Federalist Society Practice Groups Podcasts

Benefit-Cost Analysis in Rulemaking: Ready for Prime Time? 5-21-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 21 May 2012 15:53:11 GMT

Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group Podcast

Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) has been embraced by every President since Richard Nixon as a general purpose tool for evaluating the merits of administrative decisions, even while it has been assigned a subordinate role � or no role at all � in the statutory frameworks for making those decisions. One consequence is that we have a voluminous record of BCA performance in the executive branch, but only a handful of cases in which it has played an important role in judicial review of rules. Now, amid widespread claims that federal regulation is contributing to America�s continuing economic troubles, BCA is getting more attention. As practiced, does it give an accurate picture of the economic consequences of regulatory actions? Should we rely on it or require it, more than we do, to guide administrative discretion? On this previously recorded conference call, our two experts discuss the state of the art and current BCA controversies in energy and environmental regulation, and in financial regulation.

Featuring:

Dr. Sharon Brown-Hruska, National Economic Research Associates, Inc.
Mr. Brian Mannix, Buckland Mill Associates
Moderator: Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

The EEOC -- Disparate Impact and the Use of Criminal Arrest and Convictions Records 5-16-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 16 May 2012 17:27:39 GMT

Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast

No federal law directly addresses employment discrimination against people with criminal backgrounds. Yet, since 1987, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has maintained that, with some exceptions, an employer's policy or practice of excluding individuals from employment on the basis of criminal arrest and conviction records is unlawful under Title VII as disparate impact discrimination. The EEOC maintains that because statistics show that African-American and Hispanic males are arrested and convicted at rates disproportionate to their numbers in the population, background checks work to their special disadvantage to limit their employment. This year the EEOC issued its first guidance in over 20 years, making use of background checks more onerous. It was approved shortly after the EEOC announced a record $3.13M settlement with Pepsi Beverages over the racially disparate impact of its criminal background checks policy. On this previously recorded conference call, our experts discuss the EEOC's new guidance and its recent enforcement actions.

Featuring:

Mr. Maurice Emsellem, Policy Co-Director, National Employment Law Project
Ms. Dominique Ludvigson, Counsel & Special Assistant, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Moderator: Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Applying Citizens United 5-10-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 11 May 2012 14:38:29 GMT

Free Speech and Election Law Practice Group Podcast

As the election season accelerates, our panel of experts discussed the impact of Citizens United, the much talked about campaign finance case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. What has the decision meant for overall campaign fundraising? Who is giving, in what amounts, and to whom? Are there clear winners and losers? Listen to the analysis of our experts on these and other questions.

Featuring:

Mr. Joseph M. Birkenstock, Caplin & Drysdale
Prof. Bradley A. Smith, Capital University Law School
Moderator: Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Judicial Elections and Speech Restrictions 5-9-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 9 May 2012 20:41:49 GMT

Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group Podcast

Since the Supreme Court's 2002 decision in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, judicial candidates have had the freedom to discuss their views on "disputed legal or political issues." Many questions remain after the decision, however, about states' ability to restrict the speech of judicial candidates and their supporters. For example, should judges and judicial candidates have the right to announce their party affiliation and appear at party functions? To endorse other candidates? To raise campaign funds personally? And where is the line between an acceptable statement that announces one's views and unacceptable statement that implicitly promises a result in a case the judge might decide in the future? When do a judge's campaign statements -- even if constitutionally protected -- trigger the judge's obligation to recuse? What is the effect of Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., decided by the Supreme Court in 2009, in which the Court held that independent expenditures by a judicial candidate's supporters can sometimes require the judge to recuse in a case involving those supporters?

Featuring:

Mr. James Bopp, Jr., Bopp, Coleson, and Bostrom and General Counsel, James Madison Center for Free Speech
Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Widener University School of Law
Moderator: Mr. Paul Zimmerman, Director of Publications, The Federalist Society

Corporate Taxation Reform 5-8-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 8 May 2012 16:35:40 GMT

Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Group Podcast

Many observers argue that the corporate income tax is in need of fundamental reform. Is its worldwide scope damaging the ability of the U.S. to compete in foreign markets and retain the headquarters of large, successful multinational firms? Is the corporate tax rate is too high, anti-growth, or too complex? Or are businesses merely paying their fair share, or perhaps not enough? Proponents of reform assert that it could aid investment in the United States, the compensation of U.S. workers, and the overall pace of economic growth in tough economic times. On this previously recorded conference call, the speakers discuss these and other issues and answer questions from the callers.

