Omnibus: Who Controls the Power of the Purse? The Federalist Society 2026-09-19 | Omnibus: Who Controls the Power of the Purse?
FTC Policy Unpacked: Achieving Change at the Federal Trade Commission The Federalist Society 2024-05-10 | FTC Chair Khan has sought to implement aggressive and profound changes at the agency from novel approaches on antitrust to groundbreaking rulemakings. But will these efforts have lasting effects?Former FTC Chairs Tim Muris and Maureen Ohlhausen were joined by Howard Beales, former Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the FTC, to compare these efforts with previous Chair-initiated policy shifts at the agency. Professors Muris and Beales also unveiled their extensive research, published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, analyzing key differences compared to earlier FTC efforts at promoting change.This panel discussed: How should a change agent manage the existing career staff? How should relations with Congress and other key stakeholders be managed? How can change best be implemented in the face of a potentially hostile judiciary and other formidable obstacles? What role should institutional norms play in answering these questions?Featuring:Prof. J. Howard Beales III, Professor Emeritus of Strategic Management and Public Policy, School of Business, The George Washington University; Former Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade CommissionHon. Timothy J. Muris, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law; Senior Counsel, Sidley; Former Chairman, Federal Trade CommissionHon. Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Partner, Antitrust and Competition, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati; Former Acting Chairman and Commissioner, Federal Trade CommissionModerator: Svetlana Gans, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP; Former Chief of Staff, Federal Trade Commission* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Legal Scrutiny Ahead: Assessing the Implications of EPAs Final Power Plant Rule The Federalist Society 2024-05-10 | On April 25th, the Environmental Protection Agency announced a suite of final rules meant to reduce pollution from fossil fuel-fired power plants.The rule was among four measures targeting coal and natural gas plants that the EPA said would provide “regulatory certainty” to the power industry and encourage them to make investments to transition “to a clean energy economy.” The measures include requirements to reduce toxic wastewater pollutants from coal-fired plants and to safely manage coal ash in unlined storage ponds.Supporters of the new rule argue that it aligns well with the EPA's statutory authority, the current state of electric markets, and available emissions-reduction technologies. However, opponents contend that it is legally flawed and could jeopardize grid reliability. What legal and policy issues does this rule potentially raise? Does it trigger "major questions" issues? Is the agency relying on unproven technology, potentially violating the statutory requirement that emission standards be based on proven systems? Moreover, does the rule infringe on state prerogatives for regulating existing sources? Join us as we delved into these questions and analyzed the legal complexities surrounding this new rule.Featuring: Kevin Poloncarz, Partner, Covington & Burling LLPJustin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law, PLLC* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
FTC’s Sweeping Non-Compete Ban: Summary, States’ Views, and Litigation Challenges The Federalist Society 2024-05-10 | On April 23, 2024, the FTC voted 3-2 to adopt a final rule banning the use of non-compete agreements nationwide, impacting 30 million workers by the FTC’s own estimates. This near categorical ban on the non-compete agreements is a contrast from a regime in which these agreements had been recognized to have potential procompetitive value and therefore were reviewed for reasonableness. It also marks a departure from the state law in many jurisdictions. Less than 24 hours after the vote, two lawsuits have challenged the rule based on statutory and Constitutional grounds. This breaking news panel discussed the final rule, grounds for statutory and Constitutional challenges, and state AG reactions. Featuring:Tyler S. Badgley, Senior Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation CenterGwendolyn J. Lindsay Cooley, NAAG Antitrust Task Force Chair and Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, Wisconsin Department of JusticeJulian W. Kleinbrodt, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPChris Mufarrige, Chief of Staff, FTC Commissioner Melissa HolyoakModerator: Alexander P. Okuliar, Co-chair, Global Antitrust Law Practice Group, Morrison Foerster* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Rogue or Righteous? Debating the Role of Prosecutors in Todays Legal Landscape The Federalist Society 2024-05-10 | Please join the Miami Lawyers Chapter for a panel event discussing the role of prosecutors in today's legal landscape.Featuring:Zack Smith, Senior Legal Fellow and Manager; Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage FoundationSteve Talpins, Chief Assistant State Attorney, Miami-Dade State Attorney's OfficeDan Tilley, Legal Director, ACLU FloridaModerator: Hon. Ariana Fajardo Orshan, Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, former United States Attorney, Southern District of Florida* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
