Federalist Society Event Audio
Summary: 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 www.federalistsociety.org/multimedia.
Overlapping jurisdiction of federal regulatory agencies can lead to confusion and sometimes even contradictory requirements for private actors, and turf battles among agencies. Further, questions arise about the legitimacy of regulations promulgated by an agency that does not appear to have primary responsibility for an area, when the agency that has that primary responsibility has failed or declined to act. Among the myriad items in the 2016 omnibus appropriations bill were two curious provisions: a prohibition on the Internal Revenue Service from spending funds to write new regulations governing 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations, and a prohibition on the Securities and Exchange Commission from spending funds to write regulations that would require companies to report political contributions and donations to tax exempt organizations. Both edicts are responses to intense advocacy for these agencies to undertake the respective rulemakings, following refusal by the Federal Election Commission to expand disclosure. Moreover, advocates of campaign finance regulation continue to seek new political regulations at the Federal Communications Commission and for the Department of Justice to undertake broader inquiries. As a whole, one might call these efforts “administrative hopscotch”—seeking regulation or enforcement from an agency when another with unequivocal jurisdiction refuses to act. Is expanding the jurisdictions of federal agencies to such extent that they may regulate the same activity a constitutional problem? Practically speaking, what does this mean for innovators when they must comply with repetitive or diverse red tape? Furthermore, what happens when the regulations conflict, as already seen between certain IRS and FEC provisions? -- Ideally, this panel would feature former commissioners from executive agencies who have faced these efforts. They could briefly discuss what they considered the appropriate regulatory purview of their agency, their thoughts on administrative overlap, and whether or not administrative hopscotch is a real problem. The FEC circumvention is ongoing and intense, with media scrutiny and support of hopscotch by its more active commissioners. However, it is likely there are many examples that would make for good discussion and an important panel. -- This panel was presented during the Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on May 17, 2016, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. Paul S. Atkins, Patomak Global Partners and former Commissioner, Securities and Exchange Commission; Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Cass & Associates and former Commissioner and Vice-Chairman, US International Trade Commission; and Hon. Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law, Capital University Law School and former Commissioner, Federal Election Commission. Moderator: Hon. Laurence H. Silberman, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit.
Modern statutes and executive orders are intended to ensure that new regulations do more good than harm—that is, to produce more benefits than costs. Despite these nominal protections, some say the accumulation of regulations threaten the nation’s economic growth and well-being. As a result, the 114th Congress is considering various regulatory reform proposals designed to help ensure that new regulations make Americans better off and that existing regulations are evaluated and modified as necessary. Some of the proposals would enhance economic analysis of regulations, while others seek structural reform including stronger legislative control and judicial review of the administrative rulemaking. While none of these bills has been enacted, several of them have bipartisan support and some have passed one house. Which proposals are best, and why? Are there proposals yet to be made that would be better yet? -- This panel was presented during the Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on May 17, 2016, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Welcome & Address: Hon. Heidi Heitkamp, United States Senate, North Dakota. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society. -- Panel Featuring: Hon. Susan E. Dudley, Director of the Regulatory Studies Center, The George Washington University; Mr. Michael Fitzpatrick, Senior Counsel and Head of Regulatory Advocacy, General Electric Company; and Hon. Jeffrey A. Rosen, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Moderator: Mr. Adam White, Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution.
Political correctness in the classroom can be seen as a consequence of a lack of political diversity in the university. How does political correctness affect research, and teaching? Is political correctness all that bad, or does it have a proper place in academia? Professors Pam Karlan, Richard Sander, and Nicholas Rosenkranz discuss. -- This panel was presented at the Stanford Intellectual Diversity Conference on Friday, April 8, 2016, at Stanford Law School. -- Featuring: Prof. Pamela S. Karlan, Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, Stanford Law School; Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; and Prof. Richard H. Sander, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law. Moderator: Prof. Zachary Price, Associate Professor of Law, UC Hastings College of the Law.
Why make a big deal out of intellectual diversity in academia, anyway? What are its advantages? What are its disadvantages? Is it a goal worth pursuing at the expense of others? Dean Larry Kramer and Professor Michael McConnell debate these points and others. -- This panel was presented at the Stanford Intellectual Diversity Conference on Friday, April 8, 2016, at Stanford Law School. -- Featuring: Dean Larry Kramer, President, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; Lecturer in Law and Former Dean, Stanford Law School and Prof. Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School. Moderator: Prof. Bernadette Meyler, Carl and Shelia Spaeth Professor of Law, Stanford Law School. Introduction: Mr. Michael Rubin, Co-President, Stanford Student Chapter.
