17th Annual Faculty Conference
This panel was part of the 17th Annual Federalist Society Faculty Conference held on January 3-4, 2015 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC.
Young Legal Scholars Paper Presentations
In Memory of Prof. Dan Markel, Florida State University School of Law, Prawfsblawg Founder, and former Searle fellow
- Prof. William Baude, University of Chicago Law School, "Is Originalism the Law?"
- Prof. Charles Korsmo, Case Western University School of Law, "Aggregation by Acquisition: Replacing Class Actions with a Market for Legal Claims"
- Prof. Minor Myers, Brooklyn Law School, "Aggregation by Acquisition: Replacing Class Actions with a Market for Legal Claims"
- Prof. Christopher Newman, George Mason University School of Law, "Bailment and the Property/Contract Interface"
- Prof. Christopher Walker, Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, "Inside Agency Interpretation"
- Prof. Kevin Walsh, University of Richmond School of Law, "In the Beginning There Was None: Supreme Court Review of State Criminal Prosecutions"
- Commentor: Prof. James Lindgren, Northwestern University School of Law
- Commentor: Prof. Keith Hylton, Boston University School of Law
- Moderator: Prof. Richard Garnett, University of Notre Dame Law School
Washington, DC Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group Podcast
January 3, 2015
Congress adopted the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) to protect consumers from aggressive telemarketing and to bolster the “right to be left alone.” But more than 20 years after its adoption, the statute has given rise to an explosion of class action lawsuits, raising questions about whether the law is continuing to serve its intended purpose. Defendants have sought relief from the implementing agency, the Federal Communications Commission, and some relief has been forthcoming. However, the rate at which lawsuits have proliferated has far outstripped the pace of regulatory relief. Our experts discussed whether fundamental TCPA reform is needed and, if so, how it might be achieved.
Practice Groups Podcast
- Scott D. Delacourt, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP
- Jason D. Goldman, Senior Telecommunications Policy Counsel, Managing Director, Environment, Technology & Regulatory Affairs Division, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
On Friday, November 7, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for cert in King v. Burwell, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals case concerning the payment of subsidies to participants in federally-run versus state-run health care exchanges. Many believe a decision that cuts against the government's interpretation of the statute could undermine Obamacare. A temporary circuit split on the issue was obviated weeks ago when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to en banc review of a three-judge panel decision that reached a result different than had the Fourth Circuit. Our experts discussed why the Court agreed to hear a case that upheld a federal government interpretation of a federal statute.
Meanwhile, LSU Law School Professor John Baker has written a paper (available here) discussing the administration of the settlement fund in the BP Horizon oil spill. In that matter, BP asserts that the fund administrator is awarding damages to plaintiffs who were not harmed by the oil spill, and BP seeks relief in the Court. Later the week of November 10, the Court is expected to consider a cert grant in this important case.
Sponsored by the Federalist Society's Practice Groups
- Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
- Prof. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center and Professor Emeritus, LSU Law School
Putting aside criminal cases, the stakes for all sides are perhaps never higher than in a class action case – mere certification of a class can increase the pressure to settle exponentially. But, of course, the class must be properly composed in order to be certified. In the recently-decided Wal-Mart v. Dukes case, the U.S. Supreme Court revisited some of the basic requirements for certification of a class of plaintiffs, including commonality. Other requirements of Rule 23 certification may surface in ongoing litigation stemming from the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, where defense attorneys are arguing, among other things, that the settlement agreement is being administered and interpreted overly broadly to include numerous class members who have not suffered any injury caused by BP. Our experts will discuss recent developments in class action litigation, including a pending petition for cert in the BP case. The Federalist Society presented this panel on September 4, 2014.
- Prof. Neal K. Katyal, Partner, Hogan Lovells, and Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of National Security Law, Georgetown University Law Center
- Hon. Theodore B. Olson, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
- Moderator: Mr. Stuart S. Taylor, Jr., Nonresident Senior Fellow in Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution
National Press Club Corporations, Securities & Antitrust and Litigation Practice Groups Podcast
On Monday, June 23, 2014 the Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision in the highly anticipated securities fraud case Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund. The case offered the Court an opportunity to revisit its 1988 decision in Basic v. Levinson, in which it adopted the “fraud on the market” doctrine. Fraud on the market is critical to modern securities fraud class action lawsuits -- the doctrine assumes that any misrepresentations of a security traded in an efficient market will affect that security’s market price and thus affect any shareholders trading in reliance of market price, an assumption that precludes consideration of whether potential class members actually heard and acted on fraudulent statements. The Court declined to overturn Basic; our expert discussed the reasoning and impact of the decision.
- George T. Conway III, Partner, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz