Claim Ownership

Author:

Subscribed: 0Played: 0
Share

Description

 Episodes
Reverse
Featuring:Hon. William Barr, Former Attorney General of the United States
On August 13, 1999, the Federalist Society's Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group sponsored a panel at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. The panel considered the question "Did the Law Cause Columbine?". Featuring:Introduction: Justice George Nicholson, California Court of Appeal, Third DistrictModerator: Troy Eid, Chief Counsel to Gov. Bill Owens (CO)Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, United States Court of Appeals, Fourth CircuitAnn Beeson, Staff Attorney, ACLUMichael J. Horowitz, Senior Fellow, Hudson InstituteProf. William F. Kilpatrick, Boston CollegeJames A. Rapp, Editor in Chief, Education Law
This extremely contemporary controversy will be the subject of a special debate. Opponents of the independent prosecutor system charge that it violates the doctrine of separation of powers by removing a purely executive function from responsibility to the executive branch, and that it also violates traditional standards of fairness by politicizing criminal prosecution and by creating incentives to find a crime to fit the suspect rather than a suspect to fit the crime. Defenders of the statute hold that it is unrealistic to expect the executive branch to police itself and that there is both textual and historical support for Congress' constitutional authority to set up such a system.
Attorney General Richard Thornburgh offered a keynote address to conclude the first day of the conference. Featuring:Introduction: William Bradford Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General, Department of JusticeRichard L. Thornburgh, Attorney General of the United States
On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Vega v. Tekoh. In a 6-3 decision, the Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Court held that a violation of the prophylactic rules described in Miranda v. Arizona does not provide a basis for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Sotomayor joined.Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.Featuring:John Elwood, Partner, Arnold & Porter; head of the firm's Appellate and Supreme Court practice
On June 13 and 15, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Denezpi v. United States and Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas respectively.Both cases dealt with issues of Native American law. In Denezpi, a 6-3 Court ruled that the double jeopardy clause does not bar successive prosecutions of distinct offenses arising from a single act, in a case where a man was prosecuted in both a federal district court and a Court of Indian Offenses. In Ysleta, the Court ruled 5-4 that the state of Texas could not control gambling activities on the lands of the Ysleta del sur Pueblo Native tribe.Please join our legal experts to discuss these cases, the legal issues involved, and their implications for the future of Native American law in America.Featuring:Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLPJennifer Weddle, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig---To register, please click the link above
Whether in academia, on Capitol Hill, among federal and state enforcers, or in the plaintiff and defense bars, few topics are debated as hotly as the future of antitrust law. The Biden administration's ambitious competition policies and enforcement goals are evolving against the backdrop of this larger debate – and to strong fanfare in some quarters. Certain academics, practitioners, and politicians view the Biden administration's approach as a renaissance, one that embodies the Neo-Brandeisian revolution and is a much-needed return to the original intent of U.S. antitrust law.Others are more skeptical, and consider the Biden administration's more expansive approach inconsistent with current law or sound policy. These skeptics believe the Biden administration's approach goes beyond legitimate objectives for antitrust policy and enforcement, and that the new efforts of the Biden FTC or DOJ amount to mission creep, or worse.This webinar will feature Elyse Dorsey, Amanda Lewis, David J. Shaw, and Jonathan Wolfson discussing antitrust developments under the Biden administration and offering various evaluations of the administration's approach.Featuring:Elyse Dorsey, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLPAmanda Lewis, Partner, Cuneo Gilbert & Deluca, LLPDavid J. Shaw, Partner, Morrison & FoersterModerator: Jonathan Wolfson, Chief Legal Officer and Policy Director, Cicero Institute---To register, please click the link above
On June 21, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Carson v. Makin. In a 6-3 opinion, the Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The Court held that Maine's "nonsectarian" requirement for otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments to parents who live in school districts that do not operate a secondary school of their own violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined, and in which Justice Sotomayor joined as to all but Part I-B. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.Featuring:Arif Panju, Managing Attorney, Institute for Justice
Nearly fifty years ago, Alexander Solzhenitsyn released the text of a four-page essay titled Live Not By Lies. The account of his eight-year imprisonment as a political dissident in a Russian gulag had just been published in the West. In retaliation, the Russian government exiled Solzhenitsyn to Zurich. The day before his expulsion from Russia, Solzhenitsyn released the text and eventually made his way to America.In his essay, Solzhenitsyn argued that the totalitarian regime which had silenced a generation of his fellow Russians existed only because lies were allowed a foothold. Out of an understandable desire to conform—“not to stray from the herd, not to set out on our own, and risk suddenly having to make do without the white bread, the hot water heater, a Moscow residency permit”—individuals had allowed crushing authoritarian violence to take over little by little. Liberation was still possible, but it had to begin with the individual and a “personal non participation in lies.” In the essay, Solzhenitsyn calls on his fellow Russians to “stand straight as . . . honest m[e]n” so that the "rule [of the lies] hold not through [us].” Solzhenitsyn’s insight into psychology and human society is evergreen—and well worth revisiting today. Join us for a Fireside Chat to discuss Solzhenitsyn’s famous essay and more. Featuring:Professor Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law Moderator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ---To register, click the link above.
