FedSoc Events

View Top 200 Chart

Back to Rankings Page

Business
**FedSoc Events**

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. This podcast feed contains audio files of Federalist Society panel discussions, debates, addresses, and other events related to law and public policy. Additional audio and video can be found at https://fedsoc.org/commentary.

Latest Episodes:

Keynote Address by Richard Epstein [Archive Collection] Jan 23, 2020

Show notes

Opening Remarks and Keynote Address by Senator Orrin Hatch [Archive Collection] Jan 16, 2020

Show notes

What's Next for Fannie, Freddie, and Housing Finance Reform? Dec 21, 2019

Show notes

On December 10, 2019, the Regulatory Transparency Project hosted an event at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. The title of the event was "What's Next for Fannie, Freddie, and Housing Finance Reform?"
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) oversees the administration of both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. What's next for the agency? What are the priorities that the agency should be pursuing?
*******
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Mark Calabria, Federal Housing Finance Agency
Edward Pinto, American Enterprise Institute
Peter Wallison, American Enterprise Institute
Moderator: Alex Pollock, US Department of the Treasury

Horizontal Federalism: May States Project their Sovereignty Beyond Their Borders? Dec 20, 2019

Show notes

On November 14, 2019, the Federalist Society's Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group hosted a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel discussed "Horizontal Federalism: May States Project Their Sovereignty Beyond Their Borders?".
The Supreme Court's recent decision in Franchise Tax Bd. v. Hyatt (overturning Nevada v. Hall) enforced an originalist understanding, limiting attempts by a state to extend its sovereign powers beyond its borders. Although often overlooked, vertical federalism arose in part as way of controlling the abuses of horizontal federalism under the Articles of Confederation. Some states had arguably been using their powers to infringe on the powers of other states. The Constitution’s strong federal government (yet with a limited number of powers) modified, without eliminating, horizontal federalism. The Constitution adapted from the Articles of Confederation certain horizontal provisions such as privileges and immunities, extradition, and full faith and credit. The two forms of federalism are encased within our current system of separation of powers.
Vertical federalism is evident when different groups of state AGs -- Red state AGs against Obama and now Blue state AGs against Trump-- have challenged federal policies in suits filed in federal courts. Different and more difficult to challenge, however, are attempts by one state or a group of states to make its policies effectively binding on other states. Examples include sanctuary state laws, California’s Internet regulation, cities and states suing oil companies in an attempt to regulate global warming and the National Popular Vote Compact. These developments implicate not only federalism and separation of powers, but the limits of state police powers and the natural right of self-government. Do these actions by some states necessarily come at the expense of other states? Do they violate the fundamental right of citizens to be governed by their own state constitutions and the separation of powers system of the federal Constitution?
*******
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University and Visiting Professor, Center for the Constitution, Georgetown University Law Center
Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Chapman University Fowler School of Law
Prof. Edward L. Rubin, University Professor of Law and Political Science, Vanderbilt Law School
Mr. Ilya Shapiro, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
Moderator: Hon. Michael Brennan, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Executive Agencies' Effects on Innovation and Consumers under President Trump Dec 20, 2019

Show notes

Special Session: Executive Power vs. Congressional Power Dec 12, 2019

Show notes

On November 16, 2019, the Federalist Society's Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group held a special session for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The session covered "Executive Power vs. Congressional Power".
There are a number of currently unfolding battles, involving important constitutional issues, between Congress and the Executive Branch. At the operational level, they involve the House’s exercise of its oversight, and impeachment powers, pitted against the Administration’s opposition to these efforts. At the more conceptual level, we hear assertions that arguably challenge the Constitution’s core separation of powers architecture, which holds that the three branches of the federal government are co-equal. How much power does the Constitution give to the Executive Branch, and how much to the Legislative Branch, and does the answer depend on whether or not one of these two branches is exercising power against the other?
*******
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Mr. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis
Hon. Edith H. Jones, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Prof. Martin Lederman, Professor from Practice, Georgetown University Law Center
Mr. David B. Rivkin, Jr., Partner, BakerHostetler
Moderator: Hon. A. Raymond Randolph, United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

