FedSoc Events

Traditionally, education has been seen as instilling the common shared civic values that Americans have held for since the nation’s founding. As the educational establishment has become increasingly more progressive, many states have begun to offer alternatives to traditional public-school education, particularly in the wake of the Covid pandemic when many schools were shut down. This has included laws that allow for educational savings accounts, charter schools, and home-schooling. However, these proposals have met fierce opposition from the educational establishment, legislatures, and education unions. At the heart of this opposition is access to funding and the degree to which parents have the right to make educational decisions for their children. Will education choice laws restore balance to American education? How does this battle affect the trust in America’s educational system? Are there proposals that all sides agree upon that can restore a sense of shared civic values? How do these battles affect local school board races and what does that mean for representative government? Panelists will answer these questions as well as address some of the key educational questions affecting the Western States.
Featuring:

Hon. Clint Bolick Moderator, Justice, Arizona Supreme Court
Cara Fitzpatrick, Story Editor, Chalkbeat National
Tim Keller, Executive Director, The Institute for Justice Arizona Chapter
Erin Valdez, Policy Director, Next Generation Texas

From the 1960s onward, election lawyers on the political left focused on securing and expanding voting access. Lawyers on the political right focused on ensuring the integrity and accuracy of the voting process. Now, most academic literature suggests that there's fairly little disenfranchisement and fairly little voter fraud. Despite this evidence, the voting process has become increasingly controversial in recent years, with increasing attacks on election integrity and voting access. This rhetoric has all led to decreased voter trust in the process. Headed into another presidential election year, panelists will consider whether recent developments in mail-in voting, voter ID, and voter harvesting laws, among other issues, merit the decreased trust voters have in the process and how election lawyers should respond.
Featuring:

Audrey Perry Martin, Partner, Gober Group
Hon. Michael T. Liburdi Moderator, Judge, United States District Court, District of Arizona
Stephen I. Richer, County Recorder, Maricopa County
Bradley Schrager, Attorney, Bravo Schrager LLP

All levels of the judiciary have faced increased attacks on their independence in recent years. Even trial court judges have faced increased scrutiny, particularly those in single-judge districts and those who have granted nationwide injunctions. “Reform” proposals such as adding justices, term limits, ethics codes, abolishing blue slips, and limiting the Court’s jurisdiction have been proposed by critics to limit the power of the courts. However, these proposals are nothing new: in decades past, when the ideological balance of the Court was different, similar proposals were floated by those who sought to limit the role and influence of the courts. What’s changed? What is the role of the organized bar, if any, in defending judicial independence? How, if at all, has the increased politicization of the judicial confirmation process affected judicial independence? What does all of this mean for trust in the judiciary? And are there changes that should be considered that are both constitutional and would receive bipartisan support? Should conservatives be more aggressive in defending attacks against the judiciary? Panelists will discuss these and other questions in considering judicial independence and the people’s trust in the judiciary.
Featuring:

Hon. Carlos T. Bea Moderator, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Benjamin M. Flowers, Partner, Ashbrook Byrne Kresge LLC; Former Solicitor General, State of Ohio
Prof. Michael D. Ramsey, Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation, Professor of Law; Director, International & Comparative Law Programs, University of San Diego School of Law
Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
Debra Wong Yang, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

Join the DC Young Lawyers Chapter and the George Mason Student Chapter for an evening conversation and reception.
Featuring:

Prof. Jennifer Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law and Co-Executive Director, C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Thomas McCarthy, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC; Adjunct Professor, George Mason University Scalia Law
Prof. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Doors open at 6 with the program to begin promptly at 6:30. A reception will follow.
This event is free to attend.