We recognize the risks of agency overreach when rulemaking seeks to impose ESG considerations on business. But to what extent have private banks and institutional investors also been able to leverage their economic power to shape firm behavior on climate and other ESG questions – outside of the democratic process? And if we worry that the administrative state lacks political accountability for contentious policy choices, should we also be concerned about the role of private economic influence?Join us for a dinner at the Mayflower Hotel as our panelists discuss these questions and more. Dinner tickets will be available when purchasing conference tickets at a discount to logged in members. Login or Join today!Featuring: Christina Parajon Skinner, Assistant Professor of Legal Studies and Business Ethics, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, Univeristy of Virginia School of Law Matthew Stoller, Director of Research, American Economic Liberties Project Hon. C. Boyden Gray, Founding Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit Reading Materials: The New Separation of Ownership and Control: Institutional Investors and ESG - Julia Mahoney Banks and Climate Governance - Christina Skinner
This event is sold out. We will take walk-ins at the door if room becomes available. Cryptocurrency. Decentralized finance. Nonfungible tokens. Once only experts on the cutting edge of financial services were familiar with these terms. Now, with the emergence of digital assets within the global financial system, crypto, DeFi, and NFTs are becoming part of the mainstream financial services lexicon. The rapidly emerging crypto ecosystem faces uncertainty within a regulatory regime designed for very different institutions and securities. In response, on March 9, 2022, President Biden issued an executive order, “Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets,” which ordered agencies to submit policy recommendations based upon multiple principles such as: providing consumer protection, ensuring U.S. financial system stability, mitigating systemic financial risk, responsibly developing digital assets, and examining the creation of a U.S. Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). Supporters of increased financial regulation over cryptocurrency see this as a necessity to provide security essential to ensuring financial stability and consumer protection within the digital asset space. Others view these federal regulatory efforts as a threat to future opportunities for economic innovation. SEC Commissioner Hester M. Peirce and an expert panel including Jerry Brito, Ryan Selkis, C. Todd Phillips, moderated by J.W. Verret, will address current and future efforts at regulation of cryptocurrency and its implications for innovation, financial stability, and consumer protection. Schedule:12:00pm - Lunch12:30pm - Opening RemarksHon. Hester M. Peirce, Commissioner, United States Securities and Exchange Commission12:45pm - PanelRyan Selkis, Co-Founder and CEO, MessariTodd Phillips, Director, Financial Regulation and Corporate Governance, Center for American ProgressJerry Brito, Executive Director, Coin CenterModerator: Prof. J.W. Verret, Associate Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University Lunch will be provided. The event is free, but advance registration is required.This event will be livestreamed on the web page. Registration is not required to watch the livestream.
Cryptocurrency. Decentralized finance. Nonfungible tokens. Once only experts on the cutting edge of financial services were familiar with these terms. Now, with the emergence of digital assets within the global financial system, crypto, DeFi, and NFTs are becoming part of the mainstream financial services lexicon. The rapidly emerging crypto ecosystem faces uncertainty within a regulatory regime designed for very different institutions and securities. In response, on March 9, 2022, President Biden issued an executive order, “Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets,” which ordered agencies to submit policy recommendations based upon multiple principles such as: providing consumer protection, ensuring U.S. financial system stability, mitigating systemic financial risk, responsibly developing digital assets, and examining the creation of a U.S. Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). Supporters of increased financial regulation over cryptocurrency see this as a necessity to provide security essential to ensuring financial stability and consumer protection within the digital asset space. Others view these federal regulatory efforts as a threat to future opportunities for economic innovation. At a live Regulatory Transparency Project event, SEC Commissioner Hester M. Peirce addressed current and future efforts at regulation of cryptocurrency and its implications for innovation, financial stability, and consumer protection. Featuring:Hon. Hester M. Peirce, Commissioner, United States Securities and Exchange CommissionIntroduction: Moderator: Prof. J.W. Verret, Associate Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
On May 5, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a new "Comprehensive Environmental Justice Strategy." One piece of this new strategy was an Interim Final Rule reintroducing the use of Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) in environmental enforcement action settlements.As defined by the Biden administration, SEPs are "local projects that defendants can agree to undertake as part of an enforcement case settlement to help rectify environmental violations." These projects were outlawed under the Trump DOJ due to concerns that their use expands DOJ discretionary authority beyond its statutory limits. The Biden administration, however, argues that "SEPs help to fulfill the goals of the underlying statutes being enforced and can provide important environmental and public health benefits to communities that have been harmed by environmental violations."Join us at 12:00 PM ET on June 15 for a virtual discussion on the return of SEPs featuring three DOJ veterans with a range of views on the issue.Featuring:Michael Buschbacher, Counsel, Boyden Gray & Associates PLLCJustin Savage, Global Co-Lead, Environmental Team, Sidley Austin LLP[Moderator] Annie Donaldson Talley, Partner, Luther Strange and AssociatesVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
The “Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act” amended the Federal Arbitration Act to bar mandatory employment arbitration agreements covering sexual harassment and sexual assault claims. This program will feature Prof. Alexander J.S. Colvin and G. Roger King who testified before Congress as the legislation was being considered (see here and here respectively, for their written testimony). The panel will discuss the new statute, its intended purposes, and its impact more broadly on mandatory employment arbitration. The program will also cover why sexual harassment and assault claims, in particular, have been excluded from mandatory arbitration. Will this exclusion for such claims remain unique under the FAA or will it lead towards a ban on mandatory arbitration for employment claims generally? How does the Act connect to the more general issue of class, collective, and joint action waivers in predispute arbitration, and will the Act impact the mass filing strategy that plaintiff side firms are increasingly using?Featuring:Prof. Alexander J.S. Colvin, Kenneth F. Kahn '69 Dean and Martin F. Scheinman Professor of Conflict Resolution, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell UniversityG. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy AssociationModerator: Christopher C. Murray, Shareholder, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart
On January 30-31, 1987, the Federalist Society hosted its first-ever national lawyers convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The conference featured an address by Dr. Thomas Sowell on "Judges and the Law"Featuring:Introduction: William Bradford Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General, Department of JusticeDr. Thomas Sowell, Hoover Institute
We recognize the risks of agency overreach when rulemaking seeks to impose ESG considerations on business. But to what extent have private banks and institutional investors also been able to leverage their economic power to shape firm behavior on climate and other ESG questions – outside of the democratic process? And if we worry that the administrative state lacks political accountability for contentious policy choices, should we also be concerned about the role of private economic influence?Join us for a dinner at the Mayflower Hotel as our panelists discuss these questions and more. This registration link above will direct registrants to the Executive Branch Review conference ticket sales page, where dinner tickets will be available at a discount to logged in members. Login or Join today!Featuring: Christina Parajon Skinner, Assistant Professor of Legal Studies and Business Ethics, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, Univeristy of Virginia School of Law Matthew Stoller, Director of Research, American Economic Liberties Project Hon. C. Boyden Gray, Founding Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit Reading Materials: The New Separation of Ownership and Control: Institutional Investors and ESG - Julia Mahoney Banks and Climate Governance - Christina Skinner
Featuring:Anthony LoCoco, Deputy Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL)Colin T. Roth, Partner, Stafford Rosenbaum LLPRyan J. Walsh, Partner, Eimer Stahl LLPModerator: Hon. Shelley A. Grogan, Judge, District II, Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Featuring:Prof. Christopher W. Schmidt, Professor of Law & Co-Director of ISCOTUS, Chicago-Kent College of LawDaniel Suhr, Senior Attorney, Liberty Justice CenterMisha Tseytlin, Partner, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLPModerator: Hon. Maria S. Lazar, Judge-Elect, District II, Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Deference doctrines utilized by the federal Judiciary when federal agencies act is the subject of substantial debate and attention. Chevron deference, Skidmore deference, and Kisor/Auer deference are recognizable to many. But less attention is paid to how state legislatures and judiciaries calibrate the balance of separated powers on the same score.In this webinar, Professor Aram Gavoor will lead a balanced discussion and press the governors' General Counsel or Chief Legal Counsel from Florida, Tennessee, and Texas. The program will explore the similarities, differences, and unique features of state judicial deference to administrative agency interpretations of law.Featuring:Ryan D. Newman, General Counsel, Governor of Florida Ron DeSantisJonathan T. Skrmetti, Chief Legal Counsel , Office of Tennessee Governor Bill LeeJames P. Sullivan, General Counsel , Office of Texas Governor Greg AbbottModerator: Aram A. Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University Law School---To register, click the link above
On March 24, 1998, the Federalist Society's student chapter at Cardozo School of Law in New York City, New York, hosted a lecture by Dean James Huffman of Lewis & Clark Law School which covered "Judicial Activism and the Role of the Judiciary." Featuring:Dean James Huffman, Lewis & Clark Law School
Comments (1)

Denny Gomez

A terrible example. I have seen video of lab tests of that Audi model that supported the claims of victims. Occam's Razor would lead anyone to consider the likelihood of a new technology to create unintended consequences MUCH more likely than that dozens and dozens of unrelated people around the world have engaged in wildly inexplicable behavior. Under what circumstances would someone crash into a whole row of cars? What would cause a person to accelerate into and through the rear wall of their own garage, over the body of their 10 year-old son? (This last happened in one case not mentioned here.) There's plenty of junk science presented in courts. This is a bad example.

Aug 26th
Reply
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store