FedSoc Events

Sexual assault on campus is a serious issue—so serious that it is difficult for some to speak plainly about it. As a result, disagreements abound—even about issues as fundamental as the definition of sexual assault. This panel will discuss the nature and extent of sexual assault on campus. It will examine the Department of Education’s “Dear Colleague” letter of April 4, 2011 on sexual violence, the numerous investigations that it has opened in colleges and universities around the country, and the effect they are having on campus. It will also discuss the new "Only Yes Means Yes," laws recently adopted in California and being considered around the country. Among the questions that will be addressed are: How dangerous are our college campuses? From where does the U.S. Department of Education derive the authority to address this issue? Is due process being accorded to those who are accused of sexual assault? -- The Federalist Society's Civil Rights Practice Group presented this panel on "Sexual Assult on Campus" on Friday, November 14, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Ms. Heather Mac Donald, Thomas W. Smith Fellow, Manhattan Institute; Mr. Seth Galanter, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education; Ms. Lara S. Kaufmann, Senior Counsel & Director of Education Policy for At-Risk Students, National Women's Law Center; and Mr. Greg Lukianoff, President, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Moderator: Hon. Diane S. Sykes, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Introduction: Hon. Gail Heriot, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and Professor, University of San Diego School of Law; and Chairman, Civil Rights Practice Group.

This panel will explore how judicial deference to agency decisionmaking has evolved since the seminal Supreme Court decision in Chevron v. NRDC and whether it is time to revisit the doctrine of "Chevron deference." The panelists will discuss questions such as whether Chevrondeference has led courts to take such a hands-off approach in litigation against agency action that the agencies have become an unaccountable fourth branch of government. Or is Chevron deference a doctrine that is necessary to keep courts from becoming policymaking bodies? They will discuss the real-world implications of Chevron deference from the perspective of regulated parties and whether there are any practical alternatives to Chevron deference. The panel will also explore related doctrines of judicial deference, such as so-called Auer deference, and whether lower courts have taken that deference beyond what the Supreme Court intended. -- The Federalist Society's Litigation Practice Group presented this panel on "Time to Revisit Chevron Deference?" on Thursday, November 13, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Prof. Jack M. Beermann, Harry Elwood Warren Scholar Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law; Hon. Charles J. Cooper, Partner, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, and former Assistant U.S. Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel; Prof. Thomas W. Merrill, Charles Evans Hughes Professor of Law, Columbia University School of Law; and Prof. Amy Wildermuth, Associate Vice President for Faculty, Senior Vice President Academic Affairs - Operations, University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law. Moderator: Hon. Don R. Willett, Texas Supreme Court. Introduction: Hon. Rachel L. Brand, Member, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Senior Advisor to the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, United States Chamber of Commerce; and former Assistant U.S. Attorney General for Legal Policy United States Department of Justice; and Chairman, Litigation Practice Group.

While the substance of constitutional rights is always important, it is often the procedures surrounding the protection and enforcement of those rights that give them teeth – or defang them. From the landmark case of New York Times v. Sullivan to the recently decided Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, the procedures required before one can burden speech, or raise a successful defense under the First Amendment, are critical to the effective scope of the constitutional right. This panel will explore the various procedural safeguards applied – or not applied – in the context of the Freedom of Speech. What level of proof is required before speech may be restricted based on an otherwise valid interest? When will a private party have standing to challenge a restriction on speech that may not yet be final but that has immediate adverse consequences, such as requiring a party to defend an investigation or rebut a preliminary government finding in the midst of an election campaign? What safeguards should exist in administrative processes, such as IRS tax exemption rulings, where discretion may be used to punish speech or otherwise favor one viewpoint over another? These and other examples all illustrate that even where the substance of First Amendment rights is well established, procedural loopholes or protections can reduce or enhance the effectiveness of those rights. -- The Federalist Society's Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group presented this panel on "How First Amendment Procedures Protect First Amendment Substance" on Friday, November 14, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Prof. Aaron H. Caplan, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles; Prof. Robert A. Destro, The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law; Mr. Todd P. Graves, Graves Garrett LLC; Prof. Alan B. Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service Law; Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University Law School; and Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. Moderator: Hon. David R. Stras, Associate Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court. Introduction: Mr. Erik S. Jaffe, Sole Practitioner, Erik S. Jaffe, PC; and Chairman, Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group.

Carly Fiorina delivered this address at the 2014 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 14, 2014. She was introduced by Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups at The Federalist Society.

Key to a vibrant and increasingly productive economy is an efficient credit allocation process -- the mechanism by which all forms of credit, and not just bank loans, flow to those who can make the best use of that credit. Do government regulations influence and therefore distort – intentionally or not – the allocation of credit within the U.S. economy? -- Bank capital and liquidity standards, consumer lending requirements, lending rules enforced by the Consumer Bureau, the Community Reinvestment Act, and government-sponsored enterprises (notably Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Farm Credit System) among other federal programs steer credit to favorites based on government priorities. Designating large financial firms as “systemically important financial institutions” might diminish their role as independent credit providers and subject them to further government direction. Some argue that Federal Reserve monetary policy, which greatly influences all interest rates, has consequent credit-allocation effects. Where did this all come from, where is it going, and what it means for the future of the economy will be questions for the panel. -- The Federalist Society's Corporations, Securities & Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group presented this panel on "Credit to Cronies: Government’s Heavy—IF Hidden—Hand" on Friday, November 14, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Mr. Edward J. DeMarco, Senior Fellow-in-Residence, Milken Institute; Mr. Bert Ely, Principal, Ely & Company, Inc.; and Dr. Paul H. Kupiec, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute. Moderator: Hon. Paul S. Atkins, Patomak Global Partners LLC; former Commissioner, U.S Securities & Exchange. Introduction: Hon. Wayne A. Abernathy, Executive VP for Financial Institutions Policy and Regulatory Affairs, American Bankers Association; and Chairman, Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group.

