- ?David Lat, Above the Law
Damon Root discusses his new book, Overruled: The Long War for Control of the U.S. Supreme Court, in which the Reason senior editor asks the question: can the federal government make you eat your fruits and vegetables?
Does the Constitution empower the Supreme Court to actively protect individual rights from the whimsy and overreach of lawmakers? The debate over judicial restraint vs. judicial activism is at the heart of Overruled, which makes a bold case for libertarian judicial activism—the notion that the courts should swat away unwarranted and indefensible incursions on our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The Federalist Society, the Charles Koch Institute, and Reason co-sponsored this event on November 18, 2014.
The Mayflower Hotel
For a federal court to consider an issue, there must be a case or controversy, and the parties before the court must have standing, i.e., a stake in the outcome of the decision. While standing is important in our system of justice, the courts are not the only avenue for relief (the ballot box, theoretically, being another). This panel will explore the history, development and current status of standing doctrine in regulatory litigation, with particular focus on the extent to which standing and related justiciability requirements have come to serve as a shield against meaningful judicial review of agency actions.
The Federalist Society's Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group presented this panel on "Without Standing, Are We All Sitting Ducks?" on Saturday, November 15, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.
Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah delivered this address at the 2014 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 14, 2014. He was introduced by Mr. Leonard A. Leo, Executive Vice President of The Federalist Society.