Federalist Society Event Audio

A number of commentators have noted an expansion of the use of disparate impact analysis in the federal government to areas other than employment. Examples of increased application are often cited in education, government contracting, and auto financing, to name a few. Our panel of experts will discuss whether or not there has been such an increase, and, if so, what the ramifications may be. -- The Civil Rights Practice Group hosted this panel on "Use of Disparate Impact Analysis" on Friday, November 15, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Prof. Reva Siegel, Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Professor of Law, Yale Law School; Prof. William R. Yeomans, Fellow in Law and Government, American University Washington College of Law; Mr. Roger Clegg, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity; and Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, President, the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights. Moderator: Hon. William F. Kuntz, II, United States District Court, Eastern District of New York.

Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin addressed attendees of the Federalist Society's 2013 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 15, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. Governor Walker was introduced by Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups for the Federalist Society.

This panel will examine the growth of interest in recent years in original public meaning as a source of constitutional law. Panelists will debate the merits and demerits of originalism as compared to living constitutionalism. Questions addressed will include whether originalism is consistent with or in opposition to living constitutionalism and whether evidence of original intent is ever relevant to constitutional law. Panelists will also discuss the normative arguments for and against reliance on original meaning in constitutional interpretation. Another question to be considered is whether the interpretation and construction of legal rules are separate or identical judicial acts. -- The Federalist Society's Practice Groups presented this showcase panel on "Textualism and Constitutional Interpretation" on Friday, November 15, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law Center; Prof. Mitchell N. Berman, Richard Dale Endowed Chair in Law, Professor of Philosophy and Co-Director, Law & Philosophy Program, The University of Texas at Austin; Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University School of Law; and Prof. Richard Primus, Professor of Law, The University of Michigan Law School. Moderator: Hon. Edith H. Jones, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.

On November 14, 2013, during the Federalist Society's 2013 National Lawyers Convention Annual Dinner, Judge Diane S. Sykes of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit interviewed Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. The Honorable David M. McIntosh of Mayer Brown and Vice Chairman of the Federalist Society introduced Judge Sykes.

Administrative agencies have long threatened First Amendment freedoms, and have been called to task for their actions by the courts and by Congress. This panel will examine the interaction between federal regulators and speakers, focusing on an agency with a particular free speech regulation role: the Federal Communications Commission. From indecency enforcement to the Fairness Doctrine, media ownership to the recent Tennis Channel decision, the FCC has a long history of creating tension with the First Amendment. During our session, a panel of experts will discuss the legal and policy implications of the Commission’s recent (and historical) interactions with the First Amendment, and what these actions imply for the future of free speech in the shadow of the administrative state. -- The Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group hosted this panel on "The FCC vs. the First Amendment" on Thursday, November 14, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Prof. Marvin Ammori, Bernard L. Schwartz Fellow, New America Foundation; Mr. Miguel A. Estrada, Esquire, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP; Ms. Jane Mago, Counsel, National Association of Broadcasters Education Foundation and Executive Vice President and General Counsel, National Association of Broadcasters; and Hon. Ajit V. Pai, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission. Moderator: Hon. Brett M. Kavanaugh, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Private litigants and state governments are turning to new sources of funding for lawsuits. Private litigants are now selling shares of their lawsuits to investment and hedge funds, a practice more popular in countries with more limited access to contingency fees like England and Australia. State governments are now outsourcing their legal work to law firms that work on a contingency fee and may themselves turn to investment and hedge funds. Are these developments good or bad? Are they legal? How, if at all, should they be regulated? -- The Litigation Practice Group hosted this panel on "The New Age of Litigation Financing" on Thursday, November 14, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Mr. John H. Beisner, Partner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Affiliates; Mr. Ashley C. Keller, Co-Founder and Managing Director, Gerchen Keller Capital, LLC; Prof. Jonathan T. Molot, Georgetown University Law Center; and Mr. Walter K. Olson, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute. Moderator: Hon. Thomas B. Griffith, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Introduction: Hon. Rachel Brand, Vice President & Chief Counsel for Regulatory Litigation, National Chamber Litigation Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

On January 4, 2012, President Barack Obama announced “recess appointments” of three members of the National Labor Relations Board and of Richard Cordray as Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. These appointments are controversial because the United States Senate was by its own rules not then in recess, but was conducting pro forma sessions every three days. Several appeals from NLRB decisions by panels that included recess appointees were filed, challenging their recess appointments as unconstitutional, and the Cordray appointment has been challenged in litigation over the Dodd-Frank Act, which established the CFPB. On January 25, 2013, in Noel Canning v. NLRB, the D.C. Circuit held that the NLRB recess appointments are constitutionally invalid because they were not made, and did not fill vacancies that occurred, during an intersession recess of the Senate. On May 16, 2013, in NLRB v. New Vista Nursing, the Third Circuit held that an earlier recess appointment to the NLRB was constitutionally void because it was made during an intra-session rather than intersession recess. These decisions are contrary to a 2004 Eleventh Circuit decision and put in doubt hundreds of recess appointments made during the last five presidential administrations. Consequently, on June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Noel Canning. The panelists will discuss the legal and practical arguments for and against affirming the D.C. Circuit’s judgment. -- The Labor & Employment Law Practice Group hosted this panel on "Recess Appointments: Implications of Noel Canning" on Thursday, November 14, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Mr. John Elwood, Partner, Vinson & Elkins LLP; Mr. Noel J. Francisco, Partner, Jones Day; Prof. John N. Raudabaugh, Reed Larson Professor of Labor Law, Ave Maria School of Law; former member, National Labor Relations Board and Staff Attorney, National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation; and Ms. Elizabeth B. Wydra, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountablity Center. Moderator: Hon. Raymond M. Kethledge, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Are intellectual property rights compatible with free, competitive markets? This question has long been a topic of debate. Some characterize intellectual property rights as government-granted monopolies that call for close scrutiny by competition authorities. Others respond that intellectual property rights don't grant market power and don't deserve special scrutiny. Rather, they are property rights that benefit consumers by encouraging investment in research and innovation. Recently, these questions have become more urgent, as the White House, the FTC, and others have called for increased scrutiny of the affect of intellectual property rights on competition. This panel will consider the relationships among intellectual property rights, competition, innovation, and consumer welfare. -- The Intellectual Property Practice Group hosted this panel on "Intellectual Property, Free Markets and Competition Policy" on Thursday, November 14, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Prof. John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law and Armistead M. Dobie Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law; Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University School of Law and James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School; Prof. Joshua D. Sarnoff, Professor of Law, DePaul University College of Law; and Hon. Joshua D. Wright, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commissioner and Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Douglas H. Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit and Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law.

In a variety of contexts, from the HHS preventive services mandate to same-sex marriage, differing moral visions are in increasing conflict in the public square. How will this conflict affect the American understanding of religious liberty? -- The Religious Liberties Practice Group hosted this panel on "Religious Liberty & Conflicting Moral Visions" on Thursday, November 14, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Mr. Kyle Duncan, General Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Prof. William A. Galston, Ezra Zilkha Chair, Governance Studies Program, The Brookings Institution; Prof. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director, James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions Department of Politics, Princeton; and Prof. Andrew M. Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas addressed attendees of the Federalist Society's 2013 National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, November 14, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. Senator Cruz was introduced by Mr. Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President of the Federalist Society.

The new textualism has had a big impact on interpretation of the Bill of Rights. Freedom of speech is vigorously protected on the current Supreme Court but in two recent cases over the lone dissent of Justice Alito. This panel will examine the Justices' view on free speech. The Justices have also diverged recently in some striking Fourth Amendment cases. Justices Scalia and/or Thomas have construed the Fourth Amendment broadly, and Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy and Alito have disagreed. This is also an area where the more liberal Justices disagree in interesting ways. This panel will try to shed light on why the Justices disagree. Bill of Rights literalism will also be considered in terms of its effect on the Takings and Confrontation Clauses, as well as the doctrine of substantive due process. -- The Federalist Society's Practice Groups presented this showcase panel on "Textualism and the Bill of Rights" on Thursday, November 14, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Prof. Stephanos Bibas, Professor of Law and Criminology and Director, Supreme Court Clinic, Pennsylvania University Law School; Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University School of Law and James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School; Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Georgetown University Law Center; Prof. Nadine Strossen, New York Law School and former President, American Civil Liberties Union; and Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Thomas M. Hardiman, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Senator Mike Lee of Utah opened the Federalist Society's 2013 National Lawyers Convention with an address to attendees on Thursday, November 14, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. Senator Lee was introduced by Mr. Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President of the Federalist Society.

On July 8, 2013, Miguel Estrada of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP delivered the Annual Supreme Court Round Up at The Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. Miguel Estrada, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. Introduction: Mr. Douglas R. Cox, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher

On July 8, 2013, Miguel Estrada of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP delivered the Annual Supreme Court Round Up at The Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. Miguel Estrada, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. Introduction: Mr. Douglas R. Cox, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher

On June 11, 2013, the Federalist Society's Executive Branch Review Project held its First Annual Executive Branch Review Conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. The conference closed with a luncheon panel on regulation and the rule of law. Featuring: Mr. Steven G. Bradbury, Partner, Dechert LLP; Prof. Allan H. Meltzer, Allan H. Meltzer University Professor of Political Economy, Carnegie-Mellon Tepper School of Business; and Moderator: Mr. David G. Savage, Washington Bureau, Los Angeles Times