A Discussion on the Biden Administration’s New Title IX Regulations The Federalist Society 2024-05-09 | The Regulatory Transparency Project presents a panel of legal experts, including Bob Eitel, Christian Corrigan, Will Trachman, and Kim Richey. Watch as these experts discuss the Biden Administration’s newly released Title IX Regulations and their implications for educational institutions, school districts, students, faculty, and parents.Join us for this webinar at 1 pm EST on May 8th.Register for the live webinar at fedsoc.org/events/a-discussion-on-the-biden-administration-s-new-title-ix-regulations* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Open Minds: Concentrated Control, Acceptable Opinions, and Corporate Influence Part 2 The Federalist Society 2024-05-07 | In Part 2 of Open Minds with Ryan Newman, we discuss government and private coercion and how state plenary authority plays into questions of freedom. How does concentrated economic and government power affect the democratic power of private citizens? How does a corporation's size and scale change its ability to exercise political influence? And how can conservative and libertarian discussions shift from focusing on process and procedure to inspiring substantive change?Featuring: Ryan Newman, General Counsel, Executive Office of the Governor, State of FloridaAlida Kass, Vice President & Director, Strategic Initiatives and Freedom of Thought Project, The Federalist Society* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Explainer Episode 66: Strategic Petroleum Reserve The Federalist Society 2024-05-07 | Earlier this year, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported that the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or SPR, held approximately 358 million barrels, its lowest level in forty years. Is that a problem? What is the SPR and how is it supposed to operate? How much petroleum is it supposed to hold?Listen in on the Regulatory Transparency Project's Explainer Episode 66, as expert J. Kennerly Davis discusses SPR. * * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Keynote Address by Hon. David R. Stras [2024 Ohio Chapters Conference] The Federalist Society 2024-05-03 | What My Grandparents’ Experiences in the Holocaust Taught Me About the First Amendment Featuring:Hon. David R. Stras, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Panel II: Can We Permit Abundant Energy Infrastructure? The Federalist Society 2024-05-03 | The "Inflation Reduction Act" authorized as much as one trillion dollars of new spending to build a new energy system but have policymakers removed the growing obstacles facing new energy infrastructure? What are the key challenges facing new infrastructure projects, such as the new power-lines, mines, and carbon and hydrogen pipelines envisioned by the Inflation Reduction Act? Congress has considered many proposals to make it easier to permit new energy infrastructure. Would any of these proposals be effective in ensuring public and private investments actually result in new energy projects? What are the key reforms that will be necessary to build energy infrastructure to support an abundant energy future? Featuring:- James W. Coleman, Robert G. Storey Distinguished Faculty Fellow and Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law -Eli Dourado, Chief Economist, Abundance Institute -Mario Loyola, Senior Research Fellow, Environmental Policy and Regulation, Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment, The Heritage Foundation* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Fireside Chat with James Danly and Andrew Wheeler The Federalist Society 2024-05-03 | Featuring:- James P. Danly, Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission - Andrew Wheeler, Partner, Holland & Hart; Former Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Panel I: Regulatory Obstacles to Grid Reliability The Federalist Society 2024-05-03 | Under the Biden administration, the executive branch has issued multiple regulations that have incentivized a transition away from fossil fuels towards a more “Green” electrical grid. How will a transition away from fossil fuels impact the reliability of the grid? With environmental rules that disincentivize internal combustion engines, how will the increase in electrical vehicles affect the grid? Does the grid have the capacity to meet these goals? Will these new demands on the grid impact electricity prices to American consumers? Will these new requirements impact the reliability of the grid?Featuring:Edward Boling, Partner, Perkins Coie LLP -Michael Buschbacher, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC -Hon. Jeffrey Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell LLP -Mario Loyola, Senior Research Fellow, Environmental Policy and Regulation, Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment, The Heritage Foundation* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Opening Remarks & Presentation on Electricity Demand The Federalist Society 2024-05-03 | Featuring:- Andrew Wheeler, Partner, Holland & Hart; Former Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency- Louis Finkel, Senior Vice President of Government Relations, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Fireside Chat with Hon. Paul Clement The Federalist Society 2024-05-02 | This was a luncheon and fireside chat with Paul Clement, the former Solicitor General of the United States and current partner at Clement & Murphy PLLC. Mr. Clement was joined by Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of the Federalist Society, to discuss Mr. Clement's resignation from big law, freedom of thought in the legal profession, the duty of lawyers to represent unpopular clients in an adversarial system of justice, and more.Featuring:Hon. Paul Clement, former Solicitor General of the United StatesModerator: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, the Federalist Society* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Nuziard v. MBDA: What is the Future of Equal Protection Litigation? The Federalist Society 2024-05-01 | On March 5, 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Pittman of the Northern District of Texas entered a declaratory judgment and nationwide injunction against the Minority Business Development Agency, preventing the agency from extending a federally-sponsored racial preference to