51 Imperfect Solutions for the Ethical Practice of Law Dec 12, 2019

Show notes

On November 16, 2019, the Federalist Society's practice groups held a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel discussed "51 Imperfect Solutions for the Ethical Practice of Law.
The practice of law in the United States is not monolithic. Each state establishes its own rules of professional conduct. This form of federalism allows states to serve as "laboratories of democracy," and innovate how the legal profession operates. This panel will focus on four areas in which states disagree. First, the majority of states have rejected ABA Model Rule 8.4(g), which purports to prohibit "harassment" in "conduct related to the practice of law." Second, in the wake of Janus v. AFSCME, states are considering whether to abolish "integrated" bars. Third, some states are engaging in novel experiments to permit non-lawyers to perform some types of legal services. Finally, we are in the earliest stages of understanding how legal analytics—using technology to predict how courts will decide cases—fits within the rubric of the unauthorized practice of law. These topics implicate critical issues like the freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion, antitrust law, and cutting-edge legal technology.
*******
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Hon. G. Barry Anderson, Associate Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court
Prof. Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
Mr. Mauricio R. Hernandez, Principal, Hernandez Law Office
Prof. Thomas D. Morgan, Oppenheim Professor Emeritus of Antitrust and Trade Regulation Law, George Washington University Law School
Moderator: Hon. Jennifer Walker Elrod, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Introduction: Mr. John J. Park, Jr., Of Counsel, Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP

Economic Law & Policy as a Tool of National Security Dec 12, 2019

Show notes

On November 15, 2019, the Federalist Society's International & National Security Law Practice Group hosted a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel discussed "Economic Law & Policy as a tool of National Security".
Since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. has shifted from large-scale military interventions to the use of economic levers such as tariffs, sanctions, export/import controls, and renegotiating trade agreements to address national security challenges including great power rivals, rogue nations engaging in nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and immigration. Our panel of experts will discuss the efficacy and sustainability of this approach and whether an economic-oriented national security policy is likely to advance U.S. interests abroad.
*******
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Hon. Kristen Silverberg, Former U.S. Ambassador to the European Union
Prof. John Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, UC Berkeley School of Law; Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution; Visiting Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
Hon. Juan C. Zarate, Chairman and Co-Founder, Financial Integrity Network
Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
Introduction: Mr. Matthew R. A. Heiman, Senior Fellow and Associate Director for Global Security, National Security Institute

Freedom of Speech and Private Power Dec 12, 2019

Show notes

On November 15, 2019, the Federalist Society's Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group hosted a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel discussed "Freedom of Speech and Private Power".
Should the government protect speech against private power, and not just governmental power? Many states restrict private employers’ ability to fire employees based on their speech. A few protect private college students, private high school students, or speakers at private shopping malls. And of course employment law and public accommodation law routinely ban private discrimination based on religion, including based on religious speech.
Should the federal and state governments provide comparable protection against private discrimination based on political affiliation, including political speech? Should the government require colleges and universities to demonstrate a commitment to free speech to receive government funding? Should banks, insurers, and social media platforms be required to protect free speech? Or should private entities remain largely free (or even become freer) to discriminate based on speech and ideology?
*******
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Prof. Adam Candeub, Professor of Law and Director, Intellectual Property, Information & Communications Law Program, Michigan State University College of Law
Ms. Ann Coulter, Author and Columnist
Prof. Eric Goldman, Professor of Law and Co-Director, High Tech Law Institute, Santa Clara University School of Law
Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
Moderator: Hon. Britt C. Grant, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Introduction: Erik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP

Originalism, Populism, and the Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms Dec 12, 2019

Show notes

On November 15, 2019, the Federalist Society's practice groups hosted a special session for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel discussed "Originalism, Populism, and the Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms".
The Second Amendment has again become a topic of national discussion in recent years. Mass shooting tragedies of this past year captured the attention of the national media and Americans at large. The Supreme Court in this upcoming term, for the first time in almost a decade, will be confronting the Second Amendment head-on in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York. Many will be expecting the Supreme Court to further develop its jurisprudence following the landmark cases of Heller v. District of Columbia, and McDonald v. City of Chicago. This panel will debate these issues and analyze the Second Amendment in this current political climate as well as through the lens of Originalism.
*******
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
Prof. Renée Lettow Lerner, Donald Phillip Rothschild Research Professor, George Washington University Law School
Mr. Jonathan Lowy, Chief Counsel & Vice President, Legal, Brady
Mr. Mark W. Smith, Founding Partner, Smith Valliere PLLC
Mr. Jonathan Taylor, Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLC
Moderator: Hon. Andrew S. Oldham, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected