Federalist Society Practice Groups Podcasts

This podcast features a discussion and commentary by our panel of experts on the recent federal district court decision in Shelby County v. Holder, upholding the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. On this previously recorded Teleforum conference call, the experts provide analysis of the case and the impact of the decision, followed by questions from callers. Featuring Ms. Nancy Abudu of The American Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project; Mr. Hans von Spakovsky of The Heritage Foundation's Center for Legal and Judicial Studies; and Mr. Roger Clegg of The Center for Equal Opportunity as the moderator.

United States patent law has traditionally authorized the grant of patent rights to the first to invent or to discover a patentable invention, subject to specified terms and conditions. But the America Invents Act replaced the "first-to-invent" system with the "first to file" system long enforced in England and in other countries by deleting or rewriting numerous references to priority of inventorship in the existing statutory sections concerning novelty and obviousness. Does this change rewrite core patent law fundamentals in this country and shift the balance among individual inventors, large corporations, and patent holding companies? What is the likely effect on innovation and development, the keys to a growing economy? Are the projected benefits worth the anticipated costs? Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, is the change Constitutional? Featuring Prof. Richard A. Epstein of New York University School of Law; Prof. F. Scott Kieff of The George Washington University Law School; Prof. David S. Olson of Boston College Law School; and Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups for The Federalist Society, as the moderator.

Policies on felon enfranchisement vary from state to state with most states restricting felons from voting to varying degrees. Among other issues, our experts discuss the history of felon disenfranchisement laws and whether such laws violate the Voting Rights Act. On this previously recorded conference call, the speakers discussed these and other issues and took questions from callers. Featuring Ms. Nancy Abudu of The American Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project; Mr. Hans von Spakovsky of The Heritage Foundation's Center for Legal and Judicial Studies; and Mr. Roger Clegg of The Center for Equal Opportunity as the moderator.

The United States Supreme Court is about to make a decision whether to grant cert on the Florida Interior Design case, Locke v. Ehrig, which implicates economic liberty and free speech. Can a state require a license for interior designers, or do designers have a paramount right to speech in a business context? Featuring Mr. Clark Neily of the Institute for Justice and Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups for the Federalist Society, as the moderator.

In a recent case, the Securities & Exchange Commission's consent settlement with Citigroup was rejected by presiding Judge Rakoff of the Federal District Court in Manhattan, calling into question SEC's enforcement regime. What does this decision mean for SEC's normal preference of settling its cases without requiring defendants to admit wrong-doing? Who has ultimate responsibility for protecting investor interests and determining the appropriate regulatory enforcement regime? If the SEC is forced to bring more enforcement actions through litigation, will it ultimately bring fewer enforcement actions? On this previously recorded conference call, the speakers discussed these and other issues and took questions from callers. Featuring Prof. Stephen Bainbridge of UCLA School of Law; Prof. Jonathan Macey of Yale Law School; and Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President and Director of Practice Groups at The Federalist Society, as the moderator.

Although corporations are creatures of state law and corporate elections are governed by state law, statements soliciting proxies for publicly traded securities are governed as to form and content by the federal securities laws, most importantly by various rules promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Last year, the SEC used its authority under Dodd-Frank to promulgate Rule 14a-11 requiring public companies to include in their proxy statements director nominations proposed by certain shareholders. Soon thereafter, the Business Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sued the SEC, alleging that the Commission's adoption of Rule 14a-11 violated various provisions of federal law. The SEC voluntarily stayed the rule pending the outcome of the litigation. On July 20, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held for the plaintiffs and vacated Rule 14a-11. On this previously recorded conference call, the speakers provided their analysis of the case, the impact of the decision on the SEC's rulemaking authority and the prospects for shareholder access and took questions from callers. Featuring Mr. Ted Allen of the Institutional Shareholders Services, Inc.; Prof. Stephen Bainbridge of UCLA School of Law; Prof. J. Robert Brown, Jr. of University of Denver Sturm College of Law; Hon. Eugene Scalia of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; and Prof. Robert T. Miller of Villanova University School of Law as the moderator.

Recently, an Ohio jury recommended a death sentence for Mr. Anthony Sowell, who lured 11 women to his property over a two year period, killed them, and secreted the bodies in his house. About three weeks before that, on an island in Norway, Anders Breivik shot and killed 76 unarmed teenagers and children. He will not face the death penalty, however, because Norwegian law limits the punishment for any offense to 21 years. To some, the death penalty seems like the only just punishment for particularly sadistic or merciless murder. To others, problems of expense, delay, uneven application and possible innocence mean the United States should follow what some believe to be the more enlightened sentencing practices of Europe. On this previously recorded conference call, two experts discussed capital punishment and took questions from callers. Featuring Ms. Cassandra Stubbs of the ACLU Capital Punishment Project; Prof. William Otis of the Georgetown Law Center; and Mr. Dean Reuter of the The Federalist Society as the moderator.

In this podcast, Professor Lester Brickman discusses his new book, which is the culmination of his twenty-plus years of research into the impact contingency fees have on our legal system and our political system. Moderated by Margaret A. Little, Director of the The Federalist Society's Pro Bono Center.

Since the first U. S. patent statute in 1790, United States patent law has authorized the grant of patent rights to the first to invent or to discover a patentable invention, subject to specified terms and conditions. Currently under consideration as S. 23 and H.R. 1249, the America Invents Act will substantially change the American patent system by eliminating this uniquely American approach in securing property rights in inventions to only their first and true inventors. Section 2 in the Senate (S.23) and the House (H.R. 1249) bills will replace the current "first-to-invent" system with the "first to file" system long enforced in England and in other countries by deleting or rewriting numerous references to priority of inventorship in the existing statutory sections concerning novelty (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). Does the proposed change from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system rewrite core patent law fundamentals in this country by shifting the balance among individual inventors, large corporations, and patent holding companies? What is the likely effect of this proposed change on innovation and development, the keys to a growing economy? Are the projected benefits worth the anticipated costs? Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, is the proposed change even Constitutional? These and other topics are debated and discussed among a panel of law professors moderated by an experienced practitioner. Featuring Prof. Timothy Holbrook of Emory University School of Law; Prof. F. Scott Kieff of The George Washington University Law School; Prof. Adam Mossoff of George Mason University School of Law; Prof. David S. Olson of Boston College Law School; and David L. Applegate of Williams Montgomery & John LTD as the moderator.

Recently under Dodd-Frank, the FDIC implemented a new assessment base for levying deposit-insurance premiums. Questions are now arising as to the impact and likely unintended consequences of this material change in how the FDIC charges for deposit insurance and who will ultimately bear those charges. This question may lead to a court challenge of the FDIC’s assessment formulae. What are the likely responses by banks and their creditors to the new assessment structure? Will banks reduce their reliance on secured funding? Will banks become more aggressive in gathering retail deposits, pushing up retail deposit interest rates and harming community banks in the process? Will foreign banks gain a competitive edge over FDIC-insured banks? Will Congress step into the fray? Our speakers address these and other issues. Featuring: Mr. Christopher Cole of the Independent Community Bankers of America; Mr. Bert Ely of Ely & Company, Inc.; and Mr. John Douglas of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP as the moderator.

A Federalist Society panel of free speech and national security experts discusses what, if anything, can be done about the Wikileaks matter. Who, if anyone, can or should be prosecuted, and for what? How strong is a potential free speech defense? What is the potential liability of re-publishers? As technology continues to develop, who qualifies as a "journalist" and "press?" These and other questions will be addressed by our experts. Featuring: Mr. Floyd Abrams of Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP; Dr. Gabriel Schoenfeld of the Hudson Institute and The Witherspoon Institute; Mr. Eric Snyder of Kobre & Kim LLP; and Mr. Jamil N. Jaffer of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC as the moderator.

How well do law schools today actually prepare law school students for the practice of law? Can the lineage of some of the most controversial law and policy matters be traced to the legal academic agenda? Does the ideological bent of the legal academy enhance or hinder graduates in the practice of law? Walter Olson of the Cato Institute discusses his latest book on this topic. James A. Haynes of the Professional Responsibility & Legal Ethics Practice Group Executive Committee and the Baltimore Federalist Society Lawyers Chapter moderates.

The false marking statute of the Patent Act (35 U.S.C. § 292) prohibits marking as "patented" any product that is not patented. Section 292 also gives individuals the right to bring a qui tam action and to collect statutory damages up to $500 for each falsely marked product. Although once rarely invoked, the qui tam provision is increasingly being used by plaintiffs against large manufacturers of patented and formerly patented products. The number of qui tam lawsuits has exploded in the past couple years, and there is now a debate raging among lawyers and commentators as to whether the qui tam provision still serves its original function of punishing firms who improperly seek to squelch both free trade and the public domain by false claiming a product or service as patented. Congress is considering various ways of amending or even eliminating the qui tam provision as part of the patent reform legislation that is currently being debated on the Hill. Complicating matters, in early March 2011, a federal district court in Ohio held that the qui tam provision is unconstitutional, violating the Take Care Clause in Article II, § 3. This panel discusses the current state of play and what changes, if any, should be made to the qui tam provision of the false marking statute. Featuring Mr. Trevor K. Copeland of Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione; Mr. Arthur Gollwitzer of Floyd & Buss LLP; Prof. Elizabeth I. Winston of Columbus School of Law at The Catholic University of America; and Prof. Adam Mossoff of George Mason University School of Law as the moderator.

As the country, and Congress, continues to debate the President's authority for action in Libya, the Federalist Society presents a podcast of four Constitutional law experts with contrasting views to debate the issues. Featuring Prof. Saikrishna Prakash of the University of Virginia School of Law; Mr. David B. Rivkin, Jr., of Baker & Hostetler LLP; Prof. Peter J. Spiro of Temple University Beasley School of Law; Hon. Edwin D. Williamson of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP; and Hon. Ronald A. Cass of Cass & Associates, PC, as the moderator.

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But what is the proper interpretation of this clause? What does it mean to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? To what extent can states seek to control or alter birthright citizenship? Our experts debate these and other questions in this podcast. Featuring Dr. John C. Eastman of Chapman University School of Law; The Honorable James C. Ho of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Former Solicitor General of Texas; and Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups for the The Federalist Society as the moderator.