groups seeking to access capital and government contracts. This case, Nuziard v. MBDA, expands upon last summer's Supreme Court ruling in SFFA v. Harvard, which struck down affirmative action in college admissions. Daniel Lennington of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, who litigated the case, discussed the case and its impact on the future of equality.Featuring:Daniel Lennington, Deputy Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law and LibertyModerator: William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Standing and Section 2: Does Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act Provide a Private Right of Action? The Federalist Society 2024-05-01 | In 2021, in Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, private litigants sued to challenge the Arkansas state House redistricting map as violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by illegally diluting the vote of racial minorities. In 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas ruled that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not grant a private right of action. In 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court holding, and in 2024, the Eighth Circuit denied rehearing of the case en banc. In this panel, three voting rights practitioners provided their analysis of the Voting Rights Act, the Eighth Circuit's decision, and the implications of this decision on redistricting and voting rights cases.Featuring:J. Christian Adams, President and General Counsel, Public Interest Legal FoundationNicholas Bronni, Solicitor General, The State of ArkansasJeffrey Wice, Adjunct Professor of Law, New York Law School & Senior Fellow, New York Census and Redistricting Institute(Moderator) Maya Noronha, Civil Rights Attorney* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney The Federalist Society 2024-05-01 | Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney sits at an interesting intersection of Labor and Administrative law. The facts of the case concern Starbucks Corp.'s alleged retaliation against seven Memphis workers for unionization efforts. The employees received disciplinary action and ultimately lost their jobs in the wake of their involvement in a unionization effort. In the following investigation, the NLRB found that there was reasonable cause to believe Starbucks had acted in retaliation against protected unionization efforts. A district court issued a temporary injunction and required the 7 former employees to be reinstated. The Sixth Circuit affirmed on appeal, concluding the NLRB had satisfied its burden in showing there was "reasonable cause" that Starbucks had violated the National Labor Relations Act and thus the NLRB could use its remedial power. Starbucks appealed again and the case was heard by the Supreme Court on April 23, 2023.The question before the Supreme Court, however, is not the Labor Law question of whether Starbucks violated the NLRA, but an Administrative law one as the case asks what standard the NLRB needed to meet to obtain an injunction under Section 10(j) of the NLRA from a court. Is "reasonable cause" enough or is there a more stringent test a court should use?Join us as we broke down and analyzed this interesting case and the Oral Argument in the days following the argument before the Court.Featuring:Sheng Li, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Expectations for Antitrust and the FTC The Federalist Society 2024-05-01 | As the 2024 election cycle approaches, former FTC Commissioner Christine S. Wilson joined Adam Cella, Senior Special Counsel at the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, for a fireside chat to review Wilson’s tenure at the FTC, the pressing issues facing the FTC and antitrust enforcement, and what she expects for the next administration. Featuring:Adam Cella, Chief Counsel for the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust at the U.S. House Committee on the JudiciaryHon. Christine S. Wilson, Senior Advisor, Freshfields; Former Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Frozen Funds: Assessing Claims on Russian Central Bank Assets The Federalist Society 2024-04-30 | The ongoing war in Ukraine has sparked discussions within the Group of Seven (G-7) about using frozen Russian central bank assets to support the war effort or compensate Ukrainians for the damage caused by Russia's aggression. International law, however, presents challenges as seizing central bank assets could violate foreign sovereign immunity. Supporters argue that such actions could be justified as lawful "countermeasures" against Russia's violations of international law, while opponents disagree. This debate has become a focal point in legal circles, although it has not been thoroughly explored, particularly regarding the risks and costs of third-party actions against Russian assets.This program assessed a potential seizure of the frozen Russian Central Bank assets and whether assets can be applied toward reconstruction, reparations, or relief to aggrieved individuals. Discussants considered the legal and diplomatic constraints on this form of retribution, including how seizing Russian assets might impact the broader international financial order.Featuring:Prof. Philip Zelikow, White Burkett Miller Professor, University of VirginiaProf. Ingrid Brunk, Helen Strong Curry Chair in International Law, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolModerator: Nitin Nainani, Law Clerk, Mayer Brown LLP* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Déjà Vu all over again? The Return of Network Neutrality The Federalist Society 2024-04-30 | In 2002, under Chairman Michael Powell, the FCC passed the Cable Modem Order which classified cable modem internet service providers (ISPs) as not subject to common carrier non-discrimination requirements. The order’s critics said the FCC had created a non-neutral internet where dominant firms could use their market