Federalist Society Practice Groups Podcasts

In a recently decided and much publicized Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals case, the court struck down Illinois’ statewide ban on carrying a loaded weapon in public. Most recently, the court declined a request for en banc review. The Governor and Attorney General of Illinois are divided on whether to seek a Supreme Court cert petition in an attempt to have the law reinstated. On this previously recorded live conference call, our panel of experts debate the merits of the statute, the Seventh Circuit’s decisions, and the road forward. -- Featuring: Mr. Ken Klukowski, National Bestselling Author and on faculty at Liberty University ?School of Law??; Prof. Adam Winkler, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law; and Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

On March 18, 2013 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona. Must Congress expressly preempt state voter registration and eligibility procedures or may a court imply such preemption based on congressional adoption of federal procedures for voter registration for federal elections? The Ninth Circuit adopted a more aggressive preemption test for voting procedures, rejecting the usual presumption against preemption in the absence of a clear statement of congressional intent to preempt state law. It then applied that more aggressive test to strike down an Arizona requirement that persons seeking to register to vote show proof of citizenship. The federal registration form asks that registrants state, under penalty of perjury, that they are citizens (and will be over 18 at the time of the election), but does not require proof of citizenship beyond the sworn statement. The Supreme Court refused to grant a pre-election stay of the lower court decision striking down the law, but later granted certiorari, suggesting that it might be more interested in the new preemption test adopted by the Ninth Circuit than in the particular details of the law held to be preempted by that court. As with many cases granted from the Ninth Circuit, should we expect highly critical questioning regarding the Ninth Circuit’s legal reasoning, regardless of whether the specific law at issue is ultimately held to be preempted? Erik Jaffe, appellate attorney and Chairman of the Federalist Society’s Free Speech and Election Law Practice Group, provided post-argument commentary during a special Courthouse Steps edition of Teleforum. -- Featuring: Mr. Erik Jaffe, Appellate Attorney and Chairman of the Federalist Society’s Free Speech and Election Law Practice Group and Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Why did the financial scandals really happen? Why are they continuing to happen? In The Death of Corporate Reputation, Yale's Jonathan Macey reveals the real, non-intuitive reason, and offers a new path forward. For over a century law firms, investment banks, accounting firms, credit rating agencies and companies seeking regular access to U.S. capital markets made large investments in their reputations. They treated customers well and sometimes endured losses in transactions or business deals in order to sustain and nurture their reputations as faithful brokers and “gate-keepers.” This has changed completely. The existing business model among leading participants in today’s capital markets no longer treats customers as valued clients whose trust must be earned and nurtured, but as one-off “counter-parties” to whom no duties are owed and no loyalty is required. The rough and tumble norms of the market-place have replaced the long-standing reputational model in U.S. finance. This podcast is a recording of a previously held conference call and has not been edited for sound quality. -- Featuring: Prof. Jonathan R. Macey, Sam Harris Professor of Corporate Law, Corporate Finance, and Securities Law, Yale Law School and Moderator: Mr. Christian Corrigan, Director of Publications, The Federalist Society

On March 27, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Windsor v. U.S., the challenge to the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, and which bars the federal government from recognizing the validity of, or extending attendant benefits to, any marriage conferred by any of the states other than those consisting of only one man and one woman. The Court considered whether DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are recognized to be married under the laws of their state, whether the Executive Branch’s assertion that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives the Court of jurisdiction to decide this case, whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives has standing in this case to defend DOMA. Carrie Severino of Judicial Crisis Network attended the oral arguments and then offered her analysis of the arguments, the merits, and the likely outcome of the case. -- Featuring: Ms. Carrie Severino, Chief Counsel and Policy Director, Judicial Crisis Network and Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

On March 26, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which amended the California constitution to define marriage as existing only between one man and one woman. The Court considered whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman and whether petitioners have standing under Article III, § 2 of the Constitution in this case. Carrie Severino of Judicial Crisis Network attended the oral arguments and then offered her analysis of the arguments, the merits, and the likely outcome of the case. Featuring: Ms. Carrie Severino, Chief Counsel and Policy Director, Judicial Crisis Network and Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.

