The Federalist Society’s James Kent Summer Academy is a new program for students and recent graduates who demonstrate strong potential for being leaders among a future generation of legal scholars. Participants will have an opportunity to engage in academic discourse, to learn about an academic career track, to deepen their understanding of key ideas about the law, the founding period, originalism, religious liberty, and markets and the law, and to receive some personalized career planning and publishing guidance. Confirmed faculty include Randy Barnett, Nelson Lund, Mark Rienzi and Orin Kerr.
The Academy will take place in early August in Annapolis, MD. This all-expenses-paid conference will include seminar-style sessions guided by a group of leading faculty, informational sessions and workshops for professional development, and the opportunity to connect to a community of talented students and scholars. Participants will also receive invitations to ongoing events and academic and professional development resources throughout the year.
The program is intended for students and recent graduates (three years or less out of law school), including prospective or current clerks, with a serious interest in an academic career, who would contribute to the intellectual diversity of the legal academy, and who are beginning to develop their legal scholarship. Applicants should possess strong academic qualifications.
The National Constitution Center, the Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society presented this debate on Citizens United. Professor Anthony Johnstone, argued in favor of the resolution and Professor John McGinnis argued against the resolution. Jeffrey Rosen, President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Constitution Center, moderated the program.
This debate was made possible through the support of a grant from the John Templeton Foundation.
May 12, 2015
The opinions expressed in this debate are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.
Luncheon Address: "National Insecurity: Is the Law the Enemy's Weapon?"
11:45 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
April 29, 2015
Panel II: "Are We @Cyberwar, and If So, How Should We Fight It?"
10:30 a.m. - 11:45 a.m.
Several significant cyber incidents, including the recent Sony hack, have been attributed to nation-states or groups closely associated with nation-states. The Intelligence Community's most recent Worldwide Threat Assessment predicts "an ongoing series of low-to-moderate level cyber attacks from a variety of sources over time, which will impose cumulative costs on U.S. economic competitiveness and national security." It identifies Russia, China, Iran and North Korea as Threat Actors. An expert panel will analyze whether any cyber incidents should be considered acts of war, whether U.S. responses be governed by the Law of Armed Conflict, what kinds of incidents warrant responses, and what those responses might be.
April 29, 2015
Welcome and Introduction
Panel I: "How to Manage the Intelligence Community"
9:00 a.m. - 10:15 a.m.
Since September 11, 2001, the intelligence community has been at the center of key national security events including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the hunt for Osama Bin Laden and other key terrorism figures, leaks by Edward Snowden, and disclosures about the CIA's rendition program. During that same period of time, the management of the intelligence community has been reformed, executive agencies have reorganized themselves to better interact with the intelligence community, and most recently, the CIA has announced a fundamental reorganization of its key functions. Our panel will consider how the government can best manage the intelligence community. We will discuss the role of Congressional oversight, the ability to demand accountability, whether the current structure of the intelligence community is optimal, and if effectiveness measures can be applied to intelligence work.
April 29, 2015
Members of the Federalist Society’s Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group Executive Committee provided an update on important activity at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Developments included the CFPB's adoption of a final policy on publishing consumer complaint narratives, a moratorium on credit card issuers submitting their credit card agreements to the CFPB, the Office of Management and Budget's threat of recommending the veto of a bill that would reduce the CFPB's budget by 0.1% over then next ten years, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision to uphold the dismissal on procedural grounds in Morgan Drexen, Inc. v. CFPB, a suit challenging the constitutionality of the CFPB.
On April 29, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Mach Mining v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This case involves the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) Title VII duty to investigate claims of discrimination levied against an employer and to make good faith efforts to eliminate discriminatory employment practices before filing suit against that employer. The question this case asks is whether and to what extent a court may enforce the EEOC's duty to conciliate discrimination claims before filing suit.
In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Kagan, the Court held that courts have the authority to review whether the EEOC has fulfilled its statutory duty to conciliate discrimination claims prior to filing suit against an employer. The judgment of the Seventh Circuit was vacated and remanded.
To discuss the case, we have Mr. Paul Mirengoff. Mr. Mirengoff is a retired attorney in Washington, D.C. and is a blogger at powerlineblog.com.