power to harm consumers and diminish competition. After several attempts, which the D.C. Circuit rejected, the FCC under Chairman Wheeler imposed network neutrality requirements on ISPs in the Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet order in 2015. Then, the FCC under Chairman Pai largely revoked the network neutrality rules in the Restoring Internet Freedom order in 2017. Now, under Chair Rosenworcel the FCC has just reimposed network neutrality.This panel discussed the legal future on appeal of this most recent iteration in what appears to be an unending partisan regulatory saga—especially in light of the Supreme Court’s changing views on administrative review. The panel also investigated whether this over two decade old policy dispute is fighting yesterday’s war as many believe that there have been few competitive abuses by ISPs during the last two decades—and arguably competitive abuses by dominant firms has moved elsewhere in the web.Featuring: Prof. Raymond Ku, John Homer Kapp Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of LawMarco Peraza, Attorney-Advisor, Consumer Protection, FTC Commissioner Andrew FergusonModerator: Justin (Gus) Hurwitz, Director of Law & Economics Programs, International Center for Law & Economics* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Discrimination By Proxy?: Arlington Heights Cases in the Post Students for Fair Admissions Era The Federalist Society 2024-04-30 | In the consolidated Students for Fair Admissions cases, the Supreme Court held unlawful the use of race in undergraduate admissions at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. Many colleges and universities have nonetheless indicated that they plan to circumvent the decision by using proxies for race instead. A 1978 Supreme Court case, Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing, held that using proxies for race to discriminate is generally as unlawful as using race itself. Arlington Heights also sets forth a test for identifying when a challenged policy is prohibited proxy discrimination. But the lower courts have applied Arlington Heights in different ways to challenged admissions policies, with some lower courts engaging in tough scrutiny of challenged policies and with others being much more deferential to assertions of benign intent.This panel addressed: is proxy discrimination unlawful under the Fourteenth Amendment? If yes, what is the right legal test -- Arlington Heights or something else? What challenged policies, if any, are prohibited proxy discrimination?Featuring: Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolRichard D. Kahlenberg, Director of Housing Policy and the American Identity Project, Progressive Policy InstituteProf. Sonja B. Starr, Julius Kreeger Professor of Law & Criminology, University of Chicago Law SchoolErin Wilcox, Attorney, Pacific Legal FoundationModerator: Dan Morenoff, Executive Director, American Civil Rights Project, Adjunct Fellow, Manhattan Institute* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Discussing the Implications of US v. Coburn The Federalist Society 2024-04-25 | In February 2022, a District of New Jersey court in United States v. Coburn compelled a private company to produce internal investigation materials to two of its former executives, who had been indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") relating to an alleged foreign bribery scheme. This panel explored the implications that this decision, and its legal reasoning, might have had on attorneys and clients who attempted to cooperate with DOJ as part of a self-disclosure strategy with the intent to earn "cooperation credit," while at the same time protecting the attorney-client and work product privileges emanating from internal investigations conducted on behalf of one's corporate client.Featuring:Hon. Don Cochran, Professor of Law, Belmont University College of LawHon. Mike Hurst, Partner, Phelps Dunbar LLPHon. John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding(Moderator) Hon. David C. Joseph, United States District Court Judge, Western District of Louisiana* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Litigation Update: Ream v. U.S. Department of Treasury - Is Home-Distilling Commerce? The Federalist Society 2024-04-25 | John Ream, an engineer and owner of Trek Brewing Company which creates craft beers in Newark, Ohio, is suing the U.S. Department of Treasury over the regulations that prohibit distilling spirits and hard alcohols at home. Mr. Ream asserts that he would like to pursue the hobby of distilling spirits at home for his personal use but cannot because of federal legislation. The federal law, passed under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, makes it a felony punishable by $10,000 in fines and five years in prison, to distill hard alcohol, even for personal use. Mr. Ream, represented by The Buckeye Institute, alleges that this prohibition is unconstitutional and exceeds the powers granted Congress by the Commerce Clause, since it seeks to regulate non-commercial activity.The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, early in 2024, and is currently making its way through the litigation process.This was a litigation update on Ream v. U.S. Department of Treasury featuring Robert Alt, lead attorney at The Buckeye Institute representing Mr. Ream.Featuring:Robert Alt, President and CEO, The Buckeye Institute(Moderator) Andrew Grossman, Partner, BakerHostetler LLP* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson The Federalist Society 2024-04-25 | City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson questions if prohibiting sleeping/camping on public property under the Grants Pass Municipal Code breaches the Eighth Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment." These provisions typically carry civil penalties but can escalate to criminal penalties.Initially filed in 2018, this case draws parallels to Martin v. City of