Panelists will offer their diverse perspectives on the current state of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the issues it is facing, its potential docket, and emerging legal controversies that may affect the court's future work. They will explore issues such as the role of the court in shaping public policy, the importance of judicial independence, and challenges that the court will face as it adapts to a rapidly changing legal landscape.Featuring:Jeffrey A. Mandell,  Partner, Stafford Rosenbaum LLPRyan J. Walsh, Partner, Eimer Stahl LLPProf. Robert Yablon, Associate Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin-MadisonModerator: Hon. Shelley A. Grogan, Judge, District II, Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Panelists will offer their diverse perspectives on the current state of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the issues it is facing, its potential docket, and emerging legal controversies that may affect the court's future work. They will explore issues such as the role of the court in shaping public policy, the importance of judicial independence, and challenges that the court will face as it adapts to a rapidly changing legal landscape. Featuring: Jeffrey A. Mandell, Partner, Stafford Rosenbaum LLP Ryan J. Walsh, Partner, Eimer Stahl LLP Prof. Robert Yablon, Associate Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin-Madison Moderator: Hon. Shelley A. Grogan, Judge, District II, Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Panel II: The Future of the Wisconsin Supreme Court

Although many lawyers spend their careers in front of judges, the process by which a judge is elected or appointed can sometimes seem shrouded in mystery. What makes for a good judge? How are they chosen? Are there opportunities Wisconsin lawyers aspiring to the state or federal bench should pursue, or pitfalls they should avoid? A panel of Wisconsin-based judges from a variety of courts joins us to discuss the path to the judiciary in Wisconsin, moderated by Milwaukee Chapter President Matthew Fernholz.Featuring:Hon. Michael J. Aprahamian, Judge, Waukesha County Circuit CourtHon. Rebecca Grassl Bradley, Justice, Wisconsin Supreme CourtHon. William C. Griesbach, Senior District Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of WisconsinModerator: Matthew M. Fernholz, Partner, Cramer, Multhauf &amp; Hammes, LLP &amp; President, Milwaukee Lawyers Chapter

Although many lawyers spend their careers in front of judges, the process by which a judge is elected or appointed can sometimes seem shrouded in mystery. What makes for a good judge? How are they chosen? Are there opportunities Wisconsin lawyers aspiring to the state or federal bench should pursue, or pitfalls they should avoid? A panel of Wisconsin-based judges from a variety of courts joins us to discuss the path to the judiciary in Wisconsin, moderated by Milwaukee Chapter President Matthew Fernholz. Featuring: Hon. Michael J. Aprahamian, Judge, Waukesha County Circuit Court Hon. Rebecca Grassl Bradley, Justice, Wisconsin Supreme Court Hon. William C. Griesbach, Senior District Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin Moderator: Matthew M. Fernholz, Partner, Cramer, Multhauf &amp; Hammes, LLP &amp; President, Milwaukee Lawyers Chapter

Panel I: Path to the Judiciary in Wisconsin

Join us for a Texas-sized BBQ banquet featuring Austin BBQ. Dress in your Texas best! Attire is dressy, but cowboy boots and hats are welcome! *This event requires the purchase of a separate ticket.

Join us for a Texas-sized BBQ banquet featuring Austin BBQ. Dress in your Texas best! Attire is dressy, but cowboy boots and hats are welcome! *This event requires the purchase of a separate ticket.

Banquet, Keynote Address with Governor Greg Abbott, and Presentation of the Annual Joseph Story Award and Feddie Awards*

Judicial Review has been criticized throughout American history as undemocratic, creating what has been known in the modern era as the counter-majoritarian difficulty. Is the Court in fact counter-majoritarian? To what degree? If so, is it a difficulty? What theories of constitutional interpretation best reconcile judicial review with democracy—originalism or living constitutionalism or something else?Featuring:Moderator: Hon. James Ho, The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitProf. Tara Leigh Grove, Vinson &amp; Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas School of LawProf. Lawrence Sager, Alice Jane Drysdale Sheffield Regents Chair, University of Texas School of LawProf. Keith Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University

Judicial Review has been criticized throughout American history as undemocratic, creating what has been known in the modern era as the counter-majoritarian difficulty. Is the Court in fact counter-majoritarian? To what degree? If so, is it a difficulty? What theories of constitutional interpretation best reconcile judicial review with democracy—originalism or living constitutionalism or something else? Featuring: Moderator: Hon. James Ho, The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Prof. Tara Leigh Grove, Vinson &amp; Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas School of Law Prof. Lawrence Sager, Alice Jane Drysdale Sheffield Regents Chair, University of Texas School of Law Prof. Keith Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University

Panel V: Is Judicial Review Democratic?

The United States is constitutionally not one, but fifty-one, democracies. How can they all fit together? The oldest issue in our republic is the relation between the federal and state governments: where does the democratic decision-making power of one leave off and the other begin? The question remains relevant today on such issues as the proper locus of decisions about abortion. But the relation of the states to one another is now also pressing as states deploy their authority to influence the democratic decision making of other states, on issues as disparate as gun and climate policy. Are the proper boundaries between our different democracies best policed by the judiciary or by democratic politics?Featuring:Moderator: Hon. Andrew Oldham, The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitProf. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law SchoolProf. Jud Campbell, Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of LawProf. Michael S. Greve, Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School

The United States is constitutionally not one, but fifty-one, democracies. How can they all fit together? The oldest issue in our republic is the relation between the federal and state governments: where does the democratic decision-making power of one leave off and the other begin? The question remains relevant today on such issues as the proper locus of decisions about abortion. But the relation of the states to one another is now also pressing as states deploy their authority to influence the democratic decision making of other states, on issues as disparate as gun and climate policy. Are the proper boundaries between our different democracies best policed by the judiciary or by democratic politics? Featuring: Moderator: Hon. Andrew Oldham, The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School Prof. Jud Campbell, Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law Prof. Michael S. Greve, Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School

Panel IV: Does Federalism Lead to a More United or Disunited Democracy?

Many aspects of the United States governing structure have been criticized as inconsistent with democracy or at least with majority rule. Elections for the House of Representatives and state legislatures are subject to gerrymandering. The Senate represents large and small states equally and thus unequally weights the voters across the nation. The Electoral College, too, provides electoral advantages to some states over others. And the institutions themselves sometimes depart from majority rule, most notably in the United States Senate with its filibuster. Can these arrangements be justified, or should they be reformed?Featuring:Moderator: Hon. Patrick J. Bumatay, The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitProf. Sanford V. Levinson, W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair in Law, University of Texas School of LawProf. Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law, Capital University Law SchoolProf. Stephanie Barclay, Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Religious Liberty Initiative, Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Lori A. Ringhand, J. Alton Hosch Professor of Law &amp; Josiah Meigs Distinguished Teaching Professor, University of Georgia School of Law

Many aspects of the United States governing structure have been criticized as inconsistent with democracy or at least with majority rule. Elections for the House of Representatives and state legislatures are subject to gerrymandering. The Senate represents large and small states equally and thus unequally weights the voters across the nation. The Electoral College, too, provides electoral advantages to some states over others. And the institutions themselves sometimes depart from majority rule, most notably in the United States Senate with its filibuster. Can these arrangements be justified, or should they be reformed? Featuring: Moderator: Hon. Patrick J. Bumatay, The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Prof. Sanford V. Levinson, W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair in Law, University of Texas School of Law Prof. Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law, Capital University Law School Prof. Stephanie Barclay, Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Religious Liberty Initiative, Notre Dame Law School Prof. Lori A. Ringhand, J. Alton Hosch Professor of Law &amp; Josiah Meigs Distinguished Teaching Professor, University of Georgia School of Law

Panel III: Unique Aspects of American Democracy: Structural Bugs or Features?

Democracy begins with elections. But the process for voting in our elections has been increasingly a matter of political contestation. This panel will consider these process issues, including the Voting Rights Act, campaign finance reform, early and mail in- balloting, and eligibility to vote, including that of felons and aliens. The panel will also consider the question of how the decision-making over these issues should be divided, between the courts and democratic legislatures as well as between the states and the federal government.Featuring:Moderator: Hon. Timothy M. Tymkovich, The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth CircuitAudrey Perry Martin, Partner, Gober GroupLee E. Goodman, Partner, WileyProf. Derek T. Muller, Ben V. Willie Professorship in Excellence, University of Iowa College of LawProf. Richard Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law

Democracy begins with elections. But the process for voting in our elections has been increasingly a matter of political contestation. This panel will consider these process issues, including the Voting Rights Act, campaign finance reform, early and mail in- balloting, and eligibility to vote, including that of felons and aliens. The panel will also consider the question of how the decision-making over these issues should be divided, between the courts and democratic legislatures as well as between the states and the federal government. Featuring: Moderator: Hon. Timothy M. Tymkovich, The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Audrey Perry Martin, Partner, Gober Group Lee E. Goodman, Partner, Wiley Prof. Derek T. Muller, Ben V. Willie Professorship in Excellence, University of Iowa College of Law Prof. Richard Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law

Panel II: The Democratic Election Process: What is Fair and Who Decides Fairness?

