The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
The Federalist Society's 2013 National Lawyers Convention was held on Thursday, November 14 through Saturday, November 16 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. The topic of this year's convention was: Textualism and the Role of Judges.
Back to top
9:00 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.
Welcome & Opening Address by Mike Lee
2013 National Lawyers Convention
| Topics: | Constitution • Federal Courts • Federalist Society • Jurisprudence • Philosophy • State Courts • Supreme Court |
|---|
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Event Video
Description
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.
- Hon. Michael S. Lee, United States Senate, Utah
- Introduction: Mr. Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President, The Federalist Society
Speakers
9:30 a.m. - 11:15 a.m.
Showcase Panel I: Textualism and the Bill of Rights
2013 National Lawyers Convention
| Topics: | Federal Courts • Founding Era & History • Jurisprudence • Philosophy • Supreme Court |
|---|
Grand Ballroom
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Event Video
Description
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.
- 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
- 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
Speakers
11:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
Address by Ted Cruz
2013 National Lawyers Convention
| Topics: | Constitution • Federal Courts • Founding Era & History • Supreme Court |
|---|
Grand Ballroom
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Event Video
Description
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.
- Hon. Ted Cruz, United States Senate, Texas
- Introduction: Mr. Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President, The Federalist Society
Speakers
12:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.
Corporations: 'New' Antitrust Enforcement Authority under the FTC Act: Defensible Statutory Interpretation or Plumbing the Penumbras?
2013 National Lawyers Convention
| Topics: | Corporations, Securities & Antitrust |
|---|
East Room
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Event Video
Description
Is the antitrust enforcement authority of the Federal Trade Commission, proceeding under the FTC Act, broader than that of other litigants – whether private plaintiffs or the Department of Justice – proceeding under the Sherman Act? Section 5 of the FTC Act prohibits “unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce” – language which some have interpreted as equivalent in scope with parallel provisions of the Sherman Act. As recent Supreme Court decisions have appeared to narrow the scope of the Sherman Act, however, the FTC has moved in the opposite direction. In addition to the Valassis and U-Haul “invitation to collude” cases (a cause of action not recognized under the Sherman Act), the FTC has pursued so-called “Sherman Act plus” antitrust actions against N-Data and Intel. Is this seeming divergence between FTC Act and Sherman Act enforcement authority legally defensible? What are its broader policy implications?
The Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Group hosted this panel on "'New' Antitrust Enforcement Authority under the FTC Act" on Thursday, November 14, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention.
- Mr. David A. Balto, David A. Balto Law Offices; Program Fellow, Health Policy Program, New America Foundation
- Mr. Thomas O. Barnett, Partner, Covington & Burling LLP
- Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Commissioner, U.S. International Trade Commission
- Hon. Maureen, K. Ohlhausen, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
- Mr. J. Thomas Rosch, Of Counsel, Latham & Watkins LLP
- Moderator: Hon. Stephen F. Williams, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Speakers
12:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.
Religious Liberties: Religious Liberty & Conflicting Moral Visions
2013 National Lawyers Convention
| Topics: | First Amendment • Healthcare • Philosophy • Politics • Religious Liberty • Religious Liberties |
|---|
State Room
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Event Video
Description
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.
- 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
- 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
Speakers
2:00 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.
Labor & Employment: Recess Appointments: Implications of Noel Canning
2013 National Lawyers Convention
| Topics: | Labor & Employment Law • Separation of Powers • Supreme Court • Federalism & Separation of Powers |
|---|
Grand Ballroom
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Event Video
Description
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.
- 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
- Ms. Elizabeth B. Wydra, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountablity Center
- Moderator: Hon. Raymond M. Kethledge, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Speakers
2:00 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.
Intellectual Property: Intellectual Property, Free Markets and Competition Policy
2013 National Lawyers Convention
| Topics: | Intellectual Property • Law & Economics |
|---|
State Room
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Event Video
Description
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.
- 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
- 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
Speakers
3:45 p.m. - 5:15 p.m.