Boise, where the Ninth Circuit ruled that criminalizing such activities breached the Eighth Amendment. The Grants Pass case raises a critical question: do civil penalties for similar actions also infringe on constitutional protections?Following the Ninth Circuit's 2022 decision favoring the plaintiffs, led by Gloria Johnson, the city appealed, leading to a Supreme Court hearing scheduled for Monday, April 22. This case sits at the intersection of Criminal Law, Federalism and Separation of Powers, and Property Rights, addressing fundamental questions about local governance, public health, and individual freedoms.Join us as we broke down and analyzed how oral argument went the same day.Featuring: Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Litigation, Goldwater Institute* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Litigation Update: Climate Lawsuits and Status at the U.S. Supreme Court The Federalist Society 2024-04-25 | Since 2017, more than thirty states, counties, and municipalities have filed lawsuits against energy producers under state nuisance and consumer protection laws seeking damages for the alleged effects of climate change. Federal courts have expressed concerns with the scope of these lawsuits; they have held that principles of federalism inherent in the Constitution and the need for federal uniformity in the regulation of out-of-state pollution preclude the efforts of climate plaintiffs to litigate these claims under state law. For example, in dismissing New York City’s lawsuit in 2021 the Second Circuit held that “such a sprawling case is simply beyond the limits of state law.” Other courts have nonetheless allowed some similar state-law claims to proceed. In October 2023, the Supreme Court of Hawaii held that the City and County of Honolulu could move forward with its efforts to use Hawaii state law to impose liability on several large out-of-state oil and gas companies for injuries allegedly caused by worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.In February, defendants in the Honolulu action filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the US Supreme Court to resolve the split that has formed in the wake of the Hawaii Supreme Court’s ruling. According to petitioners, the pending petition presents the best chance the Supreme Court will have to resolve this important issue in the near future. Join us for a litigation update on this case, and its potential impacts for climate change litigation.Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and counsel for Chevron, joined us to discuss these cases and addressed arguments raised in the pending cert petition.* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Open Minds: A New Approach for Putting Conservativism into Practice Part 1 The Federalist Society 2024-04-25 | Part 1 of Open Minds with Ryan Newman covers how his upbringing in the American southwest and his less conventional career, including military service, as well as judicial clerkships, and service in both state and federal government, shaped his life and thought. What does it mean to fight for what you believe in? What grounds our rights, and are there limits to those rights? How do political leaders balance our competing interests in national crises?Featuring:Ryan Newman, General Counsel, Executive Office of the Governor, State of FloridaAlida Kass, Vice President & Director, Strategic Initiatives and Freedom of Thought Project, The Federalist Society* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Grading the Biden DOL and NLRB’s Use of Regulatory Authorities The Federalist Society 2024-04-25 | The Regulatory Transparency Project (RTP) is pleased to host a stellar panel of top labor and employment law experts for a lively discussion in which our panelists will grade the Biden Administration’s administrative, regulatory, and enforcement activity under the Department of Labor (DOL) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).How have these agencies’ approaches to administrative law under the Biden Administration been similar to or different from prior administrations? Where have they been aggressive, where have they been conservative, and why? What have been the regulatory successes of the first three years? The failures? And what unaddressed or latent regulatory issues might the agencies be taking up in 2024 (and beyond)? Tune in and find out how the experts view the Biden Administration’s actions from divergent points of view.Featuring:• Judy Conti, Government Affairs Director, National Employment Law Project• Hon. Philip Miscimarra, Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP• Timothy Taylor, Partner, Holland & Knight LLP• [Moderator] Gregory Frederick Jacob, Partner, O'Melveny & Myers LLPRegister for the live webinar at fedsoc.org/events/grading-panel-of-the-biden-administration* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Discussing Clarke v. CFTC: The Case of PredictIt & the CFTCs No-Action Letter The Federalist Society 2024-04-23 | In July of 2023, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision in Clarke v. CFTC, and remanded with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction against the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The case is one concerning the CFTC's revocation of its "no-action letter" concerning PredictIt Market. PredictIt Market is an online marketplace for people to trade contracts predicting important political events, started as a research tool by Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand. Before going into operation, PredictIt sought a "no-action letter" from the CFTC to operate in the US without registering under the Commodity Exchange Act as a designated contract market, which the CFTC issued in 2014.However, in August 2022, the CFTC withdrew the letter and issued notice to PredictIt to cease operations within 6 months, which led to suit being filed by supporters of PredictIt. Questions included