For roughly two decades, the bipartisan consensus of the U.S. Congress on the regulation of greenhouse gases from non-mobile sources has been that it’s best to let sleeping dogs lie. Critics of any attempted regulation have cited a variety of prudential and legal problems that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using the Clean Air Act—the awkward basis for current greenhouse gas regulation—to regulate emissions standards from “stationary sources” of energy. Nevertheless, President Obama has asserted that the needs in this area are great, that “Americans cannot resist this transition,” and the EPA is thus expected to propose such regulations. Can the CAA, previously limited to existing-source emissions of relatively rare substances, be read to now authorize the regulation of greenhouse gases from non-mobile sources? This podcast is a recording of a previously held conference call and has not been edited for sound quality. -- Featuring: Mr. Mark W. DeLaquil, Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP?; Mr. William J. Haun, Federal Law Clerk?; and Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Did the government-constructed narratives surrounding the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the 2008 financial crisis shape the policymaking that led to the Dodd-Frank Act. In Bad History, Worse Policy, Peter Wallison argues that every major provision of the Dodd-Frank Act can be traced directly to that narrative, which ignored the government’s own role and focused entirely on the errors of the private sector. What are the consequences and fall out from Wallison’s assertion? This podcast is a recording of a previously held conference call and has not been edited for sound quality. -- Featuring: Hon. Peter J. Wallison, Arthur F. Burns Fellow in Financial Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research and Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.

The right to improve privately-owned real property is recognized as basic and generally beneficial to society. Yet, government is free to impose some restrictions on land use and development for health and safety reasons. On Tuesday, January 15, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, a Florida case that examines the limits of government regulation of real property. On this previously recorded conference call, our expert, who attended the oral argument, provides his report on this case in which a private landowner asserts that government-imposed conditions on the granting of a commercial development permit exceed the government’s authority. -- Featuring: Mr. James S. Burling?, Director of Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation and Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

A few weeks ago Mandiant, a private cybersecurity firm, released an explosive report attributing an epidemic of Chinese cyber espionage to the Chinese army. In light of this report and other intelligence findings, the New York Times reports that the Obama Administration has publicly called on the Chinese government to intervene directly to end such cyber attacks from its own military. Richard Bejtlich, the Chief Security Officer for Mandiant, discusses the content of that report. Our other cyber expert, Paul Rosenzweig, joins to discuss what, if anything, the United States should be doing about this problem. This previously recorded conference call is a part of a new Teleforum series on Cybersecurity and Public Policy.

As U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (Kentucky)'s filibuster of the confirmation of John O. Brennan, President Obama's nominee for Director of the CIA, demonstrates, Congress is paying close attention to the legal limits on targeting U.S. citizens. The New York Times has reported that: "Obama administration lawyers have asserted that it would be lawful to kill a United States citizen if 'an informed, high-level official' of the government decided that the target was a ranking figure in al-Qaeda, posed 'an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States' and if his capture was not feasible, according to a 16-page document made public on Monday [February 4]" (February 5, 2013). What are the legal and constitutional limits of the executive's authority to target U.S. citizens with lethal force? Does the answer vary depending on the geographical location of the targeted person? Is action by another branch of government required? Our experts discuss these and other issues. -- Featuring: Mr. Andrew C. McCarthy, Executive Director, Philadelphia Freedom Center; Prof. Stephen I. Vladeck, American University Washington College of Law; Prof. John Choon Yoo, University of California, Berkeley School of Law; and Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

