016. She was introduced by Alan Gocha of ETC Capital. Mr. Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President of The Federalist Society, introduced Mr. Gocha.

Justice Scalia believed that the rule of law required a law of rules rather than of balancing tests. He favored rules (like the requirement the President be at least 35 years old) over standards (a requirement that the president be “a mature individual") because they lend themselves more to principled judicial enforcement. As a result, Justice Scalia revolutionized the caselaw he inherited from the Burger Court by eliminating as many balancing tests as possible and replacing them with rules. An example is his favoring of a rule of viewpoint neutrality in freedom of expression cases over separate treatment of various categories of speech. He believed that rules over standards promote the rule of law because they guarantee that judges will decide like cases alike rather than deciding each case on its facts using a totality of the circumstances test. Justice Scalia was so committed to rules over standards that he refused to enforce the non-delegation doctrine because to do so he would have had to employ a balancing test standard, however, in his last year on the bench, there were signs that Justice Scalia was moving away from this position. Justice Scalia also favored rules over standards because they limit lower federal and state court discretion in applying Supreme Court precedents as compared to balancing tests. The reemergence of rules over standards in Supreme Court opinions is another of Justice Scalia's legacies. -- This panel was held on November 18, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale University; Hon. Frank Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit; Prof. John C. Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law; and Prof. Victoria Nourse, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Moderator: Hon. William Francis Kuntz II, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.

Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the Keynote Address at the 2016 National Lawyers Convention Annual Dinner on November 17, 2016. In keeping with the theme of the convention, Justice Thomas discussed the jurisprudence and legacy of Justice Antonin Scalia. -- Justice Thomas was introduced by Mr. Eugene Scalia, a partner at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher and son of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Prior to the introduction, Mr. Eugene Meyer, President of the Federalist Society, announced that from now on the Annual Dinner will be known as the Antonin Scalia Memorial Dinner.

In his seminal decision in Employment Division v. Smith in 1990, Justice Antonin Scalia held that the First Amendment typically does not authorize courts to grant religious exemptions from generally applicable laws. This decision altered the 1963 Sherbert v. Verner test which had given courts the power to strike down any law that (1) if it substantially burdened religious practice, was not (2) based on a compelling government interest, and (3) narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Rather, Scalia said that religious adherents should look to the political process for accommodation, and he consistently supported the constitutionality of such accommodations. In response to Smith, a primary means of such accommodation has been the passage of state and federal Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs), which codify the Sherbert test. However, in the wake of Obergefell v. Hodges (or Hobby Lobby), RFRAs have become the focus of intense political controversy. What do these laws actually do in practice? Are they a good idea? Would a different approach to protect religious liberty be better? -- This panel was held on November 17, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, Chapman University Fowler School of Law; Senior Fellow, The Claremont Institute; Prof. Richard W. Garnett, Paul J. Schierl/Fort Howard Corporation Professor, Concurrent Professor of Political Science, Notre Dame Law School; Prof. William P. Marshall, William Rand Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law; and Prof. Vincent Phillip Muñoz, Tocqueville Associate Professor of Religion & Public Life, University of Notre Dame. Moderator: Prof. Michael M. Uhlmann, Professor of Politics and Policy/SPE, Claremont Graduate University. Introduction: Mr. William L. Saunders, Senior Vice President of Legal Affairs and Senior Counsel, Americans United for Life.