There has been much discussion about threats to democracy over the past year. But conceptions of democracy differ. What does democracy entail in our system? Is the U.S. a democracy, a republic, a democratic republic? What does democracy require and what genuinely threatens it? How do we address such threats?Featuring:Moderator: Hon. Edith H. Jones, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitProf. J. Joel Alicea, Co-Director, the Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition, and Assistant Professor of Law, The Catholic University of America Columbus School of LawProf. Bruce E. Cain, Charles Louis Ducommun Professor in the School of Humanities &amp; Sciences, Director of the Bill Lane Center for the American West, Senior Fellow at the Woods Institute at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, Professor at the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability, Stanford UniversityProf. Daniel Lowenstein, Professor of Law Emeritus, UCLA LawProf.  Stephen I. Vladeck, Charles Alan Wright Chair In Federal Courts, The University of Texas School of Law

There has been much discussion about threats to democracy over the past year. But conceptions of democracy differ. What does democracy entail in our system? Is the U.S. a democracy, a republic, a democratic republic? What does democracy require and what genuinely threatens it? How do we address such threats? Featuring: Moderator: Hon. Edith H. Jones, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Prof. J. Joel Alicea, Co-Director, the Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition, and Assistant Professor of Law, The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law Prof. Bruce E. Cain, Charles Louis Ducommun Professor in the School of Humanities &amp; Sciences, Director of the Bill Lane Center for the American West, Senior Fellow at the Woods Institute at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, Professor at the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability, Stanford University Prof. Daniel Lowenstein, Professor of Law Emeritus, UCLA Law Prof. Stephen I. Vladeck, Charles Alan Wright Chair In Federal Courts, The University of Texas School of Law

Panel I: What is Democracy?

George Soros has contended that “there is no connection between the election of reform-minded prosecutors and local crime rates.” When considering some of the largest metropolitan cities on the west coast, such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle, do the violent crime and homicide statistics support this claim? Progressive prosecutors have introduced a range of policies, such as eliminating cash bail, decriminalizing misdemeanor drug possessions, refraining from trying minors as adults, and shifting emphasis on police misdeeds rather than criminal offenses. Do the efforts to reverse tough-on-crime policies have a direct correlation to the rising crime rates in big cities? What is the proper role of a prosecutor? Should prosecutors be practicing more restraint? Does bail reform affect recidivism rates? The panelists will discuss these questions and share their insights on these questions.Featuring:Mr. Cully Stimson, Deputy Director, Edwin Meese III Center, Manager, National Security Law Program, and Senior Legal Fellow, Senior Advisor to the President The Heritage Foundation Mr. McGregor W. Scott, Partner, King &amp; Spalding LLP, Former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California ConfirmedMs. Lauren-Brooke Eisen, Senior Director, Brennan Center for JusticeModerator: Hon. Danielle J. Forrest, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

George Soros has contended that “there is no connection between the election of reform-minded prosecutors and local crime rates.” When considering some of the largest metropolitan cities on the west coast, such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle, do the violent crime and homicide statistics support this claim? Progressive prosecutors have introduced a range of policies, such as eliminating cash bail, decriminalizing misdemeanor drug possessions, refraining from trying minors as adults, and shifting emphasis on police misdeeds rather than criminal offenses. Do the efforts to reverse tough-on-crime policies have a direct correlation to the rising crime rates in big cities? What is the proper role of a prosecutor? Should prosecutors be practicing more restraint? Does bail reform affect recidivism rates? The panelists will discuss these questions and share their insights on these questions. Featuring: Mr. Cully Stimson, Deputy Director, Edwin Meese III Center, Manager, National Security Law Program, and Senior Legal Fellow, Senior Advisor to the President The Heritage Foundation Mr. McGregor W. Scott, Partner, King &amp; Spalding LLP, Former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California Confirmed Ms. Lauren-Brooke Eisen, Senior Director, Brennan Center for Justice Moderator: Hon. Danielle J. Forrest, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Panel 3: Progressive Prosecutors:  Decarceration, “Harm of Policing” and Bail Reform

Many western states are making significant structural changes to their campaign and election laws. Innovations like ranked-choice voting and new campaign financial disclosures rules are taking hold in many states, including California, Washington, Arizona, and Alaska. These changes are having real impact on the ground, as evidenced by the recent primary election in Alaska, where ranked-choice voting resulted in a Democrat being elected to Congress for the first time in five decades.Other legislative changes across the west address political speech and its funding sources, including Alaska’s recently enacted ban on so-called “dark money;” Arizona’s Proposition 211 measure, which was passed in the recent election; and Oregon’s consideration of introducing a similar measure on the ballot in 2024. In addition to significant policy debates over the merits of these policies, lawyers are challenging their constitutionality based on First Amendment speech and association grounds. The panel will begin by framing the policy debate, followed by a discussion of the current status of various election-related reforms, including litigation pushing state and federal constitutional challenges to these changes. Featuring:Mr. Daniel Suhr, Senior Attorney, Liberty Justice CenterMr. Kory Langhofer, Managing Partner, StatecraftProf. Richard Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of LawMr. Scott Kendall, Of Counsel, Cashion Gilmore &amp; LindemuthProf. Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of LawHon. Terry Goddard, Shareholder, Goddard Law PLC, Former Arizona Attorney GeneralModerator: Hon. Patrick J. Bumatay, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Many western states are making significant structural changes to their campaign and election laws. Innovations like ranked-choice voting and new campaign financial disclosures rules are taking hold in many states, including California, Washington, Arizona, and Alaska. These changes are having real impact on the ground, as evidenced by the recent primary election in Alaska, where ranked-choice voting resulted in a Democrat being elected to Congress for the first time in five decades. Other legislative changes across the west address political speech and its funding sources, including Alaska’s recently enacted ban on so-called “dark money;” Arizona’s Proposition 211 measure, which was passed in the recent election; and Oregon’s consideration of introducing a similar measure on the ballot in 2024. In addition to significant policy debates over the merits of these policies, lawyers are challenging their constitutionality based on First Amendment speech and association grounds. The panel will begin by framing the policy debate, followed by a discussion of the current status of various election-related reforms, including litigation pushing state and federal constitutional challenges to these changes. Featuring: Mr. Daniel Suhr, Senior Attorney, Liberty Justice Center Mr. Kory Langhofer, Managing Partner, Statecraft Prof. Richard Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law Mr. Scott Kendall, Of Counsel, Cashion Gilmore &amp; Lindemuth Prof. Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law Hon. Terry Goddard, Shareholder, Goddard Law PLC, Former Arizona Attorney General Moderator: Hon. Patrick J. Bumatay, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Panel 2: Recent Developments in Election Law

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 https://fedsoc.org/commentary.

Though I’d like to see more states included in these events series.

It’s great

Auto is uneven at best, some speakers are impossible to hear, please improve.

Fantastic  .....JW

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 <a href="https://fedsoc.org/commentary" rel="noopener nofollow" target="_blank">https://fedsoc.org/commentary</a>.

FedSoc Events

Justice Scalia often said that, while he always tried to get the Bill of Rights cases correct, he cared most about the structural constitutional cases. Once or twice each summer, he even taught a course called Separation of Powers. His opinions on the structural issues of separation of powers and federalism often cited The Federalist Papers. He routinely urged law students and lawyers to read the whole of The Federalist. The authors of the Federalist Papers placed primordial importance on separated powers, both among branches of the federal government and between federal and state governments. With the separation of powers both horizontal and vertical increasingly in doubt, it is particularly important to understand the Federalist's treatment of constitutional structure. This panel, therefore, looks at Justice Scalia's Federalist focus on the importance of separation of powers and federalism as structural protections of liberty.  --  This panel was held on November 17, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC.  --  Featuring: Prof. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center; Hon. Ron DeSantis, U.S. House of Representatives, Florida 6th District; Mr. Roger Pilon, Vice President, Legal Affairs, Cato Institute; Hon. Luther Strange III, Attorney General, Alabama; and Prof. Jonathan Turley, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law; Director of the Environmental Law Advocacy Center; Executive Director, Project for Older Prisoners, The George Washington University Law School. Moderator: Hon. William H. Pryor Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Justice Scalia on Federalism and Separation of Powers 11-17-2016

Justice Scalia believed that the rule of law required a law of rules rather than of balancing tests. He favored rules (like the requirement the President be at least 35 years old) over standards (a requirement that the president be “a mature individual") because they lend themselves more to principled judicial enforcement. As a result, Justice Scalia revolutionized the caselaw he inherited from the Burger Court by eliminating as many balancing tests as possible and replacing them with rules. An example is his favoring of a rule of viewpoint neutrality in freedom of expression cases over separate treatment of various categories of speech. He believed that rules over standards promote the rule of law because they guarantee that judges will decide like cases alike rather than deciding each case on its facts using a totality of the circumstances test. Justice Scalia was so committed to rules over standards that he refused to enforce the non-delegation doctrine because to do so he would have had to employ a balancing test standard, however, in his last year on the bench, there were signs that Justice Scalia was moving away from this position. Justice Scalia also favored rules over standards because they limit lower federal and state court discretion in applying Supreme Court precedents as compared to balancing tests. The reemergence of rules over standards in Supreme Court opinions is another of Justice Scalia's legacies.  --  This panel was held on November 18, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC.  --  Featuring: Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale University; Hon. Frank Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit; Prof. John C. Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law; and Prof. Victoria Nourse, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Moderator: Hon. William Francis Kuntz II, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President &amp; Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.

Rules Versus Standards in Constitutional and Statutory Interpretation [Showcase Panel II] 11-18-2016

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.

Prosecutors Run Amok? 11-14-2015

What is the proper role of the State judiciary when considering questions of federal law?  If there are independent and adequate federal and State grounds, on which basis should a state supreme court decide a case?  --  This panel was part of the 2017 Annual Western Chapters Conference at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA on January 28, 2017.  --  Luncheon: Conversation with State Supreme Court Justices  --  Hon. Clint Bolick, Arizona Supreme Court and Hon. Stephen Markman, Michigan Supreme Court. Moderator: Hon. Diane Sykes, U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit. Introduction: Jennifer Perkins, Assistant Solicitor General, AG Opinions and Ethics at Arizona Attorney General's Office.

Conversation with State Supreme Court Justices 1-28-2017

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has recently increased its use of administrative proceedings, before Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), to seek civil penalties, as an alternative to proceeding in an Article III court. Other federal regulatory and enforcement agencies use ALJs for various purposes at various rates. Although no single set of rules governs all ALJs, they typically differ from Article III courts in important ways, bringing their use under recent criticism. As two examples, ALJs do not enjoy life tenure and they are sometimes employed by and answerable to the agency itself. Our panel will discuss the pros and cons of the use of ALJs at the SEC and other agencies.  --  This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, November 12, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC.  --  Featuring: Prof. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center; Mr. Stephen J. Crimmins, Shareholder, Murphy &amp; McGonigle PC; Prof. Todd E. Pettys, H. Blair and Joan V. White Chair in Civil Litigation, University of Iowa College of Law; and Prof. Tuan Samahon, Villanova University School of Law. Moderator: Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Commissioner, International Trade Commission.

Constitutionality of Administrative Law Judges at the SEC and Elsewhere 11-12-2015

“Those who won our independence," Justice Brandeis wrote nearly a century ago, “eschewed silence coerced by law – the argument of force in its worst form." They believed that “the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones." Holding that belief, the Founding Generation added an amendment to the Constitution that expressly protects the freedom of speech. Today, however, public officials and private citizens facing what they believe to be “evil counsels" have sometimes responded not by offering good counsel but by invoking judicial processes. They use “the argument of force in its worst form" to silence opinions and speech that they disapprove of.  --  Recent examples of this phenomenon include District Attorneys in Texas and Wisconsin who investigated and charged a sitting Governor, the whistleblower who exposed the practices of Planned Parenthood, and those whose political views diverged from those of the District Attorney. In two of those cases, investigators broke into homes and seized computers and documents. Significantly, in each case, the charges were dropped, although not without great angst and effort from the targeted.  --  Mark Steyn has asserted that the process is, itself, the punishment. Steyn has been sued by a Penn State climatologist who famously claims that he was defamed when his writings were subjected to ridicule. Four years after the suit was filed, it is still in its preliminary stages.  --  Most recently, a coterie of Attorneys General, aided by some senators, have declared their intention to stifle dissent on the subject of climate change. The Attorneys General of Massachusetts and the Virgin Islands sent subpoenas for documents to Exxon and a number of think tanks grounding their action on the contention that the dissenters are guilty of fraud.  --  Are these actions appropriate uses of the judicial process?  --  What, if anything, can be done to curtail the use of judicial processes to target speech? Are measures like Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation) laws an appropriate response? Are they constitutional? What about a federal anti-SLAPP law?  --  It is noteworthy that the worst abuses have taken place in state courts. Should Congress allow removal to federal court when a defendant makes a plausible case that the relief sought would violate rights under the First Amendment?  --  Featuring: Prof. Arthur Hellman, Professor of Law, Sally Ann Semenko Endowed Chair, University of Pittsburgh School Law; Hon. Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General, West Virginia; Prof. Patrick A. Parenteau, Senior Counsel, Professor of Law, Vermont Law School; and Ms. Kimberley A. Strassel, Wall Street Journal Editorial Board Member, Author of The Intimidation Game: How the Left is Silencing Free Speech. Moderator: Hon. Steven M. Colloton, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Introduction: Mr. John J. Park, Jr., Of Counsel, Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP.

Using Judicial Processes for Political Purposes 11-19-2016

RESOLVED: Hostile Environment Law, On and Off Campus, Often Violates the First Amendment.  --  The Ninth Annual Rosenkranz Debate was held on November 19, 2016, during The Federalist Society's 2016 National Lawyers Convention.  --  Featuring: Prof. Deborah L. Rhode, Ernest W. McFarland Professor of Law; Director, Center on the Legal Profession; Director, Program in Law and Social Entrepreneurship, Stanford Law School and Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Jennifer W. Elrod, U.S Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society.

Ninth Annual Rosenkranz Debate: Hostile Environment Law and the First Amendment 11-19-2016

Our nation's private sector labor law is a product of the New Deal and the industrial age. In its first edition, the 1935 Wagner Act, employee rights to organize were recognized and employer unfair labor practices were defined. Twelve years later, the pendulum swung and union unfair labor practices were added to the Act. To address corruption, the 1959 Landrum-Griffin Act was enacted to require labor organizations, employers, and labor relations consultants to file annual reports, and union members were granted a Bill of Rights. The NLRA was last amended in 1974, addressing the health care industry.  --  Over the past 80 years, our nation's economy, indeed, the global economy, has changed significantly. While some efforts have been made over the last four decades to amend federal labor law, none have succeeded. To fill the vacuum, the National Labor Relations Board has stepped in as what some would describe as a quasi-legislature, issuing decisions and rules reflecting the Board's political majority's bias to circumvent Congressional deadlock.  --  Should labor law be viewed as a vehicle to restore organized labor's density of 60+ years ago or to ensure employee rights to join or not join a labor union? Or, should labor law be overhauled to ensure labor unions' presence globally and to empower organized labor to affect or determine global work standards and business models generally? And, should labor law be politically aligned with one party? Is labor law about the American citizen/worker or about organized labor's institutional survival?  --  This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, November 12, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC.  --  Featuring: Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law. Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law; Hon. John N. Raudabaugh, Reed Larson Professor of Labor Law, Ave Maria School of Law; Mr. Bill Samuel, Director of Government Affairs, AFL-CIO; and Mr. Mark Schneider, General Counsel, Int'l Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Moderator: Hon. Joan L. Larsen, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of Michigan.

80th Anniversary of the National Labor Relations Act & Congressional Action 11-12-2015

The past forty years have seen a surge in efforts to litigate under state constitutional provisions furthering individual liberties. Panelists could look to numerous examples of differences between the state and federal constitutions (examples include criminal justice, property rights, same-sex marriage, education/school choice, labor, speech, and economic liberty) and explore how such differences have affected litigation strategy and forum shopping. Which emerging controversies are ripe to be litigated in state courts as opposed to the federal courts? What about business and arbitration cases? In the light of the results of the 2016 election, might some litigators further turn to the state courts to best protect liberty in light of changes to the federal bench?  --  This panel was part of the 2017 Annual Western Chapters Conference at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA on January 28, 2017.  --  Litigating State Constitutional Issues  --  Thomas F. Ahearne, Foster Pepper and Counsel to Plaintiffs, McCleary v. State; Paul Avelar, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice; and Jeremy Rosen, Partner, Horvitz &amp; Levy LLP and Director, 9th Circuit Appellate Clinic, Pepperdine University School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Carolyn Kuhl, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Introduction: Joel Ard, Member, Foster Pepper PLLC and Carrie Ann Donnell, Legal Programs Director, Goldwater Institute.

