Although possession and distribution of marijuana is still a violation of international treaties and the federal Controlled Substances Act, 18 states plus the District of Columbia have legalized the use of medical marijuana. On November 6th, Washington and Colorado went a step further when voters in those states passed referenda legalizing the possession and use of marijuana by adults for recreational purposes with state regulation of sales, although a similar referendum was narrowly defeated in Oregon. Washington will allow those at least 21 years old to buy as much as one ounce (28 grams) of marijuana from a licensed retailer. Colorado's measure allows possession of an ounce, and permits growing as many as six plants in private, secure areas. The Department of Justice has not publicly declared how it will respond to these developments, only stating that it is still studying the issue. From the standpoint of federalism, is this a good or a bad development? How should the federal government respond to these state initiatives? Should the federal government prosecute those who buy and sell marijuana when such activity is legal under state law? Would it be fair (and consistent with equal protection) for the federal government to prosecute those who possess and sell marijuana in states that have not passed marijuana-legalization laws, but not to do so in states that have? On this previously recorded conference, Georgetown Law Prof. Randy Barnett (who argued before the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Raich case that Congress lacked the authority to criminalize the production of home-grown marijuana for personal medical use) and McGregor “Greg” Scott (former United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California and District Attorney of Shasta County California) engage in a lively debate on these issues and answer questions from callers.

Featuring:

• Prof. Randy Barnett, Georgetown University Law Center
• Mr. McGregor Scott, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
• Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

[Listen now!]

An increase in Federal executive branch regulatory activity – whether through executive order, formal or informal administrative agency action – has been noted by many across the country. In launching the Executive Branch Review Project, the Practice Groups of the Federalist Society seek to prompt a national debate about whether there has been an uptick in such regulatory activity, and, if so, with what consequence. The project will provide objective resources that identify major government activity, and will provide a forum for debate and discussion about whether such regulation constitutes a form of legal and regulatory overreach. The first component of this project is a new blog dedicated to highlighting action or inaction by the executive branch, http://www.executivebranchproject.com/.

To kickoff this new endeavor, U.S. Senator Michael S. Lee (Utah) and Federalist Society founder and Vice Chairman David M. McIntosh discussed the project and provided their perspectives on the use of executive power.

Featuring:

• Hon. Michael S. Lee, United States Senate, Utah
• Hon. David M. McIntosh, Partner, Mayer Brown LLP and Vice Chairman, The Federalist Society
• Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

[Listen now!]

Federal convict Conrad Lord Black argued at National Review Online last fall in "Blind Justice" that America's system of broad prosecutorial discretion routinely undermines defendants’ constitutional rights -- largely through a criminal justice system that's designed in acquiescence to this discretion by those who fear being seen as "soft on crime.”  The system's defenders respond that criminal defendants enjoy numerous and generous constitutional protections (some at the expense of a textual constitutional reading), and that prosecutorial discretion -- though perhaps subject to discrete, if infamous, abuse -- is overwhelmingly used properly against the legitimately guilty.  With the rise of debates over the role of the federal government in criminal law, these divergent views will be debated thoughtfully by our expert panelists on this previously recorded conference call.

Featuring:

• Conrad Lord Black, Financier, Historian, and Commentator
• Prof. William G. Otis, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
• Prof. Ellen S. Podgor, Gary R. Trombley Family White-Collar Crime Research Professor and Professor of Law, Stetson University College of Law
• Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

[Listen now!]

On February 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Maryland v. King. On this previously recorded live conference call, our expert attended oral argument and provides a report to our listeners. In the state of Maryland, a rape and assault case rendered identifiable DNA material, but it did not match any existing samples in the DNA database. Alonzo King was subsequently arrested in an unrelated matter and, under Maryland’s DNA Collection Act, a DNA sample was collected from him and analyzed. King’s DNA sample matched the sample from the unrelated rape and assault case. The Court will decide whether this DNA sample can be used in his prosecution for that rape and assault.

Featuring:

• Mr. John P. Elwood, Partner, Vinson & Elkins LLP
• Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

[Listen now!]