Telecommunications: FCC vs. the First Amendment
2013 National Lawyers Convention
| Topics: | Administrative Law & Regulation • First Amendment • Separation of Powers • Telecommunications & Electronic Media • Federalism & Separation of Powers • Free Speech & Election Law |
|---|
State Room
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Event Video
Description
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.
- 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
- Hon. Ajit V. Pai, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
- Moderator: Hon. Brett M. Kavanaugh, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Speakers
3:45 p.m. - 5:15 p.m.
Federalism: Competitive versus Cooperative Federalism
2013 National Lawyers Convention
| Topics: | Constitution • Federalism • State Governments • Federalism & Separation of Powers |
|---|
Grand Ballroom
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Event Video
Description
The American system of federalism is at the heart of many disagreements over important constitutional and public policy issues. How should we balance state and federal rights? Can we make better progress by allowing states to pursue their own policies independently or should the federal government take a more active role? Should we strive for a system in which states compete with each other and with the federal government, or should we instead work to strengthen cooperation among the states and between federal and state government?
The Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group hosted this panel on "Competitive versus Cooperative Federalism" on Thursday, November 14, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention.
- Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center
- Prof. Dr Jörg Fedtke, Tulane University School of Law
- Prof. Robert Mikos, Professor of Law and Director, Program in Law and Government, Vanderbilt Law School
- Prof. Erin Ryan, Lewis & Clark Law School
- Moderator: Hon. Carlos T. Bea, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
- Introduction: Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, Chapman University School of Law
Speakers
3:45 p.m. - 5:15 p.m.
Litigation: The New Age of Litigation Financing
2013 National Lawyers Convention
| Topics: | Federalism • Financial Services • Litigation • State Governments |
|---|
East Room
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Event Video
Description
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.
- 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
- 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
Speakers
7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.
An Interview with Justice Clarence Thomas
2013 National Lawyers Convention Annual Dinner
| Topics: | Constitution • Jurisprudence • Philosophy • Supreme Court |
|---|
Regency Ballroom
Omni Shoreham Hotel
2500 Calvert Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20008
Omni Shoreham Hotel
2500 Calvert Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20008
Event Video
Description
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.
- Hon. Clarence Thomas, United States Supreme Court
- Hon. Diane S. Sykes, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
- Hon. David M. McIntosh, Partner, Mayer Brown and Vice Chairman, The Federalist Society
Speakers
9:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m.
Showcase Panel II: Textualism and Constitutional Interpretation
2013 National Lawyers Convention
| Topics: | Constitution • Founding Era & History • Jurisprudence • Philosophy • Supreme Court |
|---|
Grand Ballroom
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Event Video
Description
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.
- 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
- 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
Speakers
11:15 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
Address by Scott Walker
2013 National Lawyers Convention
| Topics: | Constitution • Federalism • State Governments • Federalism & Separation of Powers |
|---|
Grand Ballroom
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Event Video
Description
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.
- Governor Scott Walker, State of Wisconsin
- Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
Speakers
12:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.
Financial Services: Too Big To Fail - What Now?
2013 National Lawyers Convention
| Topics: | Financial Services • Law & Economics • Financial Services & E-Commerce |
|---|
East Room
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Event Video
Description
In the aftermath of the recent economic crisis a remarkable political consensus developed that no financial firm in America should be immune from failure. Operationally, that consensus begins with hostility to providing government bailouts. The Dodd-Frank Act requires mandatory “living wills” for systemically important financial companies in addition to limiting the power of government officials to provide bailouts while granting the FDIC “orderly liquidation authority.” Other proposals have been offered to “bust up” the biggest banks or to require enhanced capital for the largest banks, which most likely would force them to downsize.
Which of these steps will be effective? Which might have unpleasant side effects or even be counterproductive? Will government officials really stand back when confronted with the failure of a systemically important institution and risk “bad headlines,” or worse? Does TBTF put smaller financial institutions at a competitive disadvantage? What about the lack of due process in Dodd-Frank’s orderly liquidation authority? Is there a bankruptcy procedure that would be fairer and better suited to the liquidation of a large financial firm? How would the ability of the U.S. to be competitive in international finance be affected by some of these proposals? Our panel will address these and other important legal and policy issues that remain unanswered as the economy struggles to return to normal.
The Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group hosted this panel on "Too Big To Fail - What Now?" on Friday, November 15, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention.
- Mr. Martin N. Baily, Bernard L. Schwartz Chair in Economic Policy Development, Brookings Institution
- Mr. Timothy P. Carney, Visiting Fellow, Culture of Competition Project, American Enterprise Institute and Senior Political Columnist, Washington Examiner
- Mr. Randall D. Guynn, Partner and Head of the Financial Institutions Group, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
- Mr. Robert E. Litan, Director of Research, Bloomberg Government, Bloomberg News
- Moderator: Hon. Paul S. Atkins, Chief Executive Officer, Patomak Global Partners LLC and former Commissioner, Securities and Exchange Commission
Speakers
12:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.
Criminal Law: Criminal Law Enforcement versus the Free Press
2013 National Lawyers Convention
| Topics: | Criminal Law & Procedure • First Amendment • Free Speech & Election Law |
|---|
State Room
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Event Video
Description
What are the First Amendment rights of press in the context of criminal investigations, and when national security is at issue? In the modern, digital age, is there even agreement on who qualifies as press? Should institutional or traditional press have greater rights over non-traditional media, including bloggers? What are the rights of media to publish material leaked from the government? Does the answer change if the media solicited the material or otherwise participated in the leak? What are the policy and legal considerations when it comes to a national media shield law? These and other questions will be addressed by our panel of experts.
The Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group hosted this panel on "Criminal Law Enforcement versus the Free Press" on Friday, November 15, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention.
- Mr. Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Correspondent, The New York Times
- Prof. Eric M. Freedman, Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Hofstra University School of Law
- Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles School of Law
- Hon. Michael Mukasey, Partner, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and former United States Attorney General
- Moderator: Hon. A. Raymond Randolph, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
- Introduction: Mr. John G. Malcolm, Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation
Speakers
12:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.
Civil Rights: Use of Disparate Impact Analysis
2013 National Lawyers Convention
| Topics: | Civil Rights • Contracts • Education Policy • Financial Services • Labor & Employment Law |
|---|
Chinese Room
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Event Video
Description
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.
- 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
- 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
Speakers
2:15 p.m. - 3:15 p.m.
Discussion: NSA Data Collection
2013 National Lawyers Convention
| Topics: | Security & Privacy • International & National Security Law |
|---|
Grand Ballroom
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Event Video
Description
On Friday, November 15, 2013, the Federalist Society hosted a discussion between Former United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Professor Jeremy A. Rabkin of George Mason University School of Law on "NSA Data Collection" at the 2013 National Lawyers Convention. Former Acting United States Attorney General George J. Terwilliger moderated.
- Hon. Michael Mukasey, Partner, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and former United States Attorney General
- Prof. Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law
- Moderator: Hon. George J. Terwilliger III, Partner, Morgan Lewis
Speakers
3:30 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
International: Cybersecurity – The Policy and Politics of a Leading National Security Threat
2013 National Lawyers Convention
| Topics: | International Law & Trade • Security & Privacy • International & National Security Law |
|---|
Grand Ballroom
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Event Video
Description
Cyber attacks were the first identified global threat in the U.S. Intelligence Community's 2013 Worldwide Threat Assessment. Government officials have warned of a "Cyber Pearl Harbor". Yet there is little consensus on the best measures to prevent and mitigate cyber attacks. This panel will address key questions such as information sharing and related privacy concerns, the effectiveness and burdens of regulation of critical infrastructure, the possibility of preemptive active defense, and the effects of the exposure of the NSA programs on cybersecurity.