Featuring:

Mr. Seth Hanlon, Center for American Progress
Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, American Action Forum
Moderator: Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

The Fisher Case: Mismatch & the Future of Affirmative Action 5-4-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 4 May 2012 20:39:55 GMT

Fisher v. University of Texas comes before the Court just as an unprecedented number of scholars have published work directly or indirectly calling into question some of the basic assumptions of affirmative action policies. Is the Supreme Court poised to make more fundamental changes to affirmative action in higher education than it did in either Bakke (1978) or Grutter and Gratz (2003)? Does Fisher have the markings of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case? Professor Richard Sander of UCLA provides an overview of this research and discusses its implications for Fisher on this previously recorded conference call.

Featuring:

Prof. Richard Sander, UCLA School of Law
Moderator: Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

James Madison by Richard Brookhiser 5-1-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 1 May 2012 22:24:17 GMT

Richard Brookhiser's book examines the life of America's fourth President, James Madison, including his role in advising Thomas Jefferson, his relationships with various Founding Fathers, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton.

Featuring:

Mr. Richard Brookhiser, Author of James Madison and Columnist for American History and National Review Magazines
Mr. James A. Haynes, Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group Executive Committee and Baltimore Lawyers Chapter

Stand Your Ground 4-26-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 27 Apr 2012 00:29:48 GMT

Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Podcast

The recent shooting of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida has sparked a national debate over "Stand Your Ground" laws, which give citizens broader leeway to use lethal force when they reasonably believe that someone intends to inflict serious bodily harm or commit homicide. On this previously recorded conference call, the speakers will attempt to cut through the heated and often misinformed rhetoric about these laws to address such questions as whether they are necessary, whether they deter crime, and proposed reforms. After providing their opening remarks, the speakers answer questions from the callers.

Featuring:

Dr. John R. Lott Jr., Author, More Guns, Less Crime and Debacle: Obama's War on Jobs and Growth; Foxnews.com contributor
Prof. Gregory O'Meara, Marquette University Law School
Moderator: Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Grand Jury Reform 4-25-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 25 Apr 2012 16:16:38 GMT

Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Podcast

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that in federal criminal cases, "no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." Critics argue that the grand jury system today has strayed from it's original role as the voice of the community protecting individuals from wrongful indictments and prosecutions. On this previously recorded conference call, the speakers discuss the goals of the grand jury system, whether or not those goals are being met, and various proposed reforms on both the state and federal level. After providing their opening remarks, the speakers answer questions from the callers.

Due to technical difficulties on the telephone line at the time of the recording, the sound quality of this podcast is not high.

Featuring:

Mr. Gerald Lefcourt, Gerald B. Lefcourt, PC
Mr. McGregor Scott, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Mr. Thomas Sullivan, Jenner & Block LLP
Moderator: Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Examination of the Legal Rationale for Targeting U.S. Citizens 4-24-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 24 Apr 2012 20:18:17 GMT

International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast

Last year, using a drone missile strike, the U.S. killed Anwar al-Awlaki. Questions were raised about the legal and constititional authority to target a U.S. citizen abroad. In recent remarks delivered by Attorney General Eric Holder, the administration offered its most detailed legal defense to date. Our experts recently discussed this legal rationale, and the future of targeting U.S. citizens.

Featuring:

Prof. Michael W. Lewis, Ohio Northern University Pettit College of Law
Prof. Stephen I. Vladeck, American University Washington College of Law
Moderator: Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

The National Popular Vote Plan 4-20-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 20 Apr 2012 19:55:37 GMT

Federalism & Separation of Powers and Free Speech & Election Law Practice Groups Podcast

When Alexander Hamilton spoke of the Electoral College, he said: “[If] the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.� Today, some are more doubtful, to say the least. The New York Times editorial board calls the system a “quadrennial ritual born in the economics and politics of slavery and the quill-pen era.� Some Americans want to move to a direct national election so badly that they have created an effort to do exactly that, but without a constitutional amendment. The National Popular Vote effort asks state legislatures to award their electors to the winner of the national popular vote. If states holding a majority of electors comply, then the presidential election will operate as a national direct election. This panel will discuss presidential election from several perspectives: Is the Electoral College an antiquated institution or is it an essential element of America�s republican democracy? If the Electoral College needs to be replaced with a direct election system, is NPV an appropriate route to change? Or does its interstate compact constitute an end-run around the constitutional amendment process?

Featuring:

Prof. George C. Edwards III, University Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Texas A&M University
Mr. Trent England, Vice President of Policy, The Freedom Foundation
Dr. John R. Koza, Author, Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote
Ms. Tara Ross, Author, Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College
Moderator: Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

The Supreme Court and Access to Effective Counsel 4-13-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 13 Apr 2012 16:39:14 GMT

Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Podcast

The Supreme Court recently clarified the rights of defendants in criminal cases to effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations in two closely related decisions, Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye. In two other decisions earlier this Term, Maples v. Thomas and Martinez v. Ryan, the Supreme Court ruled on federal court review of state criminal convictions when counsel has been ineffective or abandoned a client in the post-conviction appeals process. All four cases will significantly affect criminal defendants' access to counsel at the front end of the criminal process, during plea bargaining, as well as the back end, during state collateral appeals. After discussing the Court's decisions in these cases, the speakers will take questions from the callers.

Featuring:

Mr. George Kendall, Squire Sanders
Mr. Dean Mazzone, Massachusetts Attorney General's Office
Moderator: Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

The Keystone Pipeline 4-3-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 3 Apr 2012 16:24:07 GMT

Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group Podcast

The Keystone Pipeline is designed to transport petroleum products from Northeast Alberta, Canada, to as far away as the Gulf Coast of Texas. Proponents argue that the pipeline is essential to lower the cost of petroleum products and increase America�s energy independence. Opponents assert that the process used to “mine� the sand oils in Canada is not environmentally friendly, and that the pipeline itself presents environmental hazards that have not been completely taken into account. As Canada�s oil production and exports increased, President Obama postponed a decision that would have permitted construction of the pipeline extension. Our experts will discuss the merits of the pipeline from differing perspectives.

Featuring:

Mr. Daniel Simmons, Institute for Energy Research
Prof. Mark Squillace, University of Colorado Law School
Moderator: Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Redistricting Litigation Update 4-2-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 2 Apr 2012 16:22:09 GMT

Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast

The decennial census has again produced the decennial redistricting litigation -- not least in Texas, whose attempts to draw districts for the 2012 elections have engulfed two three-judge district courts, the Department of Justice, and the Supreme Court. The Texas litigation has been complicated by what some see as the conflicting demands of Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution. In Perry v. Perez, the Supreme Court vacated the interim maps a lower court drew and gave that court instructions on how navigate the legal tangle. That may have expedited the resolution of Texas's election conundrum but by no means resolved the broader issues involved. Join us for a Federalist Society Teleforum on Perry v. Perez, the Voting Rights Act, and other developments in election regulation.

Featuring:

Prof. Justin Levitt, Loyola Law School Los Angeles
Mr. Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies and Editor-in-Chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review
Moderator: Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Obamacare Daily Oral Argument Briefing - Wednesday 3-28-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 28 Mar 2012 21:50:18 GMT

Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group Podcast

On Wednesday, March 28, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded oral arguments in Florida v. HHS, better known as the Obamacare case. The federal courts below split on the constitutionality of the health care reform act. Wednesday's arguments focused on severability and the Medicaid coercion argument. Professor Randy Barnett reported from the Courthouse steps on exactly what transpired. Assuming, arguendo, that the Court finds some part of the Act unconstitutional, will it sever that part and preserve the balance of the statute, or will the entire statute fall? Will Wednesday's severability argument reveal anything about how the Court, or any individual justice, might rule on constitutionality? Does the design of the Act unconstitutionally coerce states by adding to the Medicaid rolls? Professor Barnett discussed these and other questions in this special Teleforum call.

Featuring:

Prof. Randy E. Barnett,Georgetown University Law Center and architect of the Individual Mandate Challenge
Moderator: Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Obamacare Daily Oral Argument Briefing - Tuesday 3-27-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 27 Mar 2012 22:27:40 GMT

Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group Podcast

On Tuesday, March 27, the U.S. Supreme Court continued hearing oral arguments in Florida v. HHS, better known as the Obamacare case. The federal courts below split on the constitutionality of the health care reform act. Tuesday's arguments focused on the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Professor Randy Barnett, who attended Tuesday's oral arguments, reported from the Courthouse steps on exactly what transpired. Which justices seemed most dubious about the individual mandate, and which seemed most inclined to support Congress� assertion of power? What were the major points of contention? Did the advocates for the government propound a judicially-administrable limiting principle on Congress� power? Professor Barnett discussed these and other questions in this special Teleforum call.

Featuring:

Prof. Randy E. Barnett,Georgetown University Law Center and architect of the Individual Mandate Challenge
Moderator: Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Obamacare Daily Oral Argument Briefing - Monday 3-26-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 26 Mar 2012 19:50:05 GMT

Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group Podcast

On Monday, March 26, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Florida v. HHS, perhaps better known as the Affordable Care Act case or the Obamacare case. The federal courts below split on the constitutionality of the health care reform act. Monday's arguments focused on the Anti-Injunction Act, and whether and to what extent it might control the outcome of the case. Professor Randy Barnett attended Monday's oral arguments and reported from the Courthouse steps on exactly what transpired. What was the focus of the inquiry of the various justices? Who asked the most pointed questions? What is expected in Tuesday's oral argument focusing on the constitutionality of the individual mandate? Professor Barnett discussed these and other questions in this special Teleforum call.

Featuring:

Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Georgetown University Law Center and architect of the Individual Mandate Challenge
Moderator: Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

The Future of Arbitration and the World of Class Action Litigation 3-21-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 21 Mar 2012 22:38:01 GMT

Litigation Practice Group Podcast

AT&T v. Concepci�n is one of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions in many years. Most of the discussion to date has centered on its implications for the future of class action litigation. This panel, however, will examine its implications for the future of arbitration. In particular, our experts will examine the Court's interpretation of the preemptive force of the Federal Arbitration Act and what it means for other state attempts to regulate arbitration.

Featuring:

Prof. Hiro Aragaki, Loyola Law School Los Angeles
Professor Christopher R. Drahozal, The University of Kansas School of Law
Dr. Michael S. Greve, John G. Searle Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
Professor Peter B. "Bo" Rutledge, University of Georgia School of Law
Moderator: Professor Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Vanderbilt University Law School

Are the Recent Recess Appointments Constitutional? 3-5-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 6 Mar 2012 00:11:58 GMT

Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group Podcast

Recently, President Obama recess-appointed three new members to the National Labor Relations Board, and a new chief of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created by the Dodd-Frank bill. In making the appointments, the President bypassed the usual approval process for the nominations in the Senate, claiming authority to make recess appointments. Commentators and academics differ in their opinions about the constitutionality of the President's appointments during the Senate's pro forma sessions. After describing just what transpired, our expert panelists offered their views and took questions from the audience.

Featuring:

Hon. Charles J. Cooper, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC
Prof. Michael B. Rappaport, University of San Diego School of Law
Prof. Peter M. Shane, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
Prof. William R. Yeomans, American University Washington College of Law
Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Sackett v. EPA: When May a Landowner Take the EPA to Court? 2-23-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 23 Feb 2012 23:32:17 GMT

Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group Podcast

On January 9, 2012, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Sackett v. EPA. The case involves two landowners who graded a lot in a residential subdivision to build a home and were issued an administrative compliance order by the EPA stating that the graded lot was a wetland requiring them to either restore the lot to its original condition or risk civil fines for each day of non-compliance. Do the petitioners have a right to seek judicial review of an EPA compliance order prior to the EPA's official enforcement of that order in court and does the compliance order deprive the landowners of due process of law? On this previously recorded conference call, the speaker discusses these and other issues and answers questions from the callers.

Featuring:

Mr. Damien Schiff, Counsel for the Petitioners, Pacific Legal Foundation
Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

The Compact Clause and Interstate Compacts 2-21-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 21 Feb 2012 19:38:07 GMT

Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group Podcast

The Compact Clause of the Constitution provides that "[n]o State shall, without the Consent of Congress... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power." The Supreme Court requires congressional consent only for interstate compacts that attempt to enhance "states power quoad [relative to] the federal government" opening the door to approximately 200 interstate compacts. On this previously recorded conference call, the speakers discuss states� rights, the issues that arise from interstate compacts, and their impact on federal programs.

Featuring:

Dr. Michael Greve, John G. Searle Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
Mr. Nick Dranias, Director, Center for Constitutional Government, Goldwater Institute
Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

The Regulatory Accountability Act 2-17-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 17 Feb 2012 17:21:38 GMT

Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group Podcast

On December 2, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011 (H.R. 3010) which would amend the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and create new federal rulemaking requirements. How might this legislation affect the rulemaking requirements of existing executive orders and more broadly the federal rulemaking process? On this previously recorded conference call, the experts provide their analysis of the Act and it's impact on the federal rulemaking process after which they provide answers to questions from callers.

Featuring:

Hon. C. Boyden Gray, Boyden Gray & Associates
Prof. Ronald M. Levin, Washington University School of Law
Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Rent Control and the Supreme Court: Harmon v. Markus 2-16-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 16 Feb 2012 22:27:06 GMT

Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group Podcast

In March 2011, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued summary judgment in Harmon v. Markus, a challenge to New York's rent stabilization law by Mr. John Harmon, whose townhouse has been occupied for years by tenants paying rent equal to about 60% of market value. The Second Circuit ruled that "government regulation of the rental relationship does not constitute a physical taking" in light of the Supreme Court precedent, and that Mr. Harmon was therefore not entitled to just compensation. The Supreme Court has asked New York City and the tenants to file a response to the certiorari petition filed by Mr. Harmon. On this previously recorded conference call, Prof. Richard Epstein provides analysis of the case and rent control statutes as they relate to the Takings Clause and answers questions from the callers.

Featuring:

Prof. Richard Epstein, New York University School of Law
Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

The Supreme Court Rules on Congress�s Power to Grant Copyrights to Public Domain Works -- Golan v. Holder 2-13-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 13 Feb 2012 16:48:15 GMT

Intellectual Property Practice Group Podcast

On January 18, 2012, the Supreme Court upheld Congress�s power under the Patent and Copyright Clause to grant copyrights to foreign authors for their works that had been in the public domain in the United States, often for decades. Congress had granted these copyrights as part of the enabling legislation pursuant to the 1994 round of the GATT agreements, according to which the U.S. was arguably required to grant copyrights to foreign authors if the authors� works were still in copyright in their home countries.

Our IP experts will discuss the case and whether the Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution should allow granting copyrights to existing, public domain works, and more generally, what limitations the IP Clause and the First Amendment place on Congress when it passes IP laws. They will also discuss how the challenged law in Golan affects incentives to create and distribute inventive and artistic works, and what type of future IP laws Congress might pass given the license granted it by the Court in this case.

Featuring:

Prof. Adam Mossoff, George Mason University School of Law
Prof. Christopher Newman, George Mason University School of Law
Prof. David Olson, Boston College Law School
Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 2-10-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 10 Feb 2012 16:40:58 GMT

Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group Podcast

With a recently appointed director, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), created by the Dodd-Frank Act, will swing into action. Among other issues, the speakers will discuss the structure, authority and potential effectiveness of the new bureau and will take questions from callers. How might the CFPB fulfill its goals of preventing the next financial crisis and protecting consumers? Will consumers and a struggling economic recovery benefit from its actions?

Featuring:

Hon. Wayne Abernathy, Executive VP for Financial Institutions Policy and Regulatory Affairs, American Bankers Association
Ms. Jo Ann Barefoot, Co-Chair, Treliant Risk Advisors
Prof. Arthur Wilmarth, The George Washington University Law School
Prof. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University School of Law
Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Who Should Receive Unclaimed Class Action Awards? The Tale of Cy Pres 2-8-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 8 Feb 2012 20:56:50 GMT

Litigation Practice Group Podcast

Cy Pres, a doctrine borrowed from the law of trusts, has in recent years been adopted by courts in litigation to distribute class action funds to purposes or recipients other than those presented by the original class action plaintiffs. This once rare, now increasingly common practice, has come under fire for lacking a foundation in applicable law and representing a wholly discretionary exercise of judicial power. Theodore H. Frank, of the Center for Class Action Fairness, discussed the history and practice of this little-known and less-well-understood power of class action courts. Attorney Patrick J. Perotti, of the class action law firm Dworken & Bernstein and "Ohio Lawyers Give Back," presented the case for the use of this practice in class actions. Margaret A. Little, Director of the Federalist Society's Pro Bono Center, moderated. After their remarks, the speakers took questions from the callers.

Featuring:

Mr. Theodore H. Frank, Founder, Center for Class Action Fairness
Mr. Patrick J. Perotti, Partner, Dworken & Bernstein Co. L.P.A.
Moderator: Margaret A. Little, Little & Little Attorneys at Law and Director of the Federalist Society's Pro Bono Center

Keynes vs. Hayek: The Clash that Defined Modern Economics 2-7-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 8 Feb 2012 16:58:16 GMT

Practice Groups Podcast

Nicholas Wapshott's book examines the vastly divergent economic philosophies of John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich von Hayek. Messrs. Keynes and Hayek studied the normal course of the capitalist business cycle, especially after World War I, but reached radically different opinions about the role governments should play in regulating and ameliorating the effects of the business cycle. These two gentlemen, two of the most influential economic thinkers of the 20th Century, participated in on-going debates about the respective merits of their own philosophies and the demerits of the other's philosophies. Mr. Wapshott examines these debates and expounds on them in this podcast.

Featuring:

Mr. Nicholas Wapshott, Author of Keynes vs. Hayek: The Clash that Defined Modern Economics
Mr. James A. Haynes, Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group Executive Committee and Baltimore Lawyers Chapter

GPS Surveillance and the Supreme Court: U.S. v. Jones - Podcast

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 6 Feb 2012 20:54:18 GMT

Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Podcast

In U.S. v. Jones, the government attached a GPS device to a vehicle of a criminal suspect to monitor the vehicle's movement. What effect will the Supreme Court�s ruling have on warrantless searches, warrant-based searches, the right to privacy, and the Fourth Amendment? How helpful is the Court�s opinion for law enforcement and defendants? On this previously recorded conference call, the experts provide their analysis of the case and answer questions from the callers.

Featuring:

Prof. Orin S. Kerr, The George Washington University Law School
Mr. Peter Thomson, Partner, Fowler Rodriguez Valdes-Fauli
Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Is Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act Constitutional? - Podcast

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 3 Feb 2012 19:51:35 GMT

Civil rights Practice Group Podcast

This podcast features a discussion and commentary by our panel of experts on the recent federal district court decision in Shelby County v. Holder, upholding the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. On this previously recorded Teleforum conference call, the experts provide analysis of the case and the impact of the decision, followed by questions from callers.

Featuring:

Ms. Nancy Abudu, Staff Counsel, The American Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project
Mr. Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation's Center for Legal and Judicial Studies
Moderator: Mr. Roger Clegg, President and General Counsel, The Center for Equal Opportunity
Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Will Americans Continue to Invent? 2-2-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 2 Feb 2012 20:55:40 GMT

Intellectual Property Practice Group Podcast

United States patent law has traditionally authorized the grant of patent rights to the first to invent or to discover a patentable invention, subject to specified terms and conditions. But the America Invents Act replaced the "first-to-invent" system with the "first to file" system long enforced in England and in other countries by deleting or rewriting numerous references to priority of inventorship in the existing statutory sections concerning novelty and obviousness. Does this change rewrite core patent law fundamentals in this country and shift the balance among individual inventors, large corporations, and patent holding companies? What is the likely effect on innovation and development, the keys to a growing economy? Are the projected benefits worth the anticipated costs? Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, is the change Constitutional?

Featuring:

Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University School of Law
Prof. F. Scott Kieff, Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School
Prof. David S. Olson, Assistant Professor of Law, Boston College Law School
Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Felon Voting 2-2-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 2 Feb 2012 20:00:05 GMT

Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast

Policies on felon enfranchisement vary from state to state with most states restricting felons from voting to varying degrees. Among other issues, our experts discuss the history of felon disenfranchisement laws and whether such laws violate the Voting Rights Act. On this previously recorded conference call, the speakers discussed these and other issues and took questions from callers.

Featuring:

Ms. Nancy Abudu, Staff Counsel, The American Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project
Mr. Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation's Center for Legal and Judicial Studies
Moderator: Mr. Roger Clegg, President and General Counsel, The Center for Equal Opportunity
Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Speaking Freely in Business 1-27-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 27 Jan 2012 18:38:13 GMT

Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group Podcast

The United States Supreme Court is about to make a decision whether to grant cert on the Florida Interior Design case, Locke v. Ehrig, which implicates economic liberty and free speech. Can a state require a license for interior designers, or do designers have a paramount right to speech in a business context?

Featuring:

Mr Clark Neily, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Moderator: Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

SEC Enforcement 1-20-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 20 Jan 2012 22:14:59 GMT

Corporations, Securities, and Antitrust Practice Group Podcast

In a recent case, the Securities & Exchange Commission's consent settlement with Citigroup was rejected by presiding Judge Rakoff of the Federal District Court in Manhattan, calling into question SEC's enforcement regime. What does this decision mean for SEC's normal preference of settling its cases without requiring defendants to admit wrong-doing? Who has ultimate responsibility for protecting investor interests and determining the appropriate regulatory enforcement regime? If the SEC is forced to bring more enforcement actions through litigation, will it ultimately bring fewer enforcement actions? On this previously recorded conference call, the speakers discussed these and other issues and took questions from callers.

Featuring:

Prof. Stephen Bainbridge, UCLA School of Law
Prof. Jonathan Macey, Yale Law School
Moderator: Mr. Dean Reuter, The Federalist Society

Business Roundtable v. SEC and the Future of Proxy Access 1-18-12

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 18 Jan 2012 21:50:11 GMT

Corporations, Securities, and Antitrust Practice Group Podcast

Although corporations are creatures of state law and corporate elections are governed by state law, statements soliciting proxies for publicly traded securities are governed as to form and content by the federal securities laws, most importantly by various rules promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Last year, the SEC used its authority under Dodd-Frank to promulgate Rule 14a-11 requiring public companies to include in their proxy statements director nominations proposed by certain shareholders. Soon thereafter, the Business Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sued the SEC, alleging that the Commission's adoption of Rule 14a-11 violated various provisions of federal law. The SEC voluntarily stayed the rule pending the outcome of the litigation. On July 20, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held for the plaintiffs and vacated Rule 14a-11. On this previously recorded conference call, the speakers provided their analysis of the case, the impact of the decision on the SEC's rulemaking authority and the prospects for shareholder access and took questions from callers.

Featuring:

Mr. Ted Allen, Governance Counsel, Institutional Shareholders Services, Inc.
Prof. Stephen Bainbridge, UCLA School of Law
Prof. J. Robert Brown, Jr., University of Denver Sturm College of Law
Hon. Eugene Scalia, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
Moderator: Prof. Robert T. Miller, Villanova University School of Law
Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Death Penalty Debate 9-28-11

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 29 Sep 2011 00:08:01 GMT

Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Podcast

Recently, an Ohio jury recommended a death sentence for Mr. Anthony Sowell, who lured 11 women to his property over a two year period, killed them, and secreted the bodies in his house. About three weeks before that, on an island in Norway, Anders Breivik shot and killed 76 unarmed teenagers and children. He will not face the death penalty, however, because Norwegian law limits the punishment for any offense to 21 years. To some, the death penalty seems like the only just punishment for particularly sadistic or merciless murder. To others, problems of expense, delay, uneven application and possible innocence mean the United States should follow what some believe to be the more enlightened sentencing practices of Europe. On this previously recorded conference call, two experts discussed capital punishment and took questions from callers.

Featuring:

Ms. Cassandra Stubbs, ACLU Capital Punishment Project
Prof. William Otis, Georgetown Law Center
Moderator: Mr. Dean Reuter, The Federalist Society

Lawyer Barons: What Their Contingency Fees Really Cost America 7-14-11

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 14 Jul 2011 21:22:18 GMT

Litigation and Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Groups Podcast

In this podcast, Professor Lester Brickman discusses his new book, which is the culmination of his twenty-plus years of research into the impact contingency fees have on our legal system and our political system.

