Federalist Society Event Audio

United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia opened the 2014 National Lawyers Convention on November 13 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. Justice Scalia discussed the importance of Magna Carta. Introduction by Mr. Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President, The Federalist Society.

The Federalist Society's DC Young Lawyers Chapter and The Alexander Hamilton Society co-hosted this event on October 22, 2014, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: John Bellinger, Partner, Arnold & Porter and former Legal Advisor to the Department of State (2005 -2009) and Steve Bradbury, Partner, Dechert LLP and former Head of the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice (2004-2009). Moderator: 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, U.S. Department of Justice. Introduction: Sarah Hawkins Warren, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP and President, DC Young Lawyers Chapter.

October 6th will mark the first day of the 2014 Supreme Court term. Thus far, the Court's docket includes major cases involving the First Amendment, separation of powers, election law, criminal law, and more. -- Notable cases include Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama and Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, which concern whether Alabama's legislative redistricting plans were unconstitutional; Elonis v. U.S., which concerns when it is a federal crime to make threatening statements, including messages or postings on social networking web sites such as Facebook; Yates v. U.S., which concerns whether Mr. Yates was given fair notice that throwing undersized fish into the Gulf of Mexico would violate the "document shredding provision" of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act; and Zivotofsky v. Kerry, which concerns Congress's vs. the President's authority over passports and foreign affairs. -- The Court is also likely to add other significant cases, potentially including King v. Burwell, concerning whether the IRS may extend tax-credit subsidies to offset the cost of coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government (rather than state-created exchanges) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; TheEpiscopal Church v. The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, which concerns the resolution of church property disputes; and one or more same-sex marriage cases. In addition to these cases and others, the panelists will discuss the current composition and the future of the Court. -- The Federalist Society hosted this panel discussion on September 23, 2014 at the National Press Club. -- Featuring: Mr. William Consovoy, Partner, Wiley Rein; Prof. Orin Kerr, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School; Ms. Virginia Seitz, Partner, Sidley Austin; Ms. Carrie Severino, Chief Counsel and Policy Director, Judicial Crisis Network; and Mr. Adam White, Counsel, Boyden Gray & Associates. Moderator: Mr. Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Correspondent, New York Times.

Emotions sometimes run high in the public debates over race and gender issues. Some claim that public passions can obscure facts and result in ill-considered policy. Many observers have bemoaned the public rhetoric surrounding the recent events in Ferguson, Missouri as more inflammatory than constructive. Another example can be found in criticism over President Obama’s use of a misleading, or at least contestable, figure in his 2014 State of the Union address: “Today, women make up about half our workforce. But they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it’s an embarrassment. A woman deserves equal pay for equal work.” But equal pay for equal work has been the law since 1963, and some researchers have questioned whether the pay gap exists in reality to the same extent it does rhetorically. Are similarly emotional arguments being used in the debates over sexual assault in the military, hate crimes, and harassment and bullying in public schools? This panel will explore the concerns over this problem and its policy consequences. -- This panel on "Passion and Prudence in the Political Process: The Debate Over Federal Civil Rights Policy" was part of a day-long conference on Civil Rights in the United States held on September 9, 2014, and co-sponsored by the Federalist Society's Civil Rights Practice Group, the Cato Institute, and the Heritage Foundation. -- Featuring: Ms. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research; Ms. Lara S. Kaufmann, Senior Counsel & Director of Education Policy for At-Risk Students, National Women's Law Center; and Hon. Gail Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law and Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Moderator: Mr. Robert Barnes, Supreme Court Correspondent, The Washington Post.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, which disabled Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, has led some advocates (including the White House) to argue that voting rights are in peril. But other experts say these fears are wildly overblown and that Shelby County confirms that circumstances have changed dramatically for the better. They argue that Section 5’s federal “preclearance” regime can no longer be justified given that the systematic disenfranchisement of the Jim Crow era has disappeared—racial disparities in voter registration and turnout are gone, especially in previously covered jurisdictions—and that we should focus on actual instances of racial discrimination (as well as election administration). After all, Sections 2 and 3 are still very much in place, although Section 2 has been interpreted to require racial gerrymandering in a way that benefits both major parties but harms American democracy. This panel will discuss the state of voting rights today, including the Justice Department’s enforcement actions, proposed legislation in Congress, voter-ID laws, felon voting, and related issues in the states. -- This panel on "The Future of Voting Rights" was part of a day-long conference on Civil Rights in the United States held on September 9, 2014, and co-sponsored by the Federalist Society's Civil Rights Practice Group, the Cato Institute, and the Heritage Foundation. -- Featuring: Mr. David H. Gans, Director, Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program, Constitutional Accountability Center; Mr. Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute; and Mr. Hans A. von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow and Manager, Civil Justice Reform Initiative, The Heritage Foundation. Moderator: Mr. Michael Barone, Senior Political Analyst, the Washington Examiner.