The International & National Security Law Practice Group hosted this panel on "Cybersecurity -- The Policy and Politics of a Leading National Security Threat" on Friday, November 15, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention.Mr. Steven G. Bradbury, Partner, Dechert LLP and former head, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice
- Mr. Joel F. Brenner, Principal, Joel Brenner LLC and former National Counterintelligence Executive, former Inspector General and Senior Counsel, National Security Agency
- Ms. Michelle Richardson, Legislative Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union
- Mr. Paul Rosenzweig, Red Branch Law and Consulting and former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Principal
- Prof. John Choon Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law
- Moderator: Mr. Vincent J. Vitkowsky, Chairman, International & National Security Law Practice Group, the Federalist Society
Speakers
3:30 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Free Speech: The First Amendment and Government Benefits
2013 National Lawyers Convention
| Topics: | Administrative Law & Regulation • First Amendment • Religious Liberty • Free Speech & Election Law • Religious Liberties |
|---|
State Room
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Event Video
Description
The government (federal, state, and local) offers a wide range of benefits to groups. Some benefits are monetary subsidies. Some consist of access to government property such as university classrooms and bulletin boards. Some of the most important benefits are income and property tax exemptions, which the Supreme Court has said are tantamount to subsidies. What sorts of speech-restrictive conditions may the government impose on such subsidies? May the government insist that benefited groups refrain from using the benefits for religious commentary, for electioneering and lobbying, for speaking about abortion, or for creating “indecent” or “disrespectful” art? May the government insist that benefited groups not discriminate in their choice of leaders or members? May the government insist that benefited groups affirmatively expressive certain views (such as opposition to prostitution)?
This issue has divided the Court in a wide range of cases, such as Rust v. Sullivan, Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, NEA v. Finley, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, and, most recently, USAID v. Alliance for Open Society International. It has also come up in the news, with the IRS’s investigation of Tea Party groups that apply for tax-exempt status – such investigations are closely tied to the statutory restrictions on electioneering and lobbying by tax-exempt groups. And the issue has in recent years sometimes inverted the usual partisan divides: in Rosenberger and Christian Legal Society, for instance, it has been the conservatives who have argued for free speech restriction even when government-provided benefits are involved, and the liberals who have argued that speakers who accept government benefits must also accept the restrictions imposed on those benefits.
The Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group hosted this panel on "The First Amendment and Government Benefits" on Friday, November 15, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention.
- Prof. Lillian R. BeVier, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Virginia School of Law
- Prof. David D. Cole, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
- Dr. John C. Eastman, Professor, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service; Former Dean (2007-2010); Director, Center of Constitutional Jurisprudence, Chapman University School of Law
- Prof. Martin S. Lederman, Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
- Moderator: Hon. Timothy M. Tymkovich, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
- Introduction: Mr. Erik S. Jaffe, Sole Practitioner, Erik S. Jaffe, PC
Speakers
5:30 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.
13th Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture
2013 National Lawyers Convention
| Topics: | Constitution • Federalist Society • Philosophy • Supreme Court |
|---|
Grand Ballroom
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Event Video
Description
On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society established this annual lecture in Barbara's memory because of her enormous contributions as an active member, supporter, and volunteer leader. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals. In 2013, the Honorable Neil M. Gorsuch of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit delivered the lecture. He was introduced by Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President of the Federalist Society.
- Hon. Neil M. Gorsuch, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
- Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society
For information about Barbara Olson and this lecture series, click HERE.
For a list of past lecturers, click HERE.
Speakers
9:00 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.
Showcase Panel III: Formalism and Deference in Administrative Law
2013 National Lawyers Convention
| Topics: | Administrative Law & Regulation • Constitution • Jurisprudence • Philosophy • Separation of Powers • Supreme Court |
|---|
Grand Ballroom
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Event Video
Description
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) is a landmark case that has changed the face of modern administrative law. This panel will address the rightness and limitations of Chevron deference, especially in the context of agency decisions on the scope of the agencies’ jurisdictional mandates. Should the federal courts defer or should they not defer in this context? Justices Scalia and Thomas recently differed on this issue from Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy and Alito. Who is right on this issue and why? Does the answer depend, in any measure, on the growth of the administrative state? Are there larger issues of jurisprudential philosophy at stake?
The Federalist Society's Practice Groups presented this showcase panel on "Formalism and Deference in Administrative Law" on Saturday, November 16, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention.