The proper education of America’s youth is arguably the most important social responsibility the university has. But does a lack of intellectual diversity in school create pedagogical issues? Our panel of current and former law students weighs in. -- This panel was presented at the Stanford Intellectual Diversity Conference on Friday, April 8, 2016, at Stanford Law School. -- Featuring: Dr. R. Sohan Dasgupta, University of California, Berkeley; Mr. Roland Nadler, Fellow, Center for Law and Biosciences, Stanford Law School; and Mr. Ilan Wurman, Associate, Winston & Strawn LLP. Moderator: Mr. Jud Campbell, Executive Director and Research Fellow, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School. Introduction: Mr. Jonathan Mondel, Co-President, Stanford Student Chapter.
To foster meaningful discourse on intellectual diversity in academia, it is important to begin with the facts. Is there a lack of intellectual diversity in academia? How big is the problem? Professors Jim Lindgren, James Phillips, and Jon Shields review some of the latest research on the subject. -- This panel was presented at the Stanford Intellectual Diversity Conference on Friday, April 8, 2016, at Stanford Law School. -- Opening Remarks -- Dean M. Elizabeth Magill, Richard E. Lang Professor of Law and Dean, Stanford Law School and Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society. Introduction: Mr. Jonathan Mondel, Co-President, Stanford Student Chapter and Mr. Michael Rubin, Co-President, Stanford Student Chapter -- Recent Research in Intellectual Diversity -- Prof. James T. Lindgren, Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law; Prof. James C. Phillips, Former Visiting Professor, BYU Law School; and Dr. Jon A. Shields, Associate Professor, Claremont McKenna College. Moderator: Prof. G. Marcus Cole, William F. Baxter-Visa International Professor of Law, Stanford Law School.
After nearly 30 years of serving as an intellectual titan and conservative champion on the nation's highest court, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away on February 13, 2016. This banquet was held in honor of his tremendous legacy as one of the greatest and most influential justices. -- The Honorable Paul Clement delivered the keynote address at the 2016 National Student Symposium Banquet on February 27, 2016. Mr. Clement clerked for Justice Scalia and is currently a partner at Bancroft PLLC. Mr. Clement also served as the 43rd Solicitor General of the United States from June 2005 until June 2008, and has argued more Supreme Court cases since 2000 than any lawyer in or out of government. Mr. Clement was introduced by Mr. Jack Lund, Symposium Chair, University of Virginia School of Law Student Chapter.
Equality of opportunity is supposed to be a fundamental American principle. But it is not being realized today – in large part due to our failing education system. Despite being better funded, American public schools consistently lag those of comparable countries. The disparity is especially stark in inner-city and minority school districts, where poor children are most in need of quality education. Is school choice the solution? What role should the federal government play in education? And what legal issues are implicated by reform efforts? -- This panel was presented at the 2016 National Student Symposium on Saturday, February 27, 2016, at the University of Virginia School of Law. -- Featuring: Hon. Clint Bolick, Arizona Supreme Court; Mrs. Cynthia Brown, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress; Dr. William Galston, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution; and Prof. Amy Wax, Robert Mundheim Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School. Moderator: Hon. Jennifer W. Elrod, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Introduction: Ms. Abby Hollenstein, 1L Committee Co-Chair, University of Virginia School of Law Student Chapter.
Most agree that society should take care of its neediest members. The question is how this should be accomplished. Our current federal safety net was designed for a different era and is becoming increasingly outdated, ineffective, and expensive. How can we reform it to be both successful and fiscally sustainable? To what degree does our current entitlement system stretch well beyond the actual needs of those in poverty? And to what extent should we rely on state governments and civil society instead of a one-size-fits-all national approach? -- This panel was presented at the 2016 National Student Symposium on Saturday, February 27, 2016, at the University of Virginia School of Law. -- Featuring: Mr. Christopher DeMuth, Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute; Dr. William Galston, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution; Prof. Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law; and Prof. David Super, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Moderator: Prof. John Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law. Introduction: Mr. Thomas Sanford, Vice President for Special Events, University of Virginia School of Law Student Chapter.
Immigration restrictions keep millions of people stuck in impoverished countries – preventing them from improving their lives by moving somewhere else. However, some restrictions are clearly necessary to protect national security. And many say that our current laws do not go anywhere near far enough, arguing that additional restrictions are needed to prevent wage depression and the overburdening of our already-strained safety net. One way or another, immigration restrictions have an enormous impact on poverty, both domestically and abroad. But are such restrictions constitutional? This debate will address that question, along with the complex policy issues involved with the topic. -- This panel was presented at the 2016 National Student Symposium on Saturday, February 27, 2016, at the University of Virginia School of Law. -- Featuring: Prof. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, Chapman University School of Law and Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Amul R. Thapar, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Introduction: Mr. Nicholas Rotz, University of Virginia School of Law Student Chapter.
It is oddly controversial to identify the breakdown of the family unit as a central cause of poverty. The empirical evidence confirming a strong correlation is overwhelming: higher divorce rates, increasing out-of-wedlock births, lower percentages of married couples, and higher rates of abortion are all associated with poverty. How has the law impacted these trends, and what can be done to reverse them? -- This panel was presented at the 2016 National Student Symposium on Saturday, February 27, 2016, at the University of Virginia School of Law. -- Featuring: Prof. Mary Anne Case, Arnold I. Shure Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School; Ms. Kay Hymowitz, Senior Fellow, The Manhattan Institute; Prof. W. Bradford Wilcox, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Virginia; and Mr. Robert Woodson, Founder and President, Center for Neighborhood Enterprise. Moderator: Hon. A. Raymond Randolph, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Robert Smith, 1L Committee Co-Chair, University of Virginia School of Law Student Chapter. Welcome: Mr. Dan McBride, President, University of Virginia School of Law Student Chapter.
Free markets have exponentially improved the well-being of humanity and lifted more people out of poverty than any government program. But severe inequalities persist, and gaps have widened in the past thirty years. Is this a problem in and of itself? Or only to the extent it is caused by unfairly distorting the market with the help of government – so-called “crony capitalism" – as opposed to the inherently unique capabilities of each individual? How should the law be structured to ensure a level playing field? -- This panel was presented at the 2016 National Student Symposium on Friday, February 26, 2016, at the University of Virginia School of Law. -- Welcome and Opening Remarks: Dean Paul Mahoney, Dean, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law, and Arnold H. Leon Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law. Introduction: Mr. Dan McBride, President, University of Virginia School of Law Student Chapter. -- Panel I: Capitalism and Inequality -- Featuring: Dr. Yaron Brook, Executive Director, The Ayn Rand Institute; Prof. Thomas Edsall, Adjunct Professor of Journalism, Columbia Graduate School of Journalism; Prof. Jason Johnston, Henry L. and Grace Doherty Charitable Foundation Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law; and Prof. Steven Teles, Associate Professor of Political Science, Johns Hopkins University. Moderator: Hon. Jerry E. Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
How should federalism affect “moral” issues like abortion, traditional marriage, and state RFRA laws? What about the intersection of equal protection and religious liberties? Should pro-life state attorneys general, for example, file lawsuits against abortion providers like Planned Parenthood? Is religious faith and morality inherently in tension with fidelity to the rule law? -- This debate was part of the 2016 Annual Western Chapters Conference at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA on January 30, 2016. -- Featuring: Prof. John Eastman, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman University and Prof. Marci Hamilton, Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University. Moderator: Hon. Carlos Bea, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Joel Ard, Member, Foster Pepper PLLC.
Some states have criticized Washington overreach on a number of energy and environmental issues, from fracking, the sale of public lands, utility regulation, and clean air and water regulation. Many state attorneys general have banded together to challenge alleged overreach in the environmental arena, including litigation against the EPA’s coal-fired power plant regulation plans. What are the proper federalism models for environmental regulation? What role should the courts and state attorneys general play? A panel of experts will discuss. -- This panel was part of the 2016 Annual Western Chapters Conference at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA on January 30, 2016. -- Featuring: Mr. Anthony L. (Tony) François, Senior Staff Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation; Prof. Richard Frank, Director, California Environmental Law and Policy Center, UC Davis School of Law; Prof. Donald J. Kochan, Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development; Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman University; and Prof. Justin Pidot, Sturm College of Law, University of Denver. Moderator: Hon. Milan D. Smith, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. Introduction: Ms. Jennifer Perkins, Assistant Solicitor General, AG Opinions and Ethics at Arizona Attorney General's Office.
Former California Governor Pete Wilson delivered the Keynote Address at the 2016 Annual Western Chapters Conference on January 30, 2016, at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA. Thomas F. Gede of Morgan Lewis introduced the Governor.