Federalist Society Event Audio

This panel will address the role of Executive branch officials in making high-level policy decisions, and their relationship to Congress. This is particularly relevant in the context of two recent debates: can the President ignore congressional attempts to strip funding from high-level officials who are not confirmed by the Senate? Is the Obama administration’s use of "czars" constitutional? Moreover, what is the power of the Executive branch to start a war without any authorization from Congress? The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2012 Annual Student Symposium on March 3, 2012. Featuring Prof. Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar of Stanford Law School; Prof. John Harrison of the University of Virginia Law School; Prof. Sandy Levinson of the University of Texas Law School; Prof. John Yoo of Berkeley Law School; and Judge Thomas Griffith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit as the moderator. Introduction by Mr. Ilan Wurman, Co-Chair of the 2012 Annual Student Symposium.

The administrative state is often defended as a necessary response to modern conditions that make governance through ordinary legislation virtually impossible. Is the administrative process in fact more efficient than legislation (and what is meant in this context by "efficient")? Do any benefits from the administrative process come at the expense of other values? If the legislative process is subject to gridlock, is gridlock all bad? If capture or influence by interest groups is a problem, is it likely to be a worse problem in agency or legislative settings? -- Does congressional abdication contribute to bureaucratic sclerosis, which makes it difficult to start and maintain businesses? Finally, what role do the Court's doctrines play at the intersection of these questions? Is Chevron deference to agencies good? Does the president's control make the administrative state better or worse? Do the Court's doctrines in Bowsher and Chadha give agencies too much power? -- The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2012 Annual Student Symposium on March 3, 2012. Featuring Prof. David Engstrom of Stanford Law School; The Honorable C. Boyden Gray, former White House Counsel; Prof. Lisa Heinzerling of Georgetown University School of Law; Prof. Michael W. McConnell of Stanford Law School; and Judge Lois Haight of the Superior Court of California as the moderator. Introduction by Mr. Michael Reynolds, Co-Chair of the 2012 Annual Student Symposium.

On March 3, 2012, Prof. Eugene Volokh of UCLA School of Law delivered a lecture on "Writing Law Review Articles" at the 2012 Annual Student Symposium at Stanford Law School.

The Supreme Court has endorsed an exponential growth in federal government power, often at the expense of individual liberty. Essentially, the Court has rewritten the Constitution without input from or accountability to the people. Bob Levywill examine several of the most pernicious Supreme Court decisions of the modern era. In the process, he will untangle complex Court opinions and assess their implications for today's public policy debates. Bob will also contrast and compare liberal, conservative, and libertarian views of the Constitution. This event was hosted by the Las Vegas Lawyers Chapter on April 3, 2012. Featuring Mr. Robert A. Levy of the Cato Institute with an introduction by Mr. Matthew D. Saltzman of Kolesar & Leatham and President of the Las Vegas Lawyers Chapter.

Cybersecurity must address complicated and interconnected threats of cyberattacks on critical infrastructure sectors, cybertheft of personal data, cyberespionage, cyberwarfare and cyberterrorism. It raises challenging practical, legal and policy issues, including what proposals would be effective, the scope of regulatory authority, the nature of information sharing and liability protections, and the preservation of internet freedom and privacy. This panel was held during the 2012 National Security Symposium. Featuring: Matthew J. Eggers of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Sharon Bradford Franklin of The Constitution Project; Jamil N. Jaffer of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Michael Vatis of Steptoe & Johnson LLP and formerly of the FBI National Infrastructure Protection Center; and Vincent J. Vitkowsky of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism as the moderator.

Former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff delivered an address on "National Security After U.S. v. Jones" at the 2012 National Security Symposium on April 5, 2012. He was introduced by Vincent J. Vitkowsky of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism.

The legal ambiguities associated with the classification, interrogation and adjudication of al Qaeda members alleged to have committed war crimes continue to hamper the Obama administration’s national security policy. This confusion and the inconsistent application of laws to govern the conflict have exacerbated criticism of the U.S. approach to the war on al Qaeda. This panel, featured during the 2012 National Security Symposium, will analyze, from myriad perspectives, U.S. policy and practice on these issues as we enter the second decade of the armed conflict. Featuring Prof. Nathan A. Sales of George Mason University School of Law; Charles D. "Cully" Stimson of The Heritage Foundation; Prof. Stephen I. Vladeck of the American University Washington College of Law; Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institution; and Prof. Glenn M. Sulmasy of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy as the moderator. Introduction by Vincent J. Vitkowsky of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism.

