FedSoc Events

As Congress debates controversial patent legislation that some say will undermine patent rights, has the U.S. Supreme Court been steadily eroding the scope and enforceability of patents for the past decade? The Supreme Court has made it easier to invalidate patents because an invention is “obvious,” not specific enough, or an “abstract idea.” The Court has also made it more difficult for patent owners to stop or “enjoin” ongoing infringement of their rights and riskier to assert their rights in court. Is the Supreme Court striking the right balance or is it undermining an important property right? -- This panel was presented during the Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on May 17, 2016, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law; Mr. Michael R. Huston, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law and Co-Director of Academic Programs and Senior Scholar, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; and Mr. Jeff Wall, Sullivan & Cromwell. Moderator: Hon. Randall R. Rader, The George Washington University.

American technological innovation has given birth to entire new segments of economic activity. The sharing economy alone has given rise to a new class of entrepreneurs, where web platforms enable companies like AirBnB and Uber to allow the peer-to-peer sharing of houses, cars ... even lawn mowers. Connectivity and big data is driving the Internet of Things revolution, where ideas once only seen in science fiction movies (think self-driving cars) may soon become an everyday reality. And all of these innovations have been made possible thanks to the Internet, which, until recently, has benefitted from a light regulatory touch. -- Unfortunately, federal and state agencies have not always welcomed innovation and disruption, even when it enhances overall consumer welfare. What can be done to embrace innovation and American leadership? What role should the state and federal governments play as new economies continue to take shape? What role should the FTC play? How will the FCC's current Net Neutrality rules impact growth? These and other issues will be explored. -- This panel was presented during the Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on May 17, 2016, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. Krishna Juvvadi, Senior Counsel, Uber Technologies, Inc.; Mr. Clark Neily, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice; Prof. John O'Neill, Director, School of Hospitality Management, Penn State; and Mr. Peter Pitsch, Associate General Counsel and Executive Director of Communications Policy, Intel Corporation. Moderator: Hon. Maureen Ohlhausen, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission.

United States Senator Deb Fischer of Nebraska delivered this address at the Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on May 17, 2016. Intoductions by Hon. Maureen Ohlhausen, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission and Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.

What regulatory approach best fosters commercial innovation? Traditionally, it had been thought that ex post, decentralized approaches that exploit private attorney generals like the common law were best, but many business interests today advocate ex ante, centralized, public sector approaches like federal statutes or federal rulemakings that preempt the common law. This panel will explore which attributes of regulation best serve innovation: ex ante or ex post? Decentralized or centralized? Public sector or private sector? -- This panel was presented during the Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on May 17, 2016, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School; Prof. Brian Galle, Georgetown University Law Center; Prof. Michael S. Greve, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; and Mr. Adam Thierer, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University. Moderator: Hon. Rachel Brand, Chairman, Litigation Practice Group.

Overlapping jurisdiction of federal regulatory agencies can lead to confusion and sometimes even contradictory requirements for private actors, and turf battles among agencies. Further, questions arise about the legitimacy of regulations promulgated by an agency that does not appear to have primary responsibility for an area, when the agency that has that primary responsibility has failed or declined to act.

Among the myriad items in the 2016 omnibus appropriations bill were two curious provisions: a prohibition on the Internal Revenue Service from spending funds to write new regulations governing 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations, and a prohibition on the Securities and Exchange Commission from spending funds to write regulations that would require companies to report political contributions and donations to tax exempt organizations. Both edicts are responses to intense advocacy for these agencies to undertake the respective rulemakings, following refusal by the Federal Election Commission to expand disclosure. Moreover, advocates of campaign finance regulation continue to seek new political regulations at the Federal Communications Commission and for the Department of Justice to undertake broader inquiries. As a whole, one might call these efforts “administrative hopscotch”—seeking regulation or enforcement from an agency when another with unequivocal jurisdiction refuses to act. Is expanding the jurisdictions of federal agencies to such extent that they may regulate the same activity a constitutional problem? Practically speaking, what does this mean for innovators when they must comply with repetitive or diverse red tape? Furthermore, what happens when the regulations conflict, as already seen between certain IRS and FEC provisions? -- Ideally, this panel would feature former commissioners from executive agencies who have faced these efforts. They could briefly discuss what they considered the appropriate regulatory purview of their agency, their thoughts on administrative overlap, and whether or not administrative hopscotch is a real problem. The FEC circumvention is ongoing and intense, with media scrutiny and support of hopscotch by its more active commissioners. However, it is likely there are many examples that would make for good discussion and an important panel. -- This panel was presented during the Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on May 17, 2016, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. Paul S. Atkins, Patomak Global Partners and former Commissioner, Securities and Exchange Commission; Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Cass & Associates and former Commissioner and Vice-Chairman, US International Trade Commission; and Hon. Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law, Capital University Law School and former Commissioner, Federal Election Commission. Moderator: Hon. Laurence H. Silberman, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit.