Litigating State Constitutional Issues 1-28-2017

The Fifth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference will examine the changing and often convoluted relationship between the legislative and the executive branches in the United States government. The Conference began with an opening address by Senator Mike Lee and concluded with a closing address by OMB Director Mick Mulvaney.  --  This panel of the 2017 Executive Branch Review Conference was held at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. on May 17, 2017.  --  Featuring: Hon. Todd F. Gaziano, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Law and Executive Director of Pacific Legal Foundation's DC Center; Hon. David M. McIntosh, President, Club for Growth and Vice Chairman, The Federalist Society; and Prof. David C. Vladeck, A.B. Chettle Chair in Civil Procedure, Georgetown University Law Center. Moderator: Mr. Stuart S. Taylor, Jr., Contributing Editor, National Journal.

What is Congress Doing to Reassert its Power Over Agencies? 5-17-2017

Congress' passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 did not end the debate on campaign finance. Instead, it arguably created more legal questions than it did answers.  --  The Act's passage quickly unleashed subsequent litigation, resulting in a number of Supreme Court decisions directly related to the BCRA and, more broadly, to general laws regulating campaign finance. These recent Supreme Court cases, including the much-discussed Citizens United decision, struck down many campaign regulations on the grounds that they infringe upon individuals' First Amendment rights. Some have charged that decisions like these have increased the influence of a privileged few in our political system. Others have argued that these decisions are not only doctrinally correct, but the prudential fears many have expressed have not been borne out.  --  Still, Americans remain discontented with the current campaign finance regime. According to a New York Times/CBS News poll in 2015, 46% of respondents agree that the country needs to completely rebuild its campaign finance system, while 39% believed it requires fundamental change. Today, groups and individuals continue to fight limits on political contributions, and restrictions on political speech, while others push for stricter regulations.  --  This panel will weigh in on whether decisions like Citizens United are correct as a matter of law, and if they are desirable from a policy perspective. The panel will also discuss the jurisprudential foundations of Citizens United—including the landmark case of Buckley v. Valeo—and where future fights over campaign finance regulations are likely to occur.  --  This panel was presented at the 2017 National Student Symposium on Saturday, March 4, 2017, at Columbia Law School in New York City, New York.  --  Featuring: Prof. Brad Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law, Capital University Law School; Former FEC Commissioner; Prof. Richard Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law; Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University School of Law; and Prof. Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Fellow, Brennan Center for Justice; Associate Professor of Law, Stetson University College of Law. Moderator: Hon. Richard J. Sullivan, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York.

Campaign Finance and Free Speech 3-4-2017

For all of his many contributions to modern American jurisprudence, no area of law bears Justice Scalia's imprint more than administrative law. Indeed, he dedicated his entire career to it: from teaching at Virginia and Chicago, to serving in the Ford Administration, to his regulatory policy and legal writings at the American Enterprise Institute, to his service on the D.C. Circuit and ultimately the Supreme Court, he left a body of work unmatched by any modern Supreme Court justice. Whether writing in defense of particular doctrine or in criticism of it, his opinions and essays fundamentally shaped modern administrative law. Yet even late in his career, he continued to reflect and rethink his views, especially on questions such as Chevron deference and Seminole Rock deference. This panel collects some of the nation's most significant administrative law minds, to reflect on his legacy and evolution.  --  This panel was held on November 19, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC.  --  Featuring: Hon. Ronald A. Cass, President, Cass &amp; Associates, PC and Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law; Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Kirkland &amp; Ellis LLP; Prof. E. Donald Elliott, Senior of Counsel at Covington &amp; Burling, Professor (Adjunct) of Law, Yale Law School; and Prof. Lisa Heinzerling, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Moderator: Mr. Eugene Scalia, Partner, Gibson Dunn &amp; Crutcher. Introduction: Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor, PLLC.

The Evolution of Justice Scalia's Views on Administrative Law 11-19-2016

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.