whether the revocation was arbitrary and capricious, whether the letter constituted "final action" on the part of the agency, and whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue.Join us as a panel of experts discussed this interesting case.Featuring:Michael Edney, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLPHon. David Mason, General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer, Aristotle InternationalConnor Raso, Deputy General Counsel, Public Company Accounting Oversight Board(Moderator) Russ Ryan, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Jurisdiction Stripping: Fact & Fiction Flowing Through the Mountain Valley Pipeline Case The Federalist Society 2024-04-23 | Generally, when Congress strips courts of jurisdiction, it does so by implementing broad, forward-looking, statutory bars that insulate agency decisions or foreclose appeal. In response to the protracted litigation surrounding construction and operation of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, Congress passed a unique statutory provision which (1) granted all required approvals for the pipeline to proceed and (2) stripped every court’s jurisdiction to review the pipeline’s permit approvals. Simultaneously, the amendment granted the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit exclusive jurisdiction over all constitutional challenges to the jurisdiction stripping provision.The case-specific impact of this legislation prompted much public concern and Supreme Court review. Petitioners unsuccessfully argued that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority by intervening to effect a specific outcome in a specific case Respondents prevailed on the counterargument that Congress merely made new underlying law without directing any decision of an Article III court. In this panel, academic commentators and amici from the case discussed the careful distinctions between amendments to substantive law and case-specific jurisdiction stripping, sharing insights on the separation-of-powers questions both behaviors raise.Featuring:Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of LawProf. Daniel Farber, Sho Sato Professor of Law; Faculty Director, Center for Law, Energy, & the Environment, University of California, BerkeleyRachel Jankowski, Assistant General Counsel, Office of General Counsel of the United States House of RepresentativesProf. Alan M. Trammell, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Arkansas School of LawModerator: Hon. Robert T. Numbers, II, United States Magistrate Judge, Eastern District of North Carolina* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Courthouse Steps Preview: City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson The Federalist Society 2024-04-22 | City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson concerns whether the sections of the Grants Pass Municipal Code which prohibit sleeping/camping on public property like parks and streets constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" as prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. The codes in question only impose civil penalties, which can, in certain circumstances develop into criminal penalties. The case parallels the 2018 case Martin v. City of Boise, in which the Ninth Circuit held that criminal penalties for sleeping/camping on public property violated the Eighth Amendment. Grants Pass raises the question of whether that extends to civil penalties.The case was originally filed in 2018 by a group of individuals including Gloria Johnson affected by the Grants Pass Municipal Codes, and in 2022 the Ninth Circuit decided in favor of the group. The city appealed and it is set to be heard at the Supreme Court on Monday, April 22.Supporters of the city of Grants Pass have argued that these codes and those like them are important for addressing issues of local governance and public health and safety. They contend having courts meddle in issues that pertain to local matters is dangerous and preempts local law enforcement and governments from serving their communities. Detractors claim that the codes endanger those who are involuntarily homeless and impose disproportionate punishment for a non-criminal status.This was a Courthouse Steps preview on this interesting case at the intersection of Criminal Law, Federalism and Separation of Powers, and Property rights.Featuring:Mark Miller, Senior Attorney, Property Rights, Pacific Legal Foundation* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Explainer Episode 65: Reviewing Michael Cannons Book Recovery The Federalist Society 2024-04-22 | In this RTP Explainer episode 65, we are joined by Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and Christina Sandefur, Executive Vice President of the Goldwater Institute to discuss Michael Cannon’s new book, Recovery. Listen in as these experts consider the role of government agencies like the FDA in health spaces across America. "Recovery" discusses treatments approved by the FDA and the implications of approved drugs entering the market. Americans are inadvertently affected by the decisions of government agencies. With this said, "Recovery" argues the FDA takes away people’s rights to make their own health decisions. Does the FDA prohibit safe and effective drugs from entering the market? In this episode, experts discuss the implications of the decisions made by the FDA and the consequences of unsafe access to drugs. Copies of Michael Cannon’s book can be found at, cato.org/books/recovery* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Panel 1: State Supreme Court Candidate Forum [2024 Ohio Chapters Conference] The Federalist Society 2024-04-22 | Featuring: - Hon. Joseph Deters, Justice, Supreme Court of Ohio- Hon. Michael Donnelly, Justice, Supreme Court of Ohio- Hon. Lisa Forbes, Judge, 8th District Court of Appeals, State of Ohio- Hon. Daniel Hawkins, Judge, Franklin County Court- Hon. Megan Shanahan, Judge, Hamilton