Federalist Society Event Audio

As ISIS, al Qaeda and its offshoots, and other groups spread terror across the globe, it is vital to establish a strong framework for the international law and policy of counterterrorism. This includes understandings and cooperation on surveillance, detention, counterterrorism finance, and the law of espionage. These subjects will be addressed by panelists with both real world and academic experience. -- This panel was presented by the American Branch of International Law Association, the International Law Students Association, and the Federalist Society's International & National Security Law Practice Group at the 2015 International Law Weekend at Fordham University School of Law on November 6, 2015. -- Featuring: Prof. Jamil N. Jaffer, Adjunct Professor of Law and Director, Homeland & National Security Law Program at George Mason University School of Law, former Chief Counsel & Senior Advisor at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and former Associate Counsel to President George W. Bush; Mr. Matthew Heiman, Vice President, Chief Compliance and Audit Officer, Tyco International; former Attorney Advisor, U.S. Department of Justice National Security Division; former Legal Advisor, Coalition Provisional Authority, Ministry of Justice, Iraq; Mr. Adam R. Pearlman, Associate Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Department of Defense (appearing in his personal capacity and not as a representative of the Department of Defense); Co-Editor of The American Bar Association's publication The U.S. Intelligence Community Law Sourcebook; and Prof. Peter Margulies, Professor of Law, Roger Williams Law School. Moderator: Mr. Vincent Vitkowsky, Partner, Seiger Gfeller & Laurie LLP, member of the Executive Committee of ABILA, and Chairman of the Federalist Society's International & National Security Law Practice Group.

On November 14, 2015, during the Federalist Society's 2015 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC, Professor Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz of the Georgetown University Law Center interviewed USA Today Columnist, Daily Beast Columnist, and FOX News Contributor Ms. Kirsten Powers. -- Note: There were technical issues with Prof. Rosenkranz's microphone at the beginning of the video during his introduction, but the issues were resolved by the time the interview begins.

The Eighth Annual Rosenkranz Debate was held on November 14, 2015, during The Federalist Society's 2015 National Lawyers Convention. RESOLVED: The Constitution is designed for a moral and religious people and it's wholly unsuited for the government of any other. -- Featuring: Prof. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University and Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University School of Law. Moderator: Hon. William H. Pryor Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalsit Society.

Many attorneys see a judgeship as the pinnacle of professional achievement in the legal world. It could be the visibility of judges, their unquestioned decision-making authority, the absence of clients, life tenure, or some other aspect of being a judge. Our panel of judges will discuss the realities of a career on the bench. The panelists will share their thoughts on topics as diverse as the role of the judiciary, judicial philosophy, stare decisis and precedent, opinions and dissents, the judicial appointment process, the state of the legal profession, and much more. -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Saturday, November 14, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit; Hon. Alex Kozinski, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit; Hon. Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit; Hon. Jerry Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit; and Hon. David Stras, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of Minnesota. Moderator: Hon. David B. Sentelle, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.

The Supreme Court has instructed in clear terms that the duty of the Federal prosecutor in a criminal prosecution "is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done." Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). Yet the news pages are filled with examples of Federal prosecutorial overreach. In its term just ended, the Supreme Court reversed six of seven criminal convictions that reached it, several all involving some form of over criminalization that can lead to prosecutorial overreach. And large categories of prosecutorial overreach never reach the Supreme Court, from dozens of convictions of "insider trading" by non-insiders (now found not to be a crime by the Second Circuit); to civil forfeitures of property of legitimate small businesses never charged with a crime; to multi-billion dollar settlements of the thinnest of charges with large banks, pharmaceutical companies, and individuals that cannot take any risk of a criminal conviction; to what one jurist has described as an “epidemic of Brady violations abroad in the land." -- The panel will explore whether prosecutorial overreach has become epidemic. It will also explore potential remedies ranging from reducing the number of crimes, to sentencing reform, plea bargain reform, civil forfeiture reform, and more. Finally, it will ask who should take action to control prosecutorial overreach? Should it be the state bars? Should the courts be more aggressive? Or, is the task primarily one for Congress? If so, what are the most promising avenues of reform? -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Saturday, November 14, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. Alex Kozinski, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit; Mr. John G. Malcolm, Director, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation; Hon. George J. Terwilliger III, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP; and Ms. Darpana M. Sheth, Constitutional Litigator, Institute for Justice. Moderator: Hon. Keith R. Blackwell, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of Georgia. Introduction: Mr. John J. Park, Jr., Of Counsel, Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP.