Featuring:

Prof. Lester Brickman, Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Moderator: Margaret A. Little, Director, The Federalist Society Pro Bono Center

The America Invents Act: First to File versus First to Invent? 6-20-11

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 20 Jun 2011 23:27:14 GMT

Intellectual Property Practice Group Podcast

Since the first U. S. patent statute in 1790, United States patent law has authorized the grant of patent rights to the first to invent or to discover a patentable invention, subject to specified terms and conditions. Currently under consideration as S. 23 and H.R. 1249, the America Invents Act will substantially change the American patent system by eliminating this uniquely American approach in securing property rights in inventions to only their first and true inventors. Section 2 in the Senate (S.23) and the House (H.R. 1249) bills will replace the current “first-to-invent� system with the “first to file� system long enforced in England and in other countries by deleting or rewriting numerous references to priority of inventorship in the existing statutory sections concerning novelty (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). Does the proposed change from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system rewrite core patent law fundamentals in this country by shifting the balance among individual inventors, large corporations, and patent holding companies? What is the likely effect of this proposed change on innovation and development, the keys to a growing economy? Are the projected benefits worth the anticipated costs? Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, is the proposed change even Constitutional? These and other topics are debated and discussed among a panel of law professors moderated by an experienced practitioner.

Featuring:

Prof. Timothy Holbrook, Emory University School of Law
Prof. F. Scott Kieff, George Washington University Law School
Prof. Adam Mossoff, George Mason University School of Law
Prof. David S. Olson, Boston College Law School
Moderator: David L. Applegate, Partner, Williams Montgomery & John LTD

New FDIC Deposit-Insurance Assessment Rule 5-25-11

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 25 May 2011 21:02:31 GMT

Financial Services Practice Group Podcast

Recently under Dodd-Frank, the FDIC implemented a new assessment base for levying deposit-insurance premiums. Questions are now arising as to the impact and likely unintended consequences of this material change in how the FDIC charges for deposit insurance and who will ultimately bear those charges. This question may lead to a court challenge of the FDIC�s assessment formulae. What are the likely responses by banks and their creditors to the new assessment structure? Will banks reduce their reliance on secured funding? Will banks become more aggressive in gathering retail deposits, pushing up retail deposit interest rates and harming community banks in the process? Will foreign banks gain a competitive edge over FDIC-insured banks? Will Congress step into the fray? Our speakers address these and other issues.

Featuring:

Mr. Christopher Cole, Independent Community Bankers of America
Mr. Bert Ely, Ely & Company, Inc.
Moderator: Mr. John Douglas, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP

Wikileaks: Frontier Journalism or Underminer of Liberty and Security? 5-11-11

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 11 May 2011 18:59:37 GMT

International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast

A Federalist Society panel of free speech and national security experts discusses what, if anything, can be done about the Wikileaks matter. Who, if anyone, can or should be prosecuted, and for what? How strong is a potential free speech defense? What is the potential liability of re-publishers? As technology continues to develop, who qualifies as a “journalist� and “press?� These and other questions will be addressed by our experts.

Featuring:

Mr. Floyd Abrams, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP
Dr. Gabriel Schoenfeld, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc. and Resident Scholar, The Witherspoon Institute
Mr. Eric Snyder, Kobre & Kim LLP
Moderator: Mr. Jamil N. Jaffer, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC

Schools for Misrule: Legal Academia and an Overlawyered America 5-9-11

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 9 May 2011 19:50:33 GMT

Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group Podcast

How well do law schools today actually prepare law school students for the practice of law? Can the lineage of some of the most controversial law and policy matters be traced to the legal academic agenda? Does the ideological bent of the legal academy enhance or hinder graduates in the practice of law? Walter Olson of the Cato Institute discusses his latest book on this topic.

Featuring:

Mr. Walter K. Olson, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute
Moderator: Mr. James A. Haynes, Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group Executive Committee and Baltimore Federalist Society Lawyers Chapter

Just a Minