Fedsoc Events

At the Federal Communications Commission’s November 2023 meeting, the agency approved rules aimed at preventing and eliminating digital discrimination. These rules are a culmination of a controversial multi-year proceeding, kicked off by Section 60506 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021.In this webinar, a panel of experts will discuss policies and issues underlying the FCC’s rules, challenges that companies may face in compliance with the rules, as well as the issues before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the FCC’s digital discrimination order is being challenged. Panelists will also discuss some of the potential future obligations that remain open in the FCC’s proceeding.Featuring:Diana Eisner, Vice President, Policy & Advocacy, USTelecomDenny Law, General Manager / CEO, Golden West TelecommunicationsDr. Alisa Valentin, Broadband Policy Director, Public KnowledgeModerator: Danielle Thumann, Senior Attorney, Government Relations, Crown Castle---To regis

Join us for a closing banquet and the Arthur N. Rupe Debate, entitled "Resolved: The Separation of Powers is a Dangerous, Extraconstitutional Maxim." Special code on nametag required for admission.Featuring:Prof. Noah Feldman, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law and Director, Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Steven J. Menashi, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Suppose we don’t like how our governmental powers are separated. Perhaps we think the executive branch has too much power. Or perhaps we think that it is doing more than the original meaning of “the executive power” would suggest, but we think that is a good thing. What are the legitimate methods of constitutional change in our republic? Must we amend the Constitution? How should an originalist approach these questions?Featuring:Prof. Sherif Girgis, Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Lawrence Lessig, Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Stephen E. Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Britt C. Grant, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

New presidential administrations start with a flurry of administrative actions. These fresh rules, guidelines, and procedures in turn face judicial scrutiny from the moment they are finalized. Oversight from the judiciary can keep agencies accountable and within the bounds of the law. But when judges get the final say on everything the executive does, policies can take years—even decades—to implement and can fluctuate wildly with the ebbs and flows of litigation. Has something gone awry with the way judges are “saying what the law is”?Featuring:Prof. John C. Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Amanda L. Tyler, Shannon C. Turner Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley School of LawProf. Jeannie Suk Gersen, John H. Watson, Jr. Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Gary S. Lawson, Associate Dean for Intellectual Life and Philip S. Beck Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law Moderator: Hon. Ben

Many critics of modern administrative law want a world where Congress does more things, and the executive does less—which would lead to relative stability across administrations. Simultaneously, many also want their vote in presidential elections to have meaningful policy consequences. Between these two competing intuitions lies a tension at the heart of much contemporary political strife, which, of course, has a great deal to do with who controls Congress and who controls the White House.Featuring:Prof. Julian Davis Mortenson, James G. Phillipp Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law SchoolEli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLPProf. Jed Handelsman Shugerman, Professor of Law and Joseph Lipsett Scholar, Boston University School of LawProf. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Jennifer Walker Elrod, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Professor Cass Sunstein and Judge Raymond Kethledge will open the symposium with a fireside chat exploring the conceptual question of why states choose to separate powers along with the relationship between the separation of powers and the rule of law.FeaturingHon. Raymond M. Kethledge, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Cass R. Sunstein, Robert Walmsley University Professor, Harvard Law School

Featuring:Hon. Joseph Deters, Justice, Supreme Court of OhioHon. Michael Donnelly, Justice, Supreme Court of OhioHon. Lisa Forbes, Judge, 8th District Court of Appeals, State of OhioHon. Daniel Hawkins, Judge, Franklin County CourtHon. Megan Shanahan, Judge, Hamilton County CourtHon. Melody Stewart, Justice, Supreme Court of OhioModerator: Professor Chris Walker, University of Michigan Law School

Zionism: An Indigenous People’s Fight for its Ancient HomelandJudge Altman led us on a journey from 1208 BC (when the Merneptah Stele, the first extra-biblical mention of the People of Israel, was composed) to Israel's current war with Hamas. Along the way, Judge Altman showed that Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel, that Jews have lived in (and often ruled) the land of Israel for thousands of years, and that the State of Israel is a legitimate sovereign over the lands it now governs. Judge Altman also addressed--and refuted--claims that Israel is an apartheid state, that Gaza was in any way occupied by Israel on October 7, and that Jews have obstructed the establishment of a Palestinian state. Finally, Judge Altman explained that Israel's military response to the horrific terror attacks of October 7 was (and remains) proportional under international law.Featuring:Hon. Roy K. Altman, U.S District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Perspectives on the Role of the Nation’s Chief Legal OfficerA Conversation with Three U.S. Attorneys General Featuring:Hon. John Ashcroft, Former U.S Attorney General (2001-2005)Hon. William P. Barr, Former U.S Attorney General (1991-1993 and 2019-2020)Hon. Jeff Sessions, Former U.S Attorney General (2017-2018)Moderator: Beth Williams, Board Member, U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy

Lawmakers and courts have been reforming Florida’s tort and insurance laws for decades. From expansion of insurance bad faith and contraction of comparative fault in the 1990’s, to restrictions on medical malpractice suits in the 2000’s, to changes in tort and insurance litigation in the 2020’s, the legal landscape shifted dramatically. This panel will examine the latest reforms in the context of recent history, and it will debate where Florida policy should go from here.Featuring:Kansas R. Gooden, Shareholder & Practice Group Leader, Boyd & Jenerette, PAFred Karlinsky, Shareholder and Global Co-chair, Greenberg TraurigWilliam Large, President, Florida Justice Reform InstituteHon. Paul Renner, Speaker, Florida House of RepresentativesProf. Jay Tidmarsh, Judge James J. Clynes, Jr. Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolModerator: Pat Kilbane, Partner, General Counsel & Wealth Advisor, Ullmann Wealth Partners, President of Jacksonville Lawyers Chapter

The panel will discuss how these decisions are transforming the admissions process in higher education and the impact on the legal profession. Included in the discussion will be the response from academia, the permissible limits of the use of race in admissions after these decisions, and what impact this is expected to have on corporate America and the legal profession. Featuring:Prof. Tracey Maclin, Raymond & Miriam Ehrlich Chair in US Constitutional Law , University of Florida Levin College of LawCameron Norris, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy PLLCDevon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal OpportunityModerator: Hon. Meredith Sasso, Justice, Florida Supreme Court

The state and federal bench has transformed in recent years, with more textualist/originalist judges appointed or elected. These changes are influencing how advocates should prepare to make winning arguments. A panel of jurists and leading litigators will offer their best advice to young advocates in making successful oral arguments and incorporating originalism and textualism into their briefs. They will offer their perspectives on how litigation tactics might change, if at all, at the appellate or trial court levels. They will also discuss why litigators play such a key role in encouraging textualist and originalist decisions.Featuring:Whitney Hermandorfer, Director of Strategic Litigation Unit and Assistant Solicitor General, Office of the Tennessee Attorney GeneralHon. Bobby Long, Judge, 1st District Court of Appeal, FloridaHon. Jay Mitchell, Associate Justice, Alabama Supreme CourtEd Wenger, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLCModerator: Hon. Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, U.S. District

The citizen-initiative process allows the People of Florida to propose amendments to the state constitution, subject to Supreme Court review. But what is the appropriate scope of judicial review of such ballot initiatives? Does the single-subject rule enable outcome-driven judicial decision-making? This panel will discuss these questions and others in the context of the Adult Personal Use of Marijuana and the Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion initiatives.Featuring:Daniel Bell, Chief Deputy Solicitor General, Office of Florida Attorney GeneralAnastasia Boden, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato InstituteHon. Alan Lawson, Shareholder, Lawson Huck Gonzalez PLLCProf. Jonathan Marshfield, Associate Professor of Law, University of Florida Levin College of LawModerator: Hon. Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe, Judge, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida

It has been said that American-style split sovereignty provides the people a “double security” for their liberties. And a distinct security too: where the Framers’ primary restraint on the avarice of the United States was the enumeration of its powers, each state is omnipotent and yet typically bound by a thicker conception of the proper ends of government. But these separate sovereigns interact in unique and sometimes puzzling ways that leave the state of the vertical separation of powers in flux. And given that “split[ting] the atom of sovereignty,” as Justice Kennedy characterized it in US Term Limits v. Thornton, is a uniquely American contribution, is it really necessary to secure the people’s liberty?FeaturingProf. Maureen Brady, Louis D. Brandeis Professor of Law and Deputy Dean, Harvard Law SchoolHon. Sarah K. Campbell, Justice, Tennessee Supreme CourtHon. James E. Tierney, Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School and former Attorney General, MaineProf. Ernest A. Young,

Traditionally, education has been seen as instilling the common shared civic values that Americans have held for since the nation’s founding. As the educational establishment has become increasingly more progressive, many states have begun to offer alternatives to traditional public-school education, particularly in the wake of the Covid pandemic when many schools were shut down. This has included laws that allow for educational savings accounts, charter schools, and home-schooling. However, these proposals have met fierce opposition from the educational establishment, legislatures, and education unions. At the heart of this opposition is access to funding and the degree to which parents have the right to make educational decisions for their children. Will education choice laws restore balance to American education? How does this battle affect the trust in America’s educational system? Are there proposals that all sides agree upon that can restore a sense of shared civic values? How do thes

From the 1960s onward, election lawyers on the political left focused on securing and expanding voting access. Lawyers on the political right focused on ensuring the integrity and accuracy of the voting process. Now, most academic literature suggests that there's fairly little disenfranchisement and fairly little voter fraud. Despite this evidence, the voting process has become increasingly controversial in recent years, with increasing attacks on election integrity and voting access. This rhetoric has all led to decreased voter trust in the process. Headed into another presidential election year, panelists will consider whether recent developments in mail-in voting, voter ID, and voter harvesting laws, among other issues, merit the decreased trust voters have in the process and how election lawyers should respond.Featuring:Audrey Perry Martin, Partner, Gober GroupHon. Michael T. Liburdi Moderator, Judge, United States District Court, District of ArizonaStephen I. Richer, County Recorder, Maricopa CountyBra

All levels of the judiciary have faced increased attacks on their independence in recent years. Even trial court judges have faced increased scrutiny, particularly those in single-judge districts and those who have granted nationwide injunctions. “Reform” proposals such as adding justices, term limits, ethics codes, abolishing blue slips, and limiting the Court’s jurisdiction have been proposed by critics to limit the power of the courts. However, these proposals are nothing new: in decades past, when the ideological balance of the Court was different, similar proposals were floated by those who sought to limit the role and influence of the courts. What’s changed? What is the role of the organized bar, if any, in defending judicial independence? How, if at all, has the increased politicization of the judicial confirmation process affected judicial independence? What does all of this mean for trust in the judiciary? And are there changes that should be considered that are both constitut

Join the DC Young Lawyers Chapter and the George Mason Student Chapter for an evening conversation and reception. Featuring:Prof. Jennifer Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law and Co-Executive Director, C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityThomas McCarthy, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC; Adjunct Professor, George Mason University Scalia LawProf. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityDoors open at 6 with the program to begin promptly at 6:30. A reception will follow. This event is free to attend.

On Wednesday, November 29, the Harvard Student Chapter held a conversation, produced in partnership with the Harvard Alumni for Free Speech, featuring Prof. Randall Kennedy and Prof. Nadine Strossen to commemorate the 164th anniversary of Frederick Douglass's "Plea for Free Speech in Boston."Featuring:Prof. Randall Kennedy, Michael R. Klein Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law Emerita, New York Law School; Former President, American Civil Liberties Union

Featuring:Ms. Erin E. Murphy, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLCMr. Patrick Strawbridge, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLCHon. Seth P. Waxman, Partner, WilmerHale; Former United States Solicitor GeneralModerator: Hon. Timothy M. Tymkovich, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit