FedSoc Events

Latest Episodes:

The Future of the Past: Stare Decisis Dec 11, 2018

Show notes

Stare decisis – “to stand by things decided” – is the doctrine under which courts follow their own precedents, and precedents of superior courts. Proponents of stare decisis assert that it promotes predictability in the law, reduces revisiting settled issues, and increases reliance on judicial decisions, all while enhancing the legitimacy of the judicial branch. Critics of stare decisis assert that a court decision in error should not be followed blindly, and over-reliance on stare decisis can cause errors to become set in concrete. A handful of recent opinions suggest that some in the judiciary might be open to revisiting the contours of the doctrine of stare decisis. Should it be reevaluated? Does it matter whether the issue under consideration is statutory or constitutional? Does the time in history of the original decision matter? What is the future of this doctrine?
Prof. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center
Hon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Mr. Kannon K. Shanmugam, Partner, Williams & Connolly LLP
Moderator: Hon. Amy Coney Barrett, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Address by Alex Azar Dec 05, 2018

Show notes

On November 16, 2018, Secretary Alex Azar offered an address on the unintended consequences of health care regulation in the United States.
Hon. Alex Azar, Secretary, United States Department of Health & Human Services
Introduction: Mr. Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

18th Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture Dec 05, 2018

Show notes

On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society believes that it is most fitting to dedicate an annual lecture on limited government and the spirit of freedom to the memory of Barbara Olson. She had a deep commitment to the rule of law and understood well the relationship between respecting limits on government power and the preservation of freedom. And, significantly, Barbara Olson was an individual who never took freedom for granted in her own life, even in her final terrifying moments-her inspiring and energetic human spirit is a testament to what one can achieve in a world that places a premium on human freedom. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals.
On November 16, 2018, Judge Jeffrey Sutton offered the annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture. Sutton reflected on the roles of state constitutions, state courts, and state governments in the formation of American constitutional law.
Hon. Jeffrey Sutton, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society
For more on Barbara Olson and the Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture Series, follow this link.

Opening Address by Mike Lee Dec 05, 2018

Show notes

On November 15, 2018, Sen. Mike Lee (UT) gave the opening address at the Federalist Society's 2018 National Lawyers Convention. Lee discussed the sharp divisions in modern politics and the role of conflict in our constitutional republic.
Hon. Mike S. Lee, United States Senate, Utah
Introduction: Mr. Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President, The Federalist Society

John Marshall: The Man Who Made the Supreme Court Nov 17, 2018

Show notes

Mr. Richard Brookhiser, Senior Editor, National Review and Author, John Marshall: The Man Who Made the Supreme Court
Hon. S. Kyle Duncan, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Hon. Kevin Newsom, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Mr. David B. Rivkin, Jr., Partner, BakerHostetler
Moderator: Hon. William H. Pryor, Jr., United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Showcase Panel IV: Does Agency Regulatory Power Extend Beyond its Formal Power, and Should It? Nov 17, 2018

Show notes

Climate Change Nuisance Suits Nov 17, 2018

Show notes

Technology, Social Media and Professional Ethics Nov 17, 2018

Show notes

To what extent can the legal community engage in social media: a critical means to connect and network in the 21st century? To what degree are judges held to higher standards when posting, liking, and retweeting what may be controversial content? In this day and age, when much of America gets its news from social media, the legal community can ill afford to disengage. Justice Don Willett of the Texas Supreme Court, who has been dubbed “the most famous judge on Twitter,” due to his commentary on sports, family, politics, and cultural issues, said he errs on the side of self-censorship: “Usually what goes through my mind before I hit the tweet button is, did I misspell or mis-grammatize anything, but also, is this worth polluting the interwebs with for posterity?”
The possibility of endangering a citizen’s view of their lawyer or an unbiased judiciary seems clear. Critics of the practice argue that a judge should have a more controlled demeanor than is conducive to frequent, polarizing online posting. On the other hand, David Lat, founder of the popular Above the Law blog, has the view that we should be more concerned about what judges and lawyers are writing in their opinions and briefs than online on personal accounts. This panel aims to discuss the tenuous ground on which advocates and judges must tread in the coming years.
Prof. Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law
Mr. John Browning, Shareholder, Passman & Jones
Hon. Stephen Dillard, Chief Judge, Georgia Court of Appeals
Mr. David Lat, Founder, Above The Law
Moderator: Hon. Don Willett, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Showcase Panel III: The States & Administrative Law Nov 17, 2018

Show notes

We live in a system where regulators make the rules, investigate alleged violations of the rules, and then adjudicate those violations before Administrative Law Judges. If the matter ever gets to court, courts generally defer to the agency on questions of law “and fact.” As a result, agencies know that their regulations are unlikely to face challenge and, if they are challenged, will likely be upheld. In this system, critics argue, the predictable result is more and more irrational regulations and enforcement actions. Arizona has first-of-its-kind legislation to “reverse” Chevron and to instruct courts to give no deference to agency decisions on questions of law. On a related note, Arizona also passed the Right to Earn a Living Act, creating a cause of action to challenge occupational licensing decisions under a heightened standard of review. Some contend that the result of this new law has been significant in that regulators are reviewing and improving rules, or repealing them outright, rather than face litigation. Could these measures serve as a model other states and the federal government in reducing the size and scope of, and otherwise improving the Administrative State?
Prof. Nestor Davidson, Albert A. Walsh Chair in Real Estate, Land Use, and Property Law; Faculty Director, Urban Law Center, Fordham University School of Law
Prof. Chris Green, Associate Professor of Law and H.L.A. Hart Scholar in Law and Philosophy, University of Mississippi School of Law
Prof. Miriam Seifter, Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School
Hon. Jeffrey Sutton, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Moderator: Hon. Michael Scudder, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Evolution of the District Courts Nov 16, 2018

Show notes

Over the past several decades, the workload of federal district courts has changed significantly. On the civil side, perhaps as litigants seek to avoid the expense of elaborate discovery and prolonged motions practice and trials, more and more cases are resolved through alternative dispute resolution. On the criminal side, more and more cases are resolved through plea bargaining. The result is fewer and fewer trials. Our panel will discuss these phenomena, and their implications. What are the causes of these evolutions? Is there a lasting impacts on judges themselves? Are lawyers now required to hone different skills? Is there a lasting effect on the administration of justice, and civil society more generally?
Hon. Thomas Hardiman, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Hon. Michael B. Mukasey, Of Counsel, Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP
Hon. William E. Smith, Chief Judge, United States District Court, District of Rhode Island
Hon. Amul Thapar, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Moderator: Hon. Carlos T. Bea, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

FedSoc Events

Related Podcasts

1

2

3

4

5

6