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.
Mr. Damon Root, Author of Overruled and senior editor of Reason magazine and Reason.com
Prof. Neomi Rao, Associate Professor, George Mason University School of Law
Saving Congress from Itself proposes a single reform: eliminate all federal grants-in-aid to state and local governments. This action would reduce federal spending by over $600 billion a year and have a profound effect on how we govern ourselves. The proliferation of federal grants-in-aid programs is of recent vintage: only about 100 such grants existed before Lyndon Johnson took office, and now they number more than 1,100. Eliminating grants to the states will result in enormous savings in federal and state administrative costs; free states to set their own priorities; and improve the design and implementation of programs now subsidized by Washington by eliminating federal regulations that attend the grants. In short, it will free states and their subdivisions to resume full responsibility for all activities that fall within their competence, such as education, welfare, and highway construction and maintenance. And because members of Congress spend major portions of their time creating grants and allocating funds assigned to them (think earmarks), eliminating grants will enable Congress to devote its time to responsibilities that are uniquely national in character.
The Federalist Society's Practice Groups presented this closing discussion on "Saving Congress from Itself: Emancipating the States & Empowering Their People" on Saturday, November 15, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.
Hon. James L. Buckley, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (ret.) and former U.S. Senator
Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service; Former Dean (2007 – 2010); and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Dale E Fowler School of Law, Chapman University
Prof. Michael S. Greve, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law
Moderator: Mr. Robert R. Gasaway, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
America has always been a forward-looking country. What is the future for our young – for the best and brightest – and for everyone else? Does the American Dream still apply? Does our current legal and regulatory system offer the young prospects for a more just and better society, or for an overregulated society that stifles enterprise and compromises individual liberty? How do we balance these competing concerns and what role can and should our legal system play? Finally, there has been much discussion recently about income inequality. Are efforts to address that through law or taxes beneficial or harmful to the young and their vision of a better society?
The Federalist Society's Practice Groups presented this showcase panel on "Is the Future of the American Dream Bright?" on Saturday, November 15, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.
Hon. Rachel L. Brand, Member, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Senior Advisor to the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, United States Chamber of Commerce; and former Assistant U.S. Attorney General for Legal Policy United States Department of Justice
Hon. Lanny J. Davis, Principal, Lanny J. Davis & Associates, former Special Counsel to the President, and former Member, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
Prof. Neal K. Katyal, Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of National Security Law and Director, Center on National Security and the Law, Georgetown University Law Center, Partner, HoganLovells US LLP, and former Acting U.S. Solicitor General
Dr. Charles A. Murray, W.H. Brady Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
Moderator: Ms. Karlyn Bowman, Senior Fellow and Research Coordinator, American Enterprise Institute
The Seventh Annual Rosenkranz Debate was held on November 15, 2014, during The Federalist Society's 2014 National Lawyers Convention. RESOLVED: Indiscriminate Collection of American Phone Records Violates the Fourth Amendment.
Hon. Michael B. Mukasey, Partner, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and former U.S. Attorney General
Prof. Nadine Strossen, Professor of Law, New York Law School, and former President, American Civil Liberties Union, 1991 - 2008
Moderator: Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Georgetown University Law Center
Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society
Once upon a time, corporations, government departments, and other entities made their own decisions about how long to retain documents created or received in the course of business. Today, document retention policies can present difficult issues for the entities, for the lawyers who advise them, and for the courts that are called on to decide the consequences when documents are no longer available. Particularly in the electronic age, where computers die, people delete their emails, and backups are not always reliable, document retention cannot be counted on. What are an attorney’s obligations? Should a lawyer bringing suit write to the other side and warn that entity not to engage in normal document destruction and to back up particularly important data? Does the company being sued have to comply? These are some of the questions that the panel will address.
In-house lawyers may face particular difficulties. Does the lawyer represent only the institution, or does the lawyer also have obligations to the employees? Should the lawyer advise the employees to censor themselves in emails sent via the employer’s email system? Should employees be encouraged to communicate about work through their personal email instead? How does an in-house lawyer handle the conflicts between representing individuals who do not want to disclose discoverable emails for emails unrelated to ongoing litigation (perhaps because they made impolitic comments about their supervisors)?
Finally, the panel will discuss if there are special obligations for counsel representing government entities. Government records have a unique status. They document the conduct of public business and are necessary for transparency and, more formally, are subject to retention and preservation requirements. Should lawyers advise government clients that backups cannot be destroyed for years, contrary to current IRS policy? Should lawyers inform government employees that their personal emails, if discussing issues related to their work, may also be discoverable? How does the government’s duty of transparency to the public affect its disclosure obligations and the lawyer’s corresponding obligations to her client?
The Federalist Society's Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group presented this panel on "'The Dog Ate My Emails!': Document Retention Policies, Litigation Holds, and Legal Ethics on Saturday, November 15, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.
Ms. Jamie Brown, Global eDiscovery Counsel, UBS AG, and former Associate General Counsel, Commodities Futures Trading Commission
Mr. Daniel Epstein, Executive Director, Cause of Action
Mr. Patrick Oot, Partner, Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., and former Senior Special Counsel for Electronic Discovery Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Mrs. Victoria A. Redgrave, Managing Partner, Redgrave LLP