Modern statutes and executive orders are intended to ensure that new regulations do more good than harm—that is, to produce more benefits than costs. Despite these nominal protections, some say the accumulation of regulations threaten the nation’s economic growth and well-being. As a result, the 114th Congress is considering various regulatory reform proposals designed to help ensure that new regulations make Americans better off and that existing regulations are evaluated and modified as necessary. Some of the proposals would enhance economic analysis of regulations, while others seek structural reform including stronger legislative control and judicial review of the administrative rulemaking. While none of these bills has been enacted, several of them have bipartisan support and some have passed one house. Which proposals are best, and why? Are there proposals yet to be made that would be better yet? -- This panel was presented during the Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on May 17, 2016, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Welcome & Address: Hon. Heidi Heitkamp, United States Senate, North Dakota. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society. -- Panel Featuring: Hon. Susan E. Dudley, Director of the Regulatory Studies Center, The George Washington University; Mr. Michael Fitzpatrick, Senior Counsel and Head of Regulatory Advocacy, General Electric Company; and Hon. Jeffrey A. Rosen, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Moderator: Mr. Adam White, Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution.

Political correctness in the classroom can be seen as a consequence of a lack of political diversity in the university. How does political correctness affect research, and teaching? Is political correctness all that bad, or does it have a proper place in academia? Professors Pam Karlan, Richard Sander, and Nicholas Rosenkranz discuss. -- This panel was presented at the Stanford Intellectual Diversity Conference on Friday, April 8, 2016, at Stanford Law School. -- Featuring: Prof. Pamela S. Karlan, Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, Stanford Law School; Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; and Prof. Richard H. Sander, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law. Moderator: Prof. Zachary Price, Associate Professor of Law, UC Hastings College of the Law.

Why make a big deal out of intellectual diversity in academia, anyway? What are its advantages? What are its disadvantages? Is it a goal worth pursuing at the expense of others? Dean Larry Kramer and Professor Michael McConnell debate these points and others. -- This panel was presented at the Stanford Intellectual Diversity Conference on Friday, April 8, 2016, at Stanford Law School. -- Featuring: Dean Larry Kramer, President, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; Lecturer in Law and Former Dean, Stanford Law School and Prof. Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School. Moderator: Prof. Bernadette Meyler, Carl and Shelia Spaeth Professor of Law, Stanford Law School. Introduction: Mr. Michael Rubin, Co-President, Stanford Student Chapter.

The proper education of America’s youth is arguably the most important social responsibility the university has. But does a lack of intellectual diversity in school create pedagogical issues? Our panel of current and former law students weighs in. --
This panel was presented at the Stanford Intellectual Diversity Conference on Friday, April 8, 2016, at Stanford Law School. -- Featuring: Dr. R. Sohan Dasgupta, University of California, Berkeley; Mr. Roland Nadler, Fellow, Center for Law and Biosciences, Stanford Law School; and Mr. Ilan Wurman, Associate, Winston & Strawn LLP. Moderator: Mr. Jud Campbell, Executive Director and Research Fellow, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School. Introduction: Mr. Jonathan Mondel, Co-President, Stanford Student Chapter.

To foster meaningful discourse on intellectual diversity in academia, it is important to begin with the facts. Is there a lack of intellectual diversity in academia? How big is the problem? Professors Jim Lindgren, James Phillips, and Jon Shields review some of the latest research on the subject. -- This panel was presented at the Stanford Intellectual Diversity Conference on Friday, April 8, 2016, at Stanford Law School. -- Opening Remarks -- Dean M. Elizabeth Magill, Richard E. Lang Professor of Law and Dean, Stanford Law School and Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society. Introduction: Mr. Jonathan Mondel, Co-President, Stanford Student Chapter and Mr. Michael Rubin, Co-President, Stanford Student Chapter -- Recent Research in Intellectual Diversity -- Prof. James T. Lindgren, Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law; Prof. James C. Phillips, Former Visiting Professor, BYU Law School; and Dr. Jon A. Shields, Associate Professor, Claremont McKenna College. Moderator: Prof. G. Marcus Cole, William F. Baxter-Visa International Professor of Law, Stanford Law School.