John Allison, recently retired from running prosperous BB&T bank to run one of Washington’s most prominent think tanks, the Cato Institute, had all he could stomach. Having read the books and heard the analyses about how the financial crisis was caused by greed on Wall Street, or by regulatory failures, or by efforts to undo the legacy of the Depression and the New Deal, he couldn’t hold back any more. Many interesting narratives have been offered to the public by reporters, pundits, and politicians. But John Allison was there, on the inside of the industry, watching what led to financial bubbles, on the receiving end of regulatory actions and policies. His new book, The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure is his analysis of what happened and why and, more important, what he believes is needed to get us off of the railroad track leading to more financial calamity. Hearing from a successful banker who believes in the power of free markets may help fuel an effort to find policies that could work. John Allison discusses the ideas presented in his book and takes questions from callers on this previously recorded conference call.? -- Featuring: Hon. Wayne Abernathy, Executive VP for Financial Institutions Policy and Regulatory Affairs, American Bankers Association?; Mr. John A. Allison, President and CEO, Cato Institute; and Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Last year, several parties filed a constitutional challenge to parts of the Dodd-Frank financial reform act. Specifically, a group of private plaintiffs, including a West Texas community bank and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, challenged Dodd-Frank's creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Financial Stability Oversight Counsel, arguing that both violate the Constitution's separation of powers. They also challenged President Obama's "recess" appointment of CFPB Director Richard Cordray. Later, the complaint was amended to add three state plaintiffs who, with the private plaintiffs, raise several challenges to Dodd-Frank's "Orderly Liquidation Authority," which authorizes the Treasury Secretary and FDIC to "liquidate" financial companies outside the long-established rules of bankruptcy. The case is pending in federal court in Washington. In this previously recorded conference call, two lawyers representing the private plaintiffs -- Greg Jacob of O'Melveny & Myers and Adam White of Boyden Gray & Associates -- recap the case's current status and outline the jurisdictional issues raised by the government. -- Featuring: Hon. Gregory Jacob, Partner, O'Melveny & Myers LLP and former Solicitor of Labor; Mr. Adam J. White, Counsel, Boyden Gray & Associates; and Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

The future of the free enterprise system has become a central issue in our national debate, and in The Road to Freedom, Arthur Brooks offers a practical manual for defending it in the coming years. Both a moral manifesto and a prescription for concrete policy changes, The Road to Freedom will help translate the philosophy of free enterprise into action, to restore both our nation's greatness and America's well-being in the process. -- Featuring: Dr. Arthur C. Brooks, President, American Enterprise Institute -- See more at: http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/the-road-to-freedom-how-to-win-the-fight-for-free-enterprise-podcast#sthash.i5FFtiVG.dpuf

?In this special Courthouse Steps edition of Teleforum, our expert, Chad A. Readler of Jones Day, discusses Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, which presents the Supreme Court with its first look at the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2005. With the goal of reducing "forum shopping," CAFA gives federal courts jurisdiction over certain class actions that would otherwise reside in state court, in particular, class actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. In Standard Fire, the defendant insurance company, upon removing an Arkansas state court class action to federal court, presented the Court with evidence that the amount in controversy in the class action exceeded $5 million. In response, plaintiff Knowles stipulated that he would not seek damages for himself or any other individual class member in excess of $75,000, and that he would not seek damages for the class in excess of $5 million. The Court will resolve whether such stipulations are binding on all class members, thereby depriving the federal courts of jurisdiction under CAFA. -- Featuring: Mr. Chad A. Readler, Partner, Jones Day

?Patent licensing has become a subject of much debate and contention. Controversies include concerns about the licensing of patents that are essential to the use of technological standards (i.e., standard essential patents or SEPs); debate over the role of companies that monetize the value in patent portfolios solely through licensing; and the increasingly common practice of awarding royalties instead of injunctions since the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay v. MercExchange. Patent licensing is currently under scrutiny by the FTC, the U.S. Department of Justice, and even potentially in Congress, with legislation seeking to limit the ability of patent licensing companies to seek redress for infringement. This teleforum addresses questions concerning patent licensing, such as: Is there a patent licensing problem that requires a legislative, judicial, or regulatory response? What role has patent licensing played in the American system of innovation, both historically and today? Do business models based on patent licensing have a role in the system of dynamic innovation that patents are intended to promote? Our experts discuss these and other issues on this previously recorded conference call.? -- Featuring: Mr. Barney Cassidy, President, Tessera Intellectual Property Corp.; Prof. Adam Mossoff, Senior Scholar & Co-Director of Academic Programs,Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, George Mason University School of Law; Prof. Michael Risch, Villanova University School of Law; and Moderator: Prof. Mark Schultz, Southern Illinois University School of Law and Senior Scholar & Co-Director of Academic Programs,Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, George Mason University School of Law.