Eighth Annual Rosenkranz Debate- The Constitution and Morality - 11-14-2015

This panel will consider Justice Scalia's legacy in national security law, revisiting his opinions in major national security cases, including Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and Boumediene v. Bush. It will also discuss the influence Justice Scalia's jurisprudence has exerted on national security law more broadly and his views on the role of the courts reviewing national security policy.  --  This panel was held on November 18, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC.  --  Featuring: Prof. Bradford R. Clark, William Cranch Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School; Ms. Elizabeth Goitein, Co-Director, Liberty &amp; National Security Program, Brennan Center for Justice; Mr. Adam Klein, Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security; and Prof. Stephen I. Vladeck, Professor of Law, The University of Texas at Austin School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Jerry E. Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Justice Scalia's Jurisprudence and National Security 11-8-2016

With the U.S. Supreme Court cert grant in the Little Sisters of the Poor case, religious liberties is once again in the legal and media spotlight. What is the recent record of the government in protecting religious liberty? Our panel will discuss everything from the contraceptive mandate and its exemptions to ministerial hiring, RLUPA, the faith-based initiative, the Planned Parenthood controversy, and everything in between.  --  This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, November 12, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC.  --  Featuring: Dr. Stanley Carlson-Thies, Founder &amp; Senior Director, Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance; Mr. William P. Marshall, William Rand Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law; Mr. William L. Saunders, Senior Vice President of Legal Affairs, Americans United for Life; and Mr. Adam J. White, Counsel, Boyden Gray &amp; Associates. Moderator: Hon. Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Examination of the Obama Administration’s Protection of Religious Liberty 11-12-2015

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 &amp; 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.

Ferguson, Baltimore, and Criminal Justice Reform 11-13-2015

Senator Ted Cruz delivered this address at the 2016 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 18, 2016. He was introduced by Dean Reuter, Vice President &amp; Director of Practice Groups at The Federalist Society.

Address by Senator Ted Cruz 11-18-2016

PAPER

This panel was held on January 5, 2017 during the 19th Annual Faculty Conference in San Francisco, CA.  --  Young Legal Scholars Paper Presentations  --  Prof. Daniel Hemel (University of Chicago Law School) &amp; Prof. Aaron Nielson (Brigham Young University School of Law): "Chevron Step One-and-a-Half"; Prof. Ryan Holte (Southern Illinois College of Law) &amp; Prof. Christopher Seaman (Washington &amp; Lee University School of Law): “Patent Injunctions on Appeal: An Empirical Study of the Federal Circuit’s Application of eBay”; Prof. Stephen Sachs (Duke Law School): “Pennoyer Was Right: Jurisdiction and General Law”; Prof. Christopher Walker (Ohio State University College of Law): “Legislating in the Shadows”; and Mr. Ilan Wurman (Winston &amp; Strawn): “As-Applied Nondelegation”. Commenter: Prof. Richard Epstein, New York University School of Law, University of Chicago Law School. Moderator: Prof. Amy Coney Barrett, Notre Dame Law School.

Young Legal Scholars Paper Presentations - 1-5-2017

This panel, Florida and the Future of Trade Policy, was held on February 4, 2017, at the 2017 Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's BoardWalk Inn at the Walt Disney World® Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida.  --  Featuring: Alice Ancona, Director of Global Outreach for the Florida Chamber of Commerce; Stephen Ezell, Vice President, Global Innovation Policy, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation; Dr. Thomas Palley, Senior Economic Policy Advisor, AFL-CIO; and Bryan Riley, Jay Van Andel Senior Policy Analyst, Trade Policy, The  Heritage Foundation. Moderator: Judge Jonathan Gerber, Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal. Introduction: Morgan W. Streetman, Founder and Principal, Streetman Law. Remarks: Daniel Woodring, Principal Attorney, Woodring Law Firm.

Florida and the Future of Trade Policy 2-4-2017

This panel, The Legacy of Justice Scalia, was held on February 3, 2017, at the 2017 Florida Chapters Conference at Disney's BoardWalk Inn at the Walt Disney World® Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida.  --  Featuring: Prof. John Baker, Professor Emeritus, LSU Law Center; Rachel Kovner, Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States; Prof. Michael Morley, Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law, Barry University; and Hon. Jeff Sutton, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Moderator: Hon. Ricky Polston, Justice, Florida Supreme Court. Introduction: Jordan E. Pratt, Deputy Solicitor General, Florida Office of the Attorney General.

The Legacy of Justice Scalia 2-3-2017

The best philosophy podcast episodes. Asking questions about how to live a better life, what it means to be and do good, to the idea of God. This topic includes episodes that bring about important questions that everyone should be asking themselves. Add episodes you're interested into your queue below!

Best Episodes on Practical Philosophy & How To Live

The best podcast episodes about true crime. For any thrill seeking podcast listeners who just can't get enough of the captivating stories of murderers and criminals. This topic has all the best episodes from many different true crime podcasts.  Add episodes you're interested into your queue below!