Welcome to the Federalist Society's online publication archive. Choose a publication to view from the menu on the left or by selecting one of our most recent publications below. You can also browse our publications by Practice Group, Special Project, and Subject.
In 2013 voters in Colorado and Washington legalized the possession of marijuana under state law. Several other states allow the possession and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Yet marijuana remains illegal under federal law. The Justice Department has not sought to preempt these decisions, and has outlined a new enforcement policy that largely defers to state law enforcement on the assumption that states will effectively regulate the sale and possession of marijuana. Are the Justice Department’s efforts to accommodate state decisions about marijuana policy prudent or irresponsible? Could it do more? Should the federal government defer to state voters on the desirability of marijuana prohibition? How should principles of federalism inform the federal government’s response to state initiatives on marijuana? Can the federal government allow states to decriminalize marijuana possession and sale without undermining the rule of law?
- Mr. Robert D. Alt, President, The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions
- Dr. John C. Eastman , Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, Chapman University School of Law
- Mr. Michael Francisco , Assistant Solicitor General, Colorado
- Hon. George J. Terwilliger III , Partner, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
- Moderator: Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
National Press Club
December 3, 2013 | Luke A. Wake
On November 13, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall. The question in the case is whether an employer and union are prohibited by the Labor-Management Relations Act from entering into a “neutrality agreement” under which the employer exercises its freedom of speech by promising to remain neutral to union organizing, its property rights by granting union representatives limited access to the employer's property and employees, and its freedom of contract by obtaining the union's promise to forego its rights to picket, boycott, or otherwise put pressure on the employer's business.
To discuss the case, we have Mr. Luke Wake, Staff Attorney, NFIB Small Business Legal Center.
Closing Panel: The Electorate and the Courts
4:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
- Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Bancroft PLLC and former United States Solicitor General
- Mr. John Fund, National Affairs Columnist, National Review and Fox News Analyst
- Hon. Seth P. Waxman, Partner, WilmerHale and former United States Solicitor General
- Moderator: Hon. David M. McIntosh, Partner, Mayer Brown and Vice Chairman, The Federalist Society
In recent years, textualism has come to replace legislative history as the most important tool available to Supreme Court Justices when interpreting statutory text. This panel will examine the new textualism and will debate its merits. What are the arguments for and against textualism? When, if ever, ought a judge consider legislative history? This panel will also address the question of whether theJjustices all share the same approach to statutory interpretation or whether they continue to diverge in predictable ways. What effect does the choice of interpretive techniques have on congressional drafting of legislation in the future?
The Federalist Society's Practice Groups presented this showcase panel on "Textualism and Statutory Interpretation" on Saturday, November 16, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention.
Showcase Panel IV: Textualism and Statutory Interpretation
2:15 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
- Prof. John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law and Armistead M. Dobie Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
- Hon. Frank H. Easterbrook, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
- Prof. William N. Eskridge, Jr., John A. Garver Prof. of Jurisprudence, Yale Law School
- Prof. Abbe R. Gluck, Yale Law School
- Prof. Victoria F. Nourse, Georgetown University Law Center
- Moderator: Hon. William H. Pryor Jr., United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
The Sixth Annual Rosenkranz Debate was held on November 16, 2013, during The Federalist Society's 2013 National Lawyers Convention. The topic of the debate was "RESOLVED: Courts are too Deferential to the Legislature" and featured Prof. Randy Barnett of Georgetown University Law Center and Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Judge Jerry Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit moderated.
Sixth Annual Rosenkranz Debate
RESOLVED: Courts are too Deferential to the Legislature
12:15 p.m. – 2:15 p.m.
- Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law Center
- Hon. J. Harvie Wilkinson, United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
- Moderator: Hon. Jerry E. Smith, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
- Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society
In 1990, the Supreme Court unanimously held that an integrated state bar association, which all lawyers licensed in a state must join, could not use the compulsory dues paid by its members to pursue political or ideological activities unrelated to regulating the legal profession or improving the legal system. Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1 (1990). The Court explained, “[T]he extreme ends of the spectrum are clear: Compulsory dues may not be extended to endorse or advance a gun control or nuclear weapons freeze initiative; at the other end of the spectrum petitioners have no valid constitutional objection to their compulsory dues being spent for activities connected to disciplining members of the Bar or proposing ethical codes for the profession.” Id., at 15-16.
In the nearly 25 years since the Court decided Keller, the entities empowered to promulgate ethical rules binding on the lawyers practicing in a state have imposed a variety of regulations, some of which are more closely and clearly related to the regulation of the legal profession than others. Requirements like continuing legal education and contributions to client security funds are generally seen to fall within the scope of permissible regulation. The imposition of mandatory diversity training in Minnesota and a requirement that law students perform a specified number of hours of pro bono work as a condition to their becoming licensed to practice in New York look different.
Should state regulation of the bar be limited to imposing rules whose purpose is the protection of client interests? Or, can the regulators impose rules designed to make lawyers “better” people in the belief that “better” people will better serve their clients? How far can the organized bar go in “proposing ethical codes for the profession?” To what extent do programs like mandatory diversity training and requiring law students to perform a specified number of pro bono hours serve the interests of clients?
The Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group hosted this panel on "Regulation of the Legal Profession in the 21st Century: Should Professional Regulation Favor Social Policy over Client Protection?" on Saturday, November 16, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention.
Professional Responsibility: Regulation of the Legal Profession in the 21st Century: Should Professional Regulation Favor Social Policy over Client Protection?
10:45 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.
- Mr. Scott Johnson, Co-Founder and Contributor, Power Line Blog
- Mrs. Margaret A. Little, Partner, Little and Little and Director, Pro Bono Center, The Federalist Society
- Prof. Thomas D. Morgan, Oppenheim Professor of Antitrust and Trade Regulation Law, The George Washington University Law School
- Prof. Alan B. Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest/Public Service, The George Washington University Law School
- Moderator: Hon. David R. Stras, Associate Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court
- Introduction: Mr. Jack Park Jr., Of Counsel, Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP
This past year, the Supreme Court decided three important regulatory takings cases, including Arkansas Game & Fish Commission, Koontz, and Horne. At the state level, several states, including Virginia and Mississippi, recently adopted new constitutional amendments limiting the definition of public use and restricting the power of eminent domain. Many, including Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, have urged the Supreme Court to reconsider its Public Use Clause jurisprudence and overrule or limit cases such as Kelo v. City of New London. At both the state and federal level, takings law is very much in flux. This panel will assess where we are on important constitutional takings issues, and where we should be going.
The Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group hosted this panel on "New Directions in Takings Law" on Saturday, November 16, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention.
Environmental Law: New Directions in Takings Law
10:45 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.
- Mr. Paul J. Beard II, Principal Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
- Prof. James L. Huffman, Dean Emeritus, Lewis & Clark Law School
- Prof. Thomas W. Merrill, Charles Evans Hughes Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
- Prof. Stewart E. Sterk, H. Bert and Ruth Mack Professor of Real Estate Law, Cardozo School of Law
- Moderator: Hon. Edith Brown Clement, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Has Congress has over-delegated to agencies and failed to provide meaningful oversight? Should Congress coordinate its oversight responsibility with its appropriations authority? Are the courts, in the wake of the Chevron case, and most recently in City of Arlington, deferring too much to agencies? Are the President and White House able to provide oversight, and does the answer change for cabinet-level departments versus independent agencies?
The Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group hosted this panel on "Executive Branch Gone Wild? 21st Century Checks and Balances" on Saturday, November 16, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention.
Administrative Law: Executive Branch Gone Wild? 21st Century Checks and Balances
10:45 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.
- Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
- Prof. Rachel E. Barkow, Segal Family Professor of Regulatory Law and Policy, New York University School of Law
- Hon. Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General, West Virginia
- Prof. David Schoenbrod, Visiting Scholar, American Enterprise Institute and Trustee Professor, New York Law School
- Prof. Jonathan Turley, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law; Director of the Environmental Law Advocacy Center and Executive Director, Project for Older Prisoners, The George Washington University Law School
- Moderator: Hon. Eileen J. O’Connor, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP and former Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division, United States Department of Justice
The Supreme Court was less than one month away from hearing arguments in Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. and answering the question of whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act when the case settled. Ilya Shapiro discussed this development and its impact on future civil rights litigation for a live Teleforum audience.
