Federalist Society Event Audio

Under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency is poised to propose new regulations for CO2 emission reductions from existing power plants. What is the appropriate federalism model for regulation of CO2 emissions under the Section 111(d)? -- Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt will discuss his recent paper, "The Oklahoma Attorney General's Plan: The Clean Air Act Section 111(d) Framework that Preserves States' Rights." The Attorney General's plan for state-level compliance construes federal and state authority under Section 111(d) as follows: EPA designs a procedure and emission guidelines, and States determine the legally enforceable emission standard that is as stringent as the applicable guideline – unless the State determines that circumstances justify imposition of a less stringent emission standard. The Oklahoma Attorney General’s Plan institutes a unit-by-unit, “inside the fence” approach to determining State emission standards, and accounts for the practical reality that air quality impacts differ from State to State, as do costs and opportunities for CO2 emission reductions. This approach preserves State primacy and does not turn over management of local generation fleets to EPA; the Oklahoma Attorney General’s plan keeps resource planning in the hands of state regulators with specialized expertise and a focus on ratepayer impacts and protection of the public interest. -- Attorney General Pruitt's presentation will be followed by a panel discussion of the plan's merits, its understanding of Section 111(d), and its wider implications for State Clean Air Act compliance. -- Featuring: Hon. Scott Pruitt, Attorney General, State of Oklahoma; Mr. F. William Brownell, Executive Committee Chariman and former head of Administrative Law and Environmental Practice Groups, Hunton & Williams LLP; Mr. Patrick McCormick III, Republican Special Counsel, U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Mr. David Doniger, Policy Director and Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council Climate and Clean Air Program. Moderator: Mr. Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Chairman, Federalist Society Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group Executive Committee, and Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

A key element of the Practice Groups' Executive Branch Review project is our annual conference. This year's Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 7th at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas delivered the Keynote Address at the Federalist Society's Second Annual Executive Branch Review Conference. Introduction by Mr. Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President of the Federalist Society.

What are the duties and responsibilities of the Legislative and Judicial Branch in policing Executive Branch activities? Has the administrative state grown to an extent that the very balance of power between the three branches has changed, and have the coordinate branches taken a step back? When it comes to the separation of powers, and ensuring one branch does not encroach on the proper authority of another, Federalist 51 advises that, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” Should Congress provide more robust oversight, or use its power of the purse more readily to rein in the Executive? Has the judiciary, through the non-delegation doctrine, Chevron deference, and its recent City of Arlington decision, struck the right balance? These and other questions will be addressed by our panelists. -- A key element of the Practice Groups' Executive Branch Review project is our annual conference. This year's Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 7th at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. -- Featuring: Mr. Charles J. Cooper, Partner, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC; Prof. William N. Eskridge, Jr., John A. Garver Professor of Jurisprudence, Yale Law School; and Prof. Neomi Rao, Associate Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law. Moderator: Hon. David M. McIntosh, Partner, Mayer Brown LLP and Vice-Chairman, Board of Directors, The Federalist Society.

Religion has long had a special place in our society and in the Constitution. Has that place been evolving? If so, how? What does the Constitution say about the role of the federal government, and the Executive Branch in particular, in the realm of religious liberties? This panel will take up such issues as the HHS contraceptive mandate, the U.S. Solicitor General’s positions in religious freedom cases, and other statutory and regulatory matters that have come to the forefront in recent years. -- A key element of the Practice Groups' Executive Branch Review project is our annual conference. This year's Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 7th at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. -- Featuring: Mr. S. Kyle Duncan, Duncan PLLC; Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, Chapman University School of Law; Prof. Martin S. Lederman, Georgetown University Law Center; and Ms. Elizabeth B. Wydra, Chief Counsel, Constitution Accountability Center. Moderator: Mr. Robert Barnes, Supreme Court Correspondent, The Washington Post.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is in the headlines almost daily. This panel will discuss the IRS’s proposed revision to 501(c)(4) rules, the targeting of certain organizations in IRS review and approval processes, as well as the IRS’s determination, currently the subject of litigation, that individuals who participate in federally-run as well as state-run health care exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act are entitled to subsidies. -- A key element of the Practice Groups' Executive Branch Review project is our annual conference. This year's Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 7th at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. -- Featuring: Mr. Michael A. Carvin,Partner, Jones Day; Dr. Craig Holman,Government Affairs Lobbyist, Public Citizen; Ms. Cleta Mitchell, Partner, Foley & Lardner LLP; and Mr. Robert N. Weiner, Partner, Arnold & Porter LLP. Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.

Under disparate impact analysis, certain practices might be considered discriminatory if they have a disproportionate adverse impact on a protected class of persons, even without discriminatory intent. A number of commentators have noted an expansion of the use of disparate impact analysis in the federal government to areas other than employment, now including education, housing, government contracting, and auto financing, to name a few. Our panel of experts will discuss whether or not there has been such an increase, and, if so, what the ramifications might be. -- A key element of the Practice Groups' Executive Branch Review project is our annual conference. This year's Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 7th at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. -- Featuring: Hon. Gail Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law and Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; 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, Professor of Professional Practice in Law, Columbia University School of Law. Moderator: Mr. Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Correspondent, The New York Times.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) defines the process by which federal regulatory agencies are to adopt and enforce federal regulations. Many commentators, however, argue that the federal government has for years engaged in the practice of implementing and enforcing policy while evading the notice and comment requirements of the APA. Critics site informal agency guidance, opinion letters, regional office actions, and other agency actions that purport to bind at least some stakeholders. What are the limits? How real are other commentators complaints about the “sue and settle” phenomenon, described as a less-than-adversarial suit brought against, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Such a suit, it is claimed, argues for an expansion or broader reading of the EPA’s regulatory authority which, after resolution of the suit via settlement, is agreed to by all parties. Finally, what are the limits of unilateral action by a President via executive order? -- A key element of the Practice Groups' Executive Branch Review project is our annual conference. This year's Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 7th at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. -- Featuring: Prof. Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law; Director, Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law; Mr. William L. Kovacs, Senior Vice President, Environment, Technology & Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and Prof. Stephen I. Vladeck, Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law. Moderator: Hon. Susan E. Dudley, Research Professor of Public Policy and Public Administration and Director, Regulatory Studies Center, The Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration, The George Washington University.

From enforcing and defending the Defense of Marriage Act, implementing the Affordable Care Act, enforcing federal marijuana laws, to making changes to sentencing guidelines, the Executive Branch has chosen less than vigorous action. What are the limits on the Executive’s authority to defer? When may, and may not, the Executive choose not to act, or to act less vigorously, and still meet the requirements of the Take Care Clause? -- A key element of the Practice Groups' Executive Branch Review project is our annual conference. This year's Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 7th at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. -- Featuring: Ms. Brianne Gorod, Appellate Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center; Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Georgetown University Law Center; and Prof. Jonathan Turley, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law; Director of the Environmental Law Advocacy Center; Executive Director, Project for Older Prisoners, The George Washington University Law School. Moderator: Mr. Stuart S. Taylor, Jr., Nonresident Senior Fellow in Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution.

Tom CottonA key element of the Practice Groups' Executive Branch Review project is our annual conference. This year's Executive Branch Review Conference took place on May 7th at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. The Honorable David M. McIntosh welcomed attendees and introduced United States Representative Tom Cotton of Arkansas who then delivered the Opening Address.

Former United States Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey delivered the Keynote Address at the Federalist Society's 2014 Annual Student Symposium at the University of Florida Levin College of Law on March 8, 2014. Introduction by Prof. Steven J. Willis, Professor of Law, University of Florida Levin College of Law.

The Paul M. Bator Award was established in 1989 in memory of Professor Paul M. Bator, a renowned scholar and teacher of federal courts and constitutional law. Professor Bator taught at Harvard Law School from 1959 to 1982 and from 1983 to 1985, and at the University of Chicago from 1985 until his untimely death in 1989. He also served as Principal Deputy Solicitor General in 1982 and 1983. The award is given annually to a young academic (under 40) who has demonstrated excellence in legal scholarship, a commitment to teaching, a concern for students, and who has made a significant public impact. This award is presented during the Federalist Society's Annual Student Symposium. Prof. Joshua D. Wright received this award during the Federalist Society's Annual Student Symposium on March 8, 2014 at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. The award was presented by Mr. Zach Mayo of the University of Chicago Student Chapter. Introducton by Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President of the Federalist Society.