The Obama administration is widely perceived to be an avid proponent of racial preferences. As Attorney General Eric Holder said in 2012, “The question is not when does [affirmative action] end, but when does it begin.” Several landmark pieces of legislation that President Barack Obama has signed into law—primarily on other topics, such as the Dodd Frank Wall Street Consumer Protection and Reform Act and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—have expanded racial preferences in federal hiring, contracting, and at regulated entities. The president has also issued multiple executive orders and related instructions that aggressively seek to expand the numbers of women and minorities in the federal workforce. The Obama administration’s response to Fisher v. University of Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2411 (2013), which directed courts to use strict scrutiny in analyzing whether admissions policies are narrowly tailored to achieve universities’ diversity goals, may be another such example. After Fisher, officials at the Departments of Education and Justice produced guidance documents that have been read to assure colleges and universities that they could continue using large racial preferences in student admissions. This panel will explore this proliferation of racial preferences and the likely effects of such policies. Among other things, panelists will discuss evidence that racial preferences in education do more harm than good to their intended beneficiaries, resulting in fewer under-represented minorities going on to high-status careers. The panel will also discuss efforts to protect women and minorities from ill-defined “harassment” as a means of maintaining diversity in the workplace and on campuses—and how these efforts may raise First Amendment concerns and create perverse incentives to discriminate against persons who are perceived as likely to view innocent or trivial workplace and campus interactions as harassment. -- This panel on "Racial Preferences and Promoting Diversity: Are These Policies Taking Us in the Right Direction?" was part of a day-long conference on Civil Rights in the United States held on September 9, 2014, and co-sponsored by the Federalist Society's Civil Rights Practice Group, the Cato Institute, and the Heritage Foundation. -- Featuring: Mr. Hans Bader, Senior Counsel, Competitive Enterprise Institute; Prof. Louis Michael Seidman, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center; and Mr. Stuart S. Taylor, Jr., Nonresident Senior Fellow in Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution. Moderator: Dr. Roger Pilon, Vice President for Legal Affairs, B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies, and Director, Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.

Disparate impact liability—or holding an actor liable for actions that have a disproportionate effect (disparate impact) on a particular race, sex, national origin, or religion—was invented by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission during the Johnson administration as a strategy for stepping up the fight against employment discrimination. The Supreme Court eventually adopted this theory of liability in the employment context in the controversial case of Griggs v. Duke Power, 401 U.S. 424 (1971). Congress later incorporated it into the employment context in the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The Obama administration has eagerly embraced disparate impact liability: Administration officials have applied it to new areas, like housing, education and credit. Disturbingly to some, these officials have also arranged settlements in lawsuits headed to the Supreme Court that appeared likely to result in decisions limiting the doctrine’s reach. Because nearly every employment, education, housing, or lending policy has a disproportionate effect on some protected group, the recent growth of disparate impact means that virtually any such policy may be deemed illegal. Panelists will discuss whether and to what extent disparate impact’s metastasis thus threatens traditional principles of the rule of law and whether it is consistent with statutory law and the Constitution. -- This panel on "Disparate Impact and the Rule of Law: Does Disparate Impact Liability Make Everything Illegal?" was part of a day-long conference on Civil Rights in the United States held on September 9, 2014, co-sponsored by the Federalist Society's Civil Rights Practice Group, the Cato Institute, and the Heritage Foundation. -- Featuring: Mr. Roger B. Clegg, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity; Hon. Peter N. Kirsanow, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP and Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and former Member, National Labor Relations Board; and Prof. Theodore M. Shaw, Julius L. Chambers Distinguished Professor of Law and the Director of the Center for Civil Rights, University of North Carolina Law School. Moderator: 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. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.