- Mr. Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
- Moderator: Dean A. Reuter, Vice President and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
November 25, 2013
The International & National Security Law Practice Group is pleased to present its Recommended National Security Law Reading List for Fall 2013....[Read Now!]
November 25, 2013 | Gregory Dolin
On November 5, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Medtronic, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp. The question in the case is whether, when a declaratory judgment of non-infringement is sought by a patent licensee under the Court's decision in MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, the burden of proof lies with the licensee to prove non-infringement or, as is traditional in patent litigation suits, with the patent owner, to prove infringement.
To discuss the case, we have Professor Gregory Dolin, Co-director, Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of Law.
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) is a landmark case that has changed the face of modern administrative law. This panel will address the rightness and limitations of Chevron deference, especially in the context of agency decisions on the scope of the agencies’ jurisdictional mandates. Should the federal courts defer or should they not defer in this context? Justices Scalia and Thomas recently differed on this issue from Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy and Alito. Who is right on this issue and why? Does the answer depend, in any measure, on the growth of the administrative state? Are there larger issues of jurisprudential philosophy at stake?
The Federalist Society's Practice Groups presented this showcase panel on "Formalism and Deference in Administrative Law" on Saturday, November 16, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention.
Showcase Panel III: Formalism and Deference in Administrative Law
9:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.
- Prof. Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia University School of Law
- Prof. Kristin Hickman, University of Minnesota Law School
- Prof. Thomas W. Merrill, Charles Evans Hughes Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
- Prof. Jide O. Nzelibe, Northwestern University School of Law
- Moderator: Hon. Jennifer W. Elrod, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
- Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society established this annual lecture in Barbara's memory because of her enormous contributions as an active member, supporter, and volunteer leader. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals. In 2013, the Honorable Neil M. Gorsuch of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit delivered the lecture. He was introduced by Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President of the Federalist Society.
Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture
5:30 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.
- Hon. Neil M. Gorsuch, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
- Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society
For information about Barbara Olson and this lecture series, click HERE.
For a list of past lecturers, click HERE.
Cyber attacks were the first identified global threat in the U.S. Intelligence Community's 2013 Worldwide Threat Assessment. Government officials have warned of a "Cyber Pearl Harbor". Yet there is little consensus on the best measures to prevent and mitigate cyber attacks. This panel will address key questions such as information sharing and related privacy concerns, the effectiveness and burdens of regulation of critical infrastructure, the possibility of preemptive active defense, and the effects of the exposure of the NSA programs on cybersecurity.
The International & National Security Law Practice Group hosted this panel on "Cybersecurity -- The Policy and Politics of a Leading National Security Threat" on Friday, November 15, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention.
International: Cybersecurity – The Policy and Politics of a Leading National Security Threat
3:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
- Mr. Steven G. Bradbury, Partner, Dechert LLP and former head, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice
- Mr. Joel F. Brenner, Principal, Joel Brenner LLC and former National Counterintelligence Executive, former Inspector General and Senior Counsel, National Security Agency
- Ms. Michelle Richardson, Legislative Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union
- Mr. Paul Rosenzweig, Red Branch Law and Consulting and former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Principal
- Prof. John Choon Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law
- Moderator: Mr. Vincent J. Vitkowsky, Chairman, International & National Security Law Practice Group, the Federalist Society
November 22, 2013 | Elina Treyger
On November 13, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Fernandez v. California. The question at issue is whether a defendant must be physically present to successfully object when a co-tenant gives permission to police officers to conduct a warrantless search, or whether the defendant's previously stated objection to a warrantless search, while physically present, is a continuing assertion of Fourth Amendment rights that cannot later be overriden by the co-tenant.
To discuss the case, we have Elina Treyger who is an Assistant Professor of Law at the George Mason University School of Law.