The Constitution specifically vests power in Congress to grant authors and inventors exclusive rights in their writings and inventions. The first Congress passed laws setting forth the requirements and procedures for granting patents and copyrights. In these early days, copyrights were granted for registered works, and Thomas Jefferson himself examined patents as a member of President George Washington's cabinet. As IP laws developed, however, they gave substantial deference to both the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), and the Copyright Office, on matters of reviewing, granting, limiting, and defining IP rights. These agencies have come to wield significant influence over the U.S. IP regime. Recently, and notwithstanding its delegations of power, Congress has been particularly active in passing new patent and copyright legislation. Sometimes Congress specifies how the law shall be interpreted and administered, and other times it delegates this to the relevant agencies, or to the courts. By considering specific examples, this panel will examine the role of Congress, Congressional delegation, and executive agencies in crafting and administering our modern intellectual property systems. -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Saturday, November 14, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Sandra Aistars, Clinical Professor, George Mason School of Law and Sr. Scholar and Director, Copyright Policy & Research, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property; Prof. John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law; Prof. David S. Olson, Associate Professor, Boston College Law School; and Prof. Arti K. Rai, Elvin R. Latty Professor of Law and co-Director, Duke Law Center for Innovation Policy. Moderator: Hon. Thomas B. Griffith, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit.

Environmental law and policy raise profound questions about Congress's role and responsibilities. Many environmental regulatory statutes leave the Environmental Protection Agency with broad discretion. Although these grants of discretion create flexibility and take advantage of EPA expertise, they also invite congressional passivity, create administrative problems, and increase special-interest pressures on the EPA and Congress alike. Congressional-EPA relations matter now more than ever because many major federal environmental laws are now more than 40 years old. The EPA is using currently enabling language from old environmental organic acts to regulate global climate change and other cutting-edge problems. What are the proper relations between Congress and the EPA? If these relations are out of alignment, can Congress realign them and how? Panelists will explore these questions with examples ranging from hydrofracturing through clean water and clean air regulation. -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Saturday, November 14, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Eric R. Claeys, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law; Mr. Matt Leggett, Policy Counsel on Energy, Environment, and Agriculture, U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee; Prof. Nicholas A. Robinson, University Professor on the Environment, and Kerlin Professor Emeritus, Pace University School of Law; and Prof. David Schoenbrod, Trustee Professor of Law, New York Law School. Moderator: Hon. Steven M. Colloton, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Over the years, and especially recently, it appears as though members of Congress primarily need to avoid offending constituents if they wish to stay in office. There are few rewards for genuine political leadership or the hard-nosed political deals that are oftentimes crucial to good governance. “Passing the buck" to the Executive branch, usually in the form of the Administrative State or even to the Judiciary seems less effective but more prudent. Are the incentives for members of Congress deleterious to its overall function? Is it possible to effectively change them? -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Saturday, November 14, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. Howard L. Berman, Former U.S. Representative, California’s 28th Congressional District, Senior Advisor, Covington & Burling LLP; Prof. James W. Ceaser, Professor of Politics, University of Virginia; Prof. Michael S. Greve, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law; Prof. Frances E. Lee, Professor, University of Maryland; Prof. Richard H. Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law; and Mr. Matthew L. Wiener, Executive Director, Administrative Conference of the United States. Moderator: Hon. Frank H. Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.

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 established this annual lecture in Barbara's memory because of her enormous contributions as an active member, supporter, and volunteer leader. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals. In 2015, Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas delivered the lecture. He was introduced by Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President of the Federalist Society.

Most would agree that the world is unsettled, with hotspots in the Middle East, North Korea, the South China Sea, and the Ukraine, to name but a few. Terrorism has complicated international relations. But exactly when, and how, should America act to maintain order? Is a muscular and expeditionary style of engagement to be favored over quiet diplomacy? Is more and faster better than less and slower? How contextual should the answers to these questions be? -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 13, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Colin Dueck, Associate Professor, George Mason University School of Policy, Government, and International Affairs; Mr. Benjamin H. Friedman, Research Fellow in Defense and Homeland Security Studies, Cato Institute; Mr. François-Henri Briard, Supreme Court Attorney (France), Delaporte, Briard & Trichet; and Hon. Mike J. Rogers, Former U.S. House of Representatives, Michigan. Moderator: Mr. Brian H. Hook, former Assistant Secretary of State.

Supporters of mandated disclosure of the source of speech (or of money used to pay for speech) claim it can provide important information to the public and the legal system. But opponents say it violates privacy rights and can also deter the sources from speaking or contributing. -- This debate also applies to reporters' confidential sources. In both situations, disclosure (of who contributed or spent, or who a confidential source was) may provide useful information to voters, prosecutors, civil litigants, judges, or jurors. In both situations, requiring disclosure of the source may deter people from contributing to controversial campaigns or organizations, or from talking to journalists. Politically, people tend to react differently to these reactions – confidentiality of contributors tends to be more supported by conservatives, while confidentiality of journalists' sources tends to be more supported by liberals. But structurally, are these issues similar? This panel will consider both these questions together. -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 13, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. Andrew M. Grossman, Associate, BakerHostetler; Mr. Stephen Klein, Pillar of Law Institute; Mr. Paul S. Ryan, Senior Counsel, Campaign Legal Center; and Hon. Hans von Spakovsky, Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation. Moderator: Hon. Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Michigan. Introduction: Mr. Manuel Klausner, Co-Founder, Trustee, and Legal Advisor, Reason Foundation and General Counsel, Individual Rights Foundation.

Senator Orrin Hatch delivered this address at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 13, 2015. He was introduced by Mr. Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President of The Federalist Society.

Many observers of the U.S. financial system increasingly believe that the United States will soon experience another financial crisis – the only questions are when and how bad will it be? With that expectation in mind, the panel could address the following issues: What are the likely early indicators that another crisis is in the offing? What economic conditions are the likely causes of that crisis (rising housing prices, the reemgence of shadow banking, other consequences of Dodd-Frank, crises emanating from other countries, etc.)? What might ignite that crisis? Who will likely be blamed for causing the next crisis and who or what should be blamed? What might be the political/legislative response(s) to the next crisis? What, if anything, can be done to mitigate the consequences of the next financial crisis and possibly even steer the U.S. economy away from future financial crises? -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 13, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. Phil Gramm, Senior Advisor, US Policy Metrics and Former United States Senator; Mr. Frank Medina, Senior Counsel & Director of Research, Better Markets; Ms. Karen Shaw Petrou, Managing Partner, Federal Financial Analytics, Inc.; and Prof. J.W. Verret, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Edith H. Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

If we accept the premise that government, and government power, is growing, then the stakes for elective office have never been higher. With the levers of power at stake, are we seeing an increase in the use of the criminal justice system to attack legitimate political activity? Or are we perhaps seeing the proper policing of increased fraud and abuse by those in the political sphere? In a media climate in which a mere investigation can be fatal to a political campaign or career, what actions are political and what actions are criminal, and who should decide? -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 13, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. Todd P. Graves, Partner, Graves Garrett LLC; Mr. Edward T. Kang, Partner, Alston & Bird LLP; Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law; and Mr. Peter R. Zeidenberg, Partner, Arent Fox LLP. Moderator: Hon. Raymond W. Gruender, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Introduction: Mr. John G. Malcolm, Director, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation.

Criminal justice and policing reform are much in the news lately, sparked by events that garner national media coverage. This panel will assess the need for reform, and the road forward. How do media narratives about policing square with the empirical evidence? What are the most effective methods of policing, and how can they best be promoted? What is the proper way to balance police activity and the crime rate? In the current atmosphere, is legitimate police activity chilled? Must law enforcement officers responding to calls pause to consider their potential personal liability? -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 13, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. Arthur Loevy, Partner, Loevy & Loevy; Mr. Tim Lynch, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, The Cato Institute; Dr. David B. Muhlhausen, Research Fellow in Empirical Policy Analysis, Center for Data Analysis, The Heritage Foundation; Mr. Michael P. Tremoglie, Former Philadelphia Police Officer; and Mr. Robert L. Woodson, Sr., Founder and President, Center for Neighborhood Enterprise. Moderator: Hon. David Stras, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of Minnesota. Introduction: Hon. Gail Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law.