Putting aside criminal cases, the stakes for all sides are perhaps never higher than in a class action case – mere certification of a class can increase the pressure to settle exponentially. But, of course, the class must be properly composed in order to be certified. In the recently-decided Wal-Mart v. Dukes case, the U.S. Supreme Court revisited some of the basic requirements for certification of a class of plaintiffs, including commonality. Other requirements of Rule 23 certification may surface in ongoing litigation stemming from the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, where defense attorneys are arguing, among other things, that the settlement agreement is being administered and interpreted overly broadly to include numerous class members who have not suffered any injury caused by BP. Our experts will discuss recent developments in class action litigation, including a pending petition for cert in the BP case. The Federalist Society presented this panel on September 4, 2014. -- Featuring: Prof. Neal K. Katyal, Partner, Hogan Lovells, and Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of National Security Law, Georgetown University Law Center and Hon. Theodore B. Olson, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP. Moderator: Mr. Stuart S. Taylor, Jr., Nonresident Senior Fellow in Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution.

From “Fast and Furious” to the unprecedented surveillance of journalists, Eric Holder’s Justice Department has become the dark side of the Obama Administration. The Attorney General is at the center of a growing list of scandals and congressional investigations. Obama’s Enforcer uncovers how the DOJ has become a hotbed of left-wing legal activism. It delves into the close personal association of Holder and Obama, describes the politicization of the Department of Justice, and provides in-depth portraits of the radical lawyers in Holder’s inner circle. The book has been endorsed by Sen. Ted Cruz and Radio Talk Show host Mark Levin. The Las Vegas Lawyers Chapter hosted this event on August 11, 2014. Featuring: John Fund, Columnist, National Review Online, and Senior Editor, The American Spectator and Hans A. von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation.

On July 18, 2014, Thomas Hungar of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Noel Francisco of Jones Day delivered the Annual Supreme Court Round Up at The Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. Mr. Douglas R. Cox of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP moderated.

The Administrative Conference, together with The Federalist Society, the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice and Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Sections, and the American Constitution Society, hosted a workshop entitled "Criminal Law and the Administrative State: Defining and Enforcing Regulatory Crimes". U.S. Sentencing Commissioner Rachel Barkow delivered some keynote remarks at the close of the workshop. Introduction: William N. Shepherd, Partner, Holland & Knight LLP.

The Administrative Conference, together with The Federalist Society, the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice and Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Sections, and the American Constitution Society, hosted a workshop entitled "Criminal Law and the Administrative State: Defining and Enforcing Regulatory Crimes". Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island delivered some keynote remarks at the close of the workshop. Introduction: Caroline Fredrickson, President, American Constitution Society.

The Administrative Conference, together with The Federalist Society, the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice and Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Sections, and the American Constitution Society, hosted a workshop entitled "Criminal Law and the Administrative State: Defining and Enforcing Regulatory Crimes". This panel on "Agency Enforcement and Prosecution of Regulatory Crimes" was recorded on May 13, 2014, at the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Featuring: Kate Andrias, Michigan Law; Matthew S. Axelrod, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC; James R. Copland, Manhattan Institute; and Rena Steinzor, University of Maryland Law. Moderator: Richard A. Bierschbach, Cardozo Law.

The Administrative Conference, together with The Federalist Society, the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice and Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Sections, and the American Constitution Society, hosted a workshop entitled "Criminal Law and the Administrative State: Defining and Enforcing Regulatory Crimes". Senator Mike Lee of Utah delivered some keynote remarks during the workshop. Introduction: William N. Shepherd, Partner, Holland & Knight LLP.

The Administrative Conference, together with The Federalist Society, the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice and Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Sections, and the American Constitution Society, hosted a workshop entitled "Criminal Law and the Administrative State: Defining and Enforcing Regulatory Crimes". This panel on "Defining Regulatory Crimes" was recorded on May 13, 2014, at the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. -- Introduction: Matthew Weiner, Executive Director, Administrative Conference of the United States -- Panel One: Defining Regulatory Crimes -- Featuring: Susan R. Klein, UT Austin School of Law; John Malcolm, Heritage Foundation; Daniel C. Richman, Columbia University; and George Terwilliger III, Morgan Lewis. Moderator: The Hon. Ronald Cass, Cass & Associates. Introduction: Hon. Lee Liberman Otis, Senior Vice President & Faculty Division Director, The Federalist Society.