Although prison populations at the federal level have very recently declined for the first time in decades, prisoner population at the state level rose. The cost of crime, some that can be measured and some that are impossible to measure, is undoubtedly high, but so too is the cost of incarceration. Are we striking the right balance in length of sentences? And what is the proper balance between latitude and sentencing guidelines for judges? Do the answers to these questions differ for the state versus the federal criminal justice system? -- The Federalist Society's Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group presented this panel on "Criminal Sentencing Reform: A Conversation among Conservatives" on Friday, November 14, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Mr. Marc A. Levin, Director, Center for Effective Justice, Texas Public Policy Foundation; Mr. John G. Malcolm, Director and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation; Hon. Michael B. Mukasey, Partner, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and former U.S. Attorney General; and Prof. William G. Otis, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Moderator: Hon. William H. Pryor, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Several major federal programs directly tax the young to provide benefits to the elderly. This is a main feature of the Affordable Care Act, the Social Security System as it currently works, and of the laws guaranteeing pensions. In addition, the national debt raises intergenerational equity issues. What obligations do these debts impose on the young? Are they all of a piece or are the answers different in each case? Is it true that this generation is likely to be poorer than the previous one? What role does our legal system play in this? How will the law address pensions that contribute to bankrupting cities or states? What is the nature of the Social Security contract? -- The Federalist Society's Practice Groups presented this showcase panel on "Intergenerational Equity and Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, and Pensions" on Friday, November 14, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Hon. Christopher C. DeMuth, Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc., and former Administrator for Information and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget; Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University School of Law; and Prof. David A. Weisbach, Walter J. Blum Professor of Law and Senior Fellow, The Computation Institute of the University of Chicago and Argonne National Laboratory. Moderator: Hon. Frank H. Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

In a recent article, constitutional lawyer Charles Cooper argued that federal courts have erred by too narrowly construing their statutory grants of diversity jurisdiction. Mr. Cooper urges the courts to recognize much broader federal jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship as a matter of both statutory and constitutional interpretation. Others have called on Congress to consider legislation that would expand federal courts' diversity jurisdiction to include all cases in which any two parties come from different states. Our panel will include members of the federal judiciary to discuss whether (and if so, how) federal court jurisdiction should be expanded. -- The Federalist Society's Practice Groups presented this panel on "Diversity Jurisdiction from Strawbridge to CAFA" on Friday, November 14, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Hon. Charles J. Cooper, Partner, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, and former Assistant U.S. Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel; Hon. Edith H. Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit; and Hon. J. Harvie Wilkinson III, United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.

In today’s rapidly evolving telecommunications landscape, the development of new technologies and distribution platforms are driving innovation and growth at a breakneck speed across the Internet ecosystem. Broadband connectivity is increasingly important to our civil discourse, our economy, and our future. What is the proper role of government in facilitating robust investment and competition in this critical sector? When technology companies constantly have to reinvent themselves and adapt to survive – what role should government play? Our panel of experts will discuss the current regulatory environment and how government policies – particularly regarding transactions and the Open Internet proceeding – could affect the competitive marketplace. -- The Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group presented this panel on "Competition Policy in the Telecommunications Space" on Thursday, November 13, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Mr. Gene Kimmelman, President and CEO, Public Knowledge; Hon. Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Federal Trade Commission; Hon. Michael O’Rielly, Federal Communications Commission; and Prof. Christopher S. Yoo, John H. Chestnut Professor of Law, Communication, and Computer & Information Science, and Director, Center for Technology, Innovation & Competition, University of Pennsylvania Law School. Moderator: Hon. Stephen F. Williams, Senior Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit.

The U.S. Supreme Court has in the past several years begun to take several intellectual property cases each term, often including important copyright cases, like last term’s American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. At the same time, the legislature has already substantially revised patent rights, seems to be ready to revisit patent rights yet again, and is poised to consider revisions to copyright. On the table seem to be issues of the length of copyright term, fair use, and more. Our panel of experts will discuss the past present and future of IP and copyright. -- The Federalist Society's Intellectual Property Practice Group presented this panel on "Copyright Revision" on Thursday, November 13, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Ms. Danielle Aguirre, Senior Vice President, Business & Legal Affairs, National Music Publishers’ Association; Mr. Usman Ahmed, Policy Counsel, eBay Inc.; Prof. David S. Olson, Associate Professor of Law, Boston College Law School; Ms. Katherine A. Oyama, Senior Copyright Policy Counsel, Google, Inc.; and Prof. Mark F. Schultz, Senior Scholar and Director of Academic Programs, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, George Mason University School of Law; Law Professor, Southern Illinois University. Moderator: Hon. Douglas H. Ginsburg, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit; Professor of Law, George Mason University.