On Wednesday, November 29, the Harvard Student Chapter held a conversation, produced in partnership with the Harvard Alumni for Free Speech, featuring Prof. Randall Kennedy and Prof. Nadine Strossen to commemorate the 164th anniversary of Frederick Douglass's "Plea for Free Speech in Boston."
Featuring:

Prof. Randall Kennedy, Michael R. Klein Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Prof. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law Emerita, New York Law School; Former President, American Civil Liberties Union

Collegiality and the presumption that opposing counsel work together in good faith are bedrocks of the American legal profession, as well as unpopular ideas and clients being able to obtain competent representation and equal access to justice under the law. In recent years, there has been an increase in disruptive activity in law schools. We have seen law students declare ideas "too harmful" for open debate and try to “cancel” or “shame” anyone who challenges their views. We have also seen instances where law students shout down invited speakers, even federal judges. But today's law students are tomorrow's lawyers. How should the legal profession prepare to deal with these recent trends on campus? What’s the responsibility of faculty and administrators to model and educate on appropriate behavior in an academic community and in the legal profession? Should there be consequences for students that engage in disruptive activity in law school? Should legal employers be concerned how these students will handle representing clients and making arguments that do not align with their own views? Should clients be worried about hiring lawyers that have personally disrupted an event by a judge? Our panel will feature leaders from all the major institutions that will have to answer these important questions: academia, the courts, law firms, and in-house legal departments.
Featuring:

Robert Ahdeih, Dean and Anthony G. Buzbee Endowed Dean's Chair and Vice President for Professional Schools and Programs, Texas A&M University
Hon. Jimmy Blacklock, Justice, Supreme Court of Texas
Gregg Costa, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute
J. Ammon Smartt, General Counsel, North America; Global Lead Counsel, Treasury, WTW
Moderator: Hon. Reed O’Connor, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas

Litigation and legislation involving complex issues regarding gender identity are at the forefront of public interest. States and other authorities face questions about legality, morality, or advisability of treatment for minors. Courts are being asked to adjudicate who can participate in sex-segregated sporting competitions. Advocates on all sides of these complex gender identity issues portray their position as a matter of fairness. When minors are involved all sides claim to seek to protect the best interest of the child and there is not a clear ideological breakdown in terms of whether states should adopt a parents rights approach, which cautions deference to parents to protect their child’s best interests, versus those who advocate for state intervention to protect the child. In both red and blue states, advocacy for the respective ideological approaches can draw opposing conclusions, wherein, for example, some states are banning medical intervention for minors over parents’ objections and other states are permitting medical intervention for minors over parents’ objections. Our panel today will discuss these and other legal issues facing state governments, parents, and children as they work to navigate these new legal challenges.
Featuring:

Christiana Kiefer, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
Prof. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
Shannon Minter, Legal Director, National Center for Lesbian Rights
Christopher Mills, Principal, Spero Law, LLC
Moderator: Hon. Elizabeth Kerr, Justice, Second Court of Appeals, State of Texas

Featuring:

Prof. J. Joel Alicea, Co-Director, Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition, Assistant Professor of Law, Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America
Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Founding Director, Georgetown Center for the Constitution
Prof. Richard H. Fallon, Story Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Prof. Stephen E. Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Moderator: Hon. Neomi Rao, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

The 2023 National Lawyers Convention will take place November 9-11, 2023 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference is "Originalism on the Ground." The final day of the conference will feature the fifteenth annual Rosenkranz Debate.
RESOLVED: States Can Constitutionally Regulate the Content Moderation Policies of Facebook and Twitter
Featuring:

Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law
Mr. Clark Neily, Senior Vice President for Legal Studies, Cato Institute
Moderator: Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Professor of Law, Georgetown School of Law

In patent and copyright law, injunctions are now a subject of significant policy debate. Innovators say they are unable to stop predatory infringement. Creators state they are unable to stop large-scale piracy websites. If so, this undermines the rewards promised by the intellectual property system and devalues the commercial assets that drive the global innovation economy in new technologies and creative works. Others state that intellectual property owners use injunctions to hold up innovation or chill legitimate commercial activity. This panel will discuss the role of injunctions in facilitating or constraining commercialization of patented technologies and copyrighted works, and what the current state of the law portends for the future, such as in the development of next-generation innovations like AI and its use of creative works.
Featuring:

Hon. John W. Holcomb, United States District Court, Central District of California
Prof. Kristen Jakobsen Osenga, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law
Ms. Laurie Self, Senior Vice President & Counsel, Government Affairs, Qualcomm
Ms. Laura Sheridan, Head of Patent Policy, Google
Moderator: Hon. Ryan T. Holte, U.S. Court of Federal Claims; Jurist-In-Residence Professor of Law, The University of Akron School of Law

Overflow: Chinese Room