Arizona v. United States raises several cutting edge questions about federal preemption of state laws. These questions derive from Arizona’s "mirror image theory" of the case. That is, Arizona argues that its statutes are a mirror image of federal statutes, and therefore that no preemption problem exists. In arguing against that theory, the federal government has voiced what has been unflatteringly called "preemption by executive whim." That is, that preemption can be created by federal executive branch enforcement (or, non-enforcement) priorities that essentially ignore enforcement of the statutes being mirrored. What do those competing claims mean in preemption analysis where, traditionally, courts have looked to the law as written or established, rather than as enforced? -- Another big question here is whether a state may have specific policies where either (1) the federal government does not, or (2) the federal government is perceived to have failed in its policies. Arizona has expressly adopted a policy of "attrition through enforcement" in regard to illegal aliens. The federal government, on the other hand, has not ever adopted such a policy. As Ilya Shapiro put it, the national immigration system "is a remnant of various half-baked ‘reforms’ going back decades, it’s a schizophrenic set of laws that don’t advance any particular goal or mission." Does a "policyless" federal system conflict with a state system that has a policy? Does it matter if that policy is "attrition through enforcement" or "sanctuary cities"? Moreover, does the federal government’s "failure" to have a workable or actual policy free a state to derive its own policy, at least where that vacuum of federal power is seen as having specific negative effects on the state? This panel was featured at the Sixth Annual Western Conference on January 28, 2012. Featuring Prof. Gabriel "Jack" Chin of UC Davis School of Law; Prof. John Eastman of Chapman University School of Law; Mr. Joe Sciarrotta, General Counsel to Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona; Prof. Margaret Stock of Lane owell LLC; and The Honorable Edwin Meese of The Heritage Foundation as the moderator. Introduction by Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President of The Federalist Society.

In recent years, states across the country have considered or implemented stricter voter identification requirements, including photo identification requirements. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Indiana's photo identification law from constitutional challenge in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. In December 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice blocked South Carolina's photo identificationrequirement after concluding the law would significantly burden non-white voters. These debates are taking place in Iowa as well, with multiple voter identification proposals advancing in the legislature in recent years, most recently with legislation enacting a photo identification requirement being proposed by Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz. Come hear from two diverse perspectives on the legal and policy implications of voter identification requirements in Iowa and around the nation. Featuring: Mr. Hans von Spakovsky of The Heritage Foundation and formerly of the Federal Election Commission; Mr. Ben Stone of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa; and Justice Edward Mansfield of the Iowa Supreme Court as the moderator. Introduction by Mr. Samual P. Langholz, State Public Defender of Iowa and President of the Iowa Lawyers Chapter.

The U.S. Supreme Court is now ready to hear oral argument in one of the most highly anticipated cases in the modern era, Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, a consolidated series of challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Our panel of experts analyzed the case and all issues before the Court, including discussion of the constitutionality of the individual mandate provision, severability, coercion and the Medicaid provision, and the implications of the Anti-Injunction Act. Featuring Prof. Randy E. Barnett of Georgetown University Law Center; The Honorable Walter Dellinger of O'Melveny & Myers; Prof. Neal K. Katyal of Georgetown University Law Center; Mr. C. Kevin Marshall of Jones Day; and Mr. Stuart Taylor, Jr., of the National Journal and the Brookings Institution, as the moderator.

On March 2, 2012, the Indianapolis Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society hosted an event featuring Mr. Stanley Greer of the National Right to Work Committee. The topic of the address was "The Case for Right to Work Laws". Introduction by Mr. Brian J. Paul of Ice Miller LLP and President of the Indianapolis Lawyers Chapter.

The popular press is full of reports of a renewed vigor in parts of our antitrust enforcement regime that address the conduct of leading firms. Investigations have been started or rumored against any number of firms near or at the top of various parts of the technology sector, including Intel, Yahoo, Google, Apple, AT&T, IBM, Facebook, and others. Forbes reported that the number of antitrust cases filed by the Department of Justice rose by 50 percent in 2011. These suits can be costly to defend, and carry large potential fines. Consent decrees negotiated to end such litigation often provide detailed terms and conditions governing the manner in which industry players may and may not conduct business going forward. In this environment, has antitrust enforcement itself become a regulatory mechanism? If so, does it represent the best way to regulate dynamic industries? These and other questions will be addressed by our panel of experts. Featuring The Honorable Ronald A. Cass of Cass & Associates, PC; The Honorable James Miller III of Husch Blackwell LLP; The Honorable Charles "Rick" Rule of Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP; Mr. Robert A. Skitol of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP; and Prof. F. Scott Kieff of George Washington University Law School as the moderator.

On February 22, 2012, the University of Pennsylvania Student Chapter of the Federalist Society hosted this debate featuring Prof. Richard Epstein of New York University School of Law and Prof. Theodore Ruger of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. The debate was moderated by The Honorable Anthony J. Scirica of the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the Third Circuit. Introduction by Mr. Daniel Pollack, President of the Penn Law Student Chapter.

When President Obama, with former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker at his side, announced his intention to seek legislation implementing the "Volcker Rule" he described it as necessary to reduce excessive risk taking by banks. Easier to describe than implement, the Volcker Rule, as incorporated in the Dodd-Frank Act, was envisioned to prohibit the use of insured deposits by commercial banks in their own trading in the markets (so-called "proprietary trading") or to support various types of investment funds. In practice, the proposed regulation is an incomplete first attempt to give life to the new rule, seeking public input on some 1,400 questions from the public in addition to input on the details of the proposed regulation. Advocates and critics of the rule will discuss the value of the rule itself as well as regulatory efforts to address the details of implementation. Proponents claim that it is necessary for future stability of the banking industry, while critics assert that it will not only harm the industry but industry customers as well. Featuring Mr. Randall D. Guynn of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP; Ms. Sarah "Sally" Miller of the Institute of International Bankers; Ms. Coryann Stefansson of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP; Mr. Mark E. Van Der Weide of the Division of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; and Ms. Hester Pierce of the Mercatus Center as the moderator.

This discussion between Judge Alex Kozinski and Judge Stephen Reinhardt was featured at the Sixth Annual Western Conference at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library on January 28, 2012. Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President of The Federalist Society, moderated.