County Court- Hon. Melody Stewart, Justice, Supreme Court of Ohio- Moderator: Professor Chris Walker, University of Michigan Law School* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Power, Persuasion, or Propaganda? [The FedSoc Films Podcast] The Federalist Society 2024-04-18 | In this episode of the FedSoc Films Podcast, Erik Jaffe, a partner at Schaerr Jaffe, joined us for a “radical” discussion on when the government has the power to speak, when they can and cannot use it to persuade, and when in some cases, they enter the realm of propaganda.Thanks again for listening to the FedSoc Films Podcast! Be sure to rate and review us on your favorite podcast platform.Watch the full film, “JAWBONED: Miss Information vs. Free Speech” on YouTube:youtube.com/watch?v=rlbDQWyDONALearn more about Erik Jaffe here:schaerr-jaffe.com/attorneys/erik-s-jaffeVisit fedsoc.org to learn more!Follow us on Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter:instagram.com/fedsocyoutube.com/thefederalistsocietytwitter.com/FedSoc* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Environmental Law and the Constitution: Exceeding the Limits [EBRXII] The Federalist Society 2024-04-17 | In his Sackett v. EPA concurrence, Justice Thomas suggested that "many environmental regulatory schemes” appear to "push the limits" of the Supreme Court's constitutional jurisprudence. The Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act regulate land use without a clear connection to interstate commerce. States complain that federal environmental regulation unnecessarily intrudes upon state sovereignty and privileges some environmental states over others. And environmental regulatory enforcement raises some of the same constitutional and due process concerns that have been raised about SEC and FTC enforcement. Does this mean that federal environmental law, as currently implemented and enforced, is unconstitutional?Featuring:-Eric Grant, Partner, Hicks Thomas LLP -Matthew Kuhn, Solicitor General, Commonwealth of Kentucky- Prof. Andrew Mergen, Emmett Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor of Law in Environmental Law, Harvard Law School -Moderator: Corrine Snow, Counsel, Vinson & Elkins LLP* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Is Humphrey’s Executor Still Relevant? [EBRXII] The Federalist Society 2024-04-17 | Earlier this year Judge Jones and Judge Willett released dueling opinions on the applicability of Humphrey’s Executor to the Consumer Product Safety Commission post-Seila Law. Parties have also asked courts to determine whether Humphrey’s Executor even still applies to the FTC given the dramatic expansion of that agency’s powers since the 1930’s. This panel will explore the ongoing applicability of Humphrey's Executor to modern day independent agencies, the proper constitutional role of independent agencies, and the future of independent agencies if the Supreme Court revisits Humphrey's Executor.Featuring:-Prof. Jennifer L. Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University -Michael McGinley, Partner, Dechert LLP -Brett Shumate, Partner, Jones Day -Moderator: Hon. Stephen Vaden, United States Court of International Trade* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
U.S. Financial Regulation: Principles, Opportunities, and Challenges [EBRXII] The Federalist Society 2024-04-17 | This panel will bring together four former senior policymakers from the SEC or CFTC to discuss the current state of U.S. financial regulation. They will cover foundational concepts such as: the importance of evidence and data-based regulation; the need for regulators to recognize and appropriately adapt to changes in technology and markets; and effective enforcement. These former officials will also offer views on regulatory opportunities to further strengthen and increase the competitiveness of financial markets—while maintaining investor protections. The discussion will also cover several of the “hot button” policy topics of the day, such as disclosure rules for companies and crypto regulation.Featuring:-Hon. Paul S. Atkins, Chief Executive Officer, Patomak Global Partners LLC -Hon. Robert J. Jackson, Jr., Professor of Law, New York University School of Law- Hon. Timothy G. Massad, Research Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School -Hon. Jill Sommers, Chair of the Derivatives Practice Group, Patomak Global Partners LLC -Moderator: Jeffrey T. Dinwoodie, Partner, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP * * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Law and Order on the Border? [EBRXII] The Federalist Society 2024-04-17 | In 2023, U.S. Customs and Border Protection recorded more than 3.2 million encounters with illegal immigrants entering the country; 169 of those apprehended while attempting to enter the country illegally were on the terrorist watchlist. Estimates of the number of people who cross illegally and are not apprehended continue to rise and in December 2023, there were 302,000 CBP encounters along the southern border, the highest monthly total ever recorded. In the last year alone, CBP seized 27,293 pounds of fentanyl along the southern border but it is estimated that this is only 5-10 percent of the total that crossed the border. Texas recently passed SB. 4 a law that allows state and local authorities to apprehend anyone whom they believe is in the country illegally. The federal government administration has challenged the law’s constitutionality in court arguing that Texas is interfering with the federal government’s exclusive authority to regulate the entry and removal of noncitizens.How is the federal government addressing immigration and pursuing enforcement policies? Is the Administration issuing regulations and executive orders that comport with the law? What role should states and their law enforcement authorities play? This panel will discuss these and other important related issues.Featuring: -Hon. Mark Brnovich, Former Attorney General, State of Arizona -Dr. Sohan Dasgupta, Partner, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP -Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University -Moderator: Hon. Beth A. Williams, Board Member, U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Testing the Tension: How Do Nondiscrimination Regulations Interact with Religious Freedom? [EBRXII] The Federalist Society 2024-04-17 | This session will discuss the Biden administration’s efforts to expand sex nondiscrimination protections to cover sexual orientation and gender identity rights through agency regulations. Discussion will center around three major proposed (or soon-to-be final) regulations involving education, healthcare, and employment: the Department of Education’s Title IX rule, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Section 1557 rule, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s harassment guidance. Pro-LGBT groups praised these proposals while many religious organizations and people of faith raised concerns. Do the agencies’ regulations correctly balance SOGI rights with religious freedom and conscience rights? Did the agencies overreach by expanding sex nondiscrimination protections? Can the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or other federal laws protecting religious freedom and conscience rights trump the administration’s nondiscrimination regulations? This panel will tackle these important questions.Featuring:-Julie M. Blake, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom- Prof. Martin Lederman, Professor from Practice, Georgetown Law- Andrea Picciotti-Bayer, Director, The Conscience Project- Moderator: Ms. Elizabeth Slattery, Director of Constitutional Scholarship, Pacific Legal Foundation* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Opening Address & Panel 1: Is the Whole of Government Greater Than the Sum of its Parts? [EBRXII] The Federalist Society 2024-04-17 | Watch the 2024 Executive Branch Review Conference live!Opening Address:- Hon. Paul J. Ray, Director, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, The Heritage FoundationPanel 1: Is the Whole of Government Greater Than the Sum of its Parts?During its first hours, the Biden Administration promised a Whole of Government approach to implementing its policies. Ever since, the administration has delivered, with every federal agency using all the tools at their disposal. Through “Interpretations,” “Dear Colleague” letters, guidance documents, employee manuals, litigation, notices of proposed rulemaking, controversial new criteria for cost/benefit analyses, and more, agencies are implementing the administration’s goals regarding “climate change,” “equity,” and other of its priorities. This panel will discuss the many methods the current administration is using to achieve its policy objectives and, where relevant, how they are faring against challenges to their legitimacy.Featuring:-Braden H. Boucek, Vice President of Litigation, Southeastern Legal Foundation -Anthony Campau, Principal, Clark Hill Public Strategies -Hon. Gail Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law -David S. Mitchell, Senior Fellow, Washington Center for Equitable Growth- Moderator: Hon. Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General, State of Tennessee* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Prof. Jenn Mascott at #EBRXII. The Federalist Society 2024-04-16 | * * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Is Humphrey’s Executor still relevant? Brett Shumate weighs in at #EBRXII. The Federalist Society 2024-04-16 | * * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Hon. Paul S. Atkins, talks about civil discourse at federal government agencies: The Federalist Society 2024-04-16 | * * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Hon. Timothy G. Massad talks about enforcement on the financial regulation panel at #EBRXII: The Federalist Society 2024-04-16 | * * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Hon. Jill Sommers, former Commissioner of the CFTC #law The Federalist Society 2024-04-16 | * * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Hon. Robert J. Jackson Jr (@nyulaw) on one of the principles he followed as Commissioner of the SEC: The Federalist Society 2024-04-16 | * * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Hon. Paul J. Ray (@Heritage) opens #EBRXII, The Federalist Society 2024-04-16 | * * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Hon. Gail Heriot (@USanDiegoLaw) on a whole-of-government approach to equity: The Federalist Society 2024-04-16 | * * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Dr. Sohan Dasgupta speaks at EBRXII The Federalist Society 2024-04-16 | “What has not been frontally addressed by the Supreme Court in recent years is whether the Constitution requires the president to protect our national security,” says Dr. Sohan Dasgupta. Sooner rather than later the court is going to have to grapple with this issue, so the framework to consider that question is very important, he continues. #EBRXII* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
General Brnovich speaks at EBRXII The Federalist Society 2024-04-16 | “When the federal government will not do its job, the states have the ability to protect themselves,” says. Hon. GeneralBrnovich at #EBRXII discussing law and order on the border.* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Braden H. Boucek speaks at EBRXII The Federalist Society 2024-04-16 | Braden H. Boucek (@slf_liberty) speaks on the opening panel discussing "Is the Whole of Government Greater Than the Sum of its Parts?"* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Andrea Piciotti-Bayer at EBRXII The Federalist Society 2024-04-16 | Andrea Piciotti-Bayer speaks on a panel at #EBRXII discussing "How Do Nondiscrimination Regulations Interact with Religious Freedom?"* * * * *As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