A key element of America’s national security strategy has been the use of drones to carry out targeted killings against suspected terrorists. Targeted killings have become increasingly controversial, critics argue that the strikes violate the sovereignty of the nations where the attacks occur, and when those strikes occur outside circumstances of armed conflict amount to extrajudicial killings in violation of international human rights law. The U.S. contends that the strikes are part of America’s armed conflict with al Qaeda, and therefore are lawful strategies pursued pursuant to that armed conflict. Under what circumstances does the President have the authority to order the killing of suspected terrorists? Does he require statutory authorization, such as an Authorization for Use of Military Force, or can he rely on his own inherent power? Is the President bound to abide by treaties and customary international law prohibitions on the use of force? What due process rights are U.S. citizens entitled to when the President chooses to use military force against them? May the President use force against suspected terrorists inside the U.S.? -- The University of Florida Student Chapter hosted this panel discussion during the 2014 Annual Student Symposium on Saturday, March 8, 2014. -- Featuring: Prof. Rosa Brooks, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Prof. Martin Flaherty, Leitner Family Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law; Mr. Gregory Katsas, Partner, Jones Day; and Prof. Michael Stokes Paulsen, Distinguished University Chair and Professor, University of St. Thomas School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Partner, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.

This panel will address the ongoing debate regarding trying, convicting and punishing suspected terrorists. Should military tribunals be abandoned in favor of trying individuals in Article III courts? A mere seven individuals held in Guantanamo Bay have been tried and convicted by military commissions, while DOJ reports that more than 500 individuals have been convicted of terrorism related offenses. What has prevented the trial of suspected terrorists held in Guantanamo Bay? Should military commissions for suspected terrorists and other enemies be abandoned or do they serve a valuable function? -- The University of Florida Student Chapter hosted this panel discussion during the 2014 Annual Student Symposium on Saturday, March 8, 2014. -- Featuring: Prof. Laura Donohue, Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center; Prof. Christopher Jenks, Director of the Criminal Justice Clinic and Assistant Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law; Prof. Peter S. Margulies, Professor of Law, Roger Williams University School of Law; and Prof. Deborah Pearlstein, Assistant Professor of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. Moderator: Hon. A. Raymond Randolph, U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit.

The proceedings before the FISA Court are ex parte, and secret, prompting critics to argue that the court has become a rubber stamp, authorizing governmental activity without democratic accountability. Are activities conducted pursuant to FISA too secret? Does FISA require more oversight or accountability? Are there any feasible reforms that can effectively balance the need for foreign intelligence gathering against the rights of individuals who are surveilled? This debate will address these important questions. -- The University of Florida Student Chapter hosted this debate during the 2014 Annual Student Symposium on Saturday, March 8, 2014. -- Featuring: Mr. Alex Abdo, Staff Attorney, ACLU National Security Project and Prof. Gregory McNeal, Associate Professor of Law, Pepperdine University School of Law. Moderator: Justice Charles T. Canady, Florida Supreme Court.

The NSA acts pursuant to broad statutory authorities, and has interpreted those statutes to enable vast data collection programs. Two programs in particular, programmatic surveillance of the content of communications and bulk collection of metadata have become the subject of heated public and scholarly debate. Are these programs consistent with the NSA’s mission to gather foreign intelligence and to defend U.S. government information systems? Have the leaks about these programs jeopardized national security, or have they enhanced public accountability? Is there a better way to strike a balance between privacy and security? -- The University of Florida Student Chapter hosted this panel discussion during the 2014 Annual Student Symposium on Saturday, March 8, 2014. -- Featuring: Mr. Stewart Baker, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP; Prof. Randy Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law Center; and Prof. Jeremy Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law. Moderator: Chief Justice Ricky Polston, Florida Supreme Court.