- Prof. Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia University School of Law
- Prof. Kristin Hickman, University of Minnesota Law School
- Prof. Thomas W. Merrill, Charles Evans Hughes Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
- Prof. Jide O. Nzelibe, Northwestern University School of Law
- Moderator: Hon. Jennifer W. Elrod, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
- Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
Speakers
10:45 a.m. - 12:15 p.m.
Professional Responsibility: Regulation of the Legal Profession in the 21st Century: Should Professional Regulation Favor Social Policy over Client Protection?
2013 National Lawyers Convention
| Topics: | Culture • Politics • Professional Responsibility & Legal Education |
|---|
State Room
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Event Video
Description
In 1990, the Supreme Court unanimously held that an integrated state bar association, which all lawyers licensed in a state must join, could not use the compulsory dues paid by its members to pursue political or ideological activities unrelated to regulating the legal profession or improving the legal system. Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1 (1990). The Court explained, “[T]he extreme ends of the spectrum are clear: Compulsory dues may not be extended to endorse or advance a gun control or nuclear weapons freeze initiative; at the other end of the spectrum petitioners have no valid constitutional objection to their compulsory dues being spent for activities connected to disciplining members of the Bar or proposing ethical codes for the profession.” Id., at 15-16.
In the nearly 25 years since the Court decided Keller, the entities empowered to promulgate ethical rules binding on the lawyers practicing in a state have imposed a variety of regulations, some of which are more closely and clearly related to the regulation of the legal profession than others. Requirements like continuing legal education and contributions to client security funds are generally seen to fall within the scope of permissible regulation. The imposition of mandatory diversity training in Minnesota and a requirement that law students perform a specified number of hours of pro bono work as a condition to their becoming licensed to practice in New York look different.
Should state regulation of the bar be limited to imposing rules whose purpose is the protection of client interests? Or, can the regulators impose rules designed to make lawyers “better” people in the belief that “better” people will better serve their clients? How far can the organized bar go in “proposing ethical codes for the profession?” To what extent do programs like mandatory diversity training and requiring law students to perform a specified number of pro bono hours serve the interests of clients?
The Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group hosted this panel on "Regulation of the Legal Profession in the 21st Century: Should Professional Regulation Favor Social Policy over Client Protection?" on Saturday, November 16, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention.
- Mr. Scott Johnson, Co-Founder and Contributor, Power Line Blog
- Mrs. Margaret A. Little, Partner, Little and Little and Director, Pro Bono Center, The Federalist Society
- Prof. Thomas D. Morgan, Oppenheim Professor of Antitrust and Trade Regulation Law, The George Washington University Law School
- Prof. Alan B. Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest/Public Service, The George Washington University Law School
- Moderator: Hon. David R. Stras, Associate Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court
- Introduction: Mr. Jack Park Jr., Of Counsel, Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP
Speakers
10:45 a.m. - 12:15 p.m.
Environmental Law: New Directions in Takings Law
2013 National Lawyers Convention
| Topics: | Constitution • Environmental & Energy Law • Property Law • State Governments • Supreme Court • Environmental Law & Property Rights |
|---|
Chinese Room
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Event Video
Description
This past year, the Supreme Court decided three important regulatory takings cases, including Arkansas Game & Fish Commission, Koontz, and Horne. At the state level, several states, including Virginia and Mississippi, recently adopted new constitutional amendments limiting the definition of public use and restricting the power of eminent domain. Many, including Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, have urged the Supreme Court to reconsider its Public Use Clause jurisprudence and overrule or limit cases such as Kelo v. City of New London. At both the state and federal level, takings law is very much in flux. This panel will assess where we are on important constitutional takings issues, and where we should be going.
The Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group hosted this panel on "New Directions in Takings Law" on Saturday, November 16, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention.
- Mr. Paul J. Beard II, Principal Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
- Prof. James L. Huffman, Dean Emeritus, Lewis & Clark Law School
- Prof. Thomas W. Merrill, Charles Evans Hughes Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
- Prof. Stewart E. Sterk, H. Bert and Ruth Mack Professor of Real Estate Law, Cardozo School of Law
- Moderator: Hon. Edith Brown Clement, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Speakers
10:45 a.m. - 12:15 p.m.
Administrative Law: Executive Branch Gone Wild? 21st Century Checks and Balances
2013 National Lawyers Convention
| Topics: | Administrative Law & Regulation • Separation of Powers • Federalism & Separation of Powers |
|---|
East Room
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Event Video
Description
Has Congress has over-delegated to agencies and failed to provide meaningful oversight? Should Congress coordinate its oversight responsibility with its appropriations authority? Are the courts, in the wake of the Chevron case, and most recently in City of Arlington, deferring too much to agencies? Are the President and White House able to provide oversight, and does the answer change for cabinet-level departments versus independent agencies?
The Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group hosted this panel on "Executive Branch Gone Wild? 21st Century Checks and Balances" on Saturday, November 16, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention.
- Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
- Prof. Rachel E. Barkow, Segal Family Professor of Regulatory Law and Policy, New York University School of Law
- Hon. Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General, West Virginia
- Prof. David Schoenbrod, Visiting Scholar, American Enterprise Institute and Trustee Professor, New York Law School
- Prof. Jonathan Turley, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law; Director of the Environmental Law Advocacy Center and Executive Director, Project for Older Prisoners, The George Washington University Law School
- Moderator: Hon. Eileen J. O’Connor, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP and former Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division, United States Department of Justice
Speakers
12:15 p.m. - 2:15 p.m.
Sixth Annual Rosenkranz Debate and Luncheon
2013 National Lawyers Convention
| Topics: | Constitution • Federal Courts • Separation of Powers • State Courts • Supreme Court • Federalism & Separation of Powers |
|---|
Grand Ballroom
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Event Video
Description
RESOLVED: Courts are too Deferential to the Legislature
The Sixth Annual Rosenkranz Debate was held on November 16, 2013, during The Federalist Society's 2013 National Lawyers Convention.
- Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law Center
- Hon. J. Harvie Wilkinson, United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
- Moderator: Hon. Jerry E. Smith, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
- Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society
Speakers
2:15 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.
Showcase Panel IV: Textualism and Statutory Interpretation
2013 National Lawyers Convention
| Topics: | Constitution • Founding Era & History • Jurisprudence • Philosophy |
|---|
State Room
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Event Video
Description
In recent years, textualism has come to replace legislative history as the most important tool available to Supreme Court Justices when interpreting statutory text. This panel will examine the new textualism and will debate its merits. What are the arguments for and against textualism? When, if ever, ought a judge consider legislative history? This panel will also address the question of whether the Justices all share the same approach to statutory interpretation or whether they continue to diverge in predictable ways. What effect does the choice of interpretive techniques have on congressional drafting of legislation in the future?
The Federalist Society's Practice Groups presented this showcase panel on "Textualism and Statutory Interpretation" on Saturday, November 16, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention.
- Prof. John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law and Armistead M. Dobie Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
- Hon. Frank H. Easterbrook, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
- Prof. William N. Eskridge, Jr., John A. Garver Prof. of Jurisprudence, Yale Law School
- Prof. Abbe R. Gluck, Yale Law School
- Prof. Victoria F. Nourse, Georgetown University Law Center
- Moderator: Hon. William H. Pryor Jr., United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Speakers
4:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Closing Panel: The Electorate and the Courts
2013 National Lawyers Convention
| Topics: | Constitution • Culture • Election Law • Federal Courts • Politics • Supreme Court • Free Speech & Election Law |
|---|
State Room
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
The Mayflower Hotel
1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Event Video
Description
The Federalist Society's Practice Groups presented this panel on "The Electorate and the Courts" on Saturday, November 16, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention.
- Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Bancroft PLLC and former United States Solicitor General
- Mr. John Fund, National Affairs Columnist, National Review and Fox News Analyst
- Hon. Seth P. Waxman, Partner, WilmerHale and former United States Solicitor General
- Moderator: Hon. David M. McIntosh, Partner, Mayer Brown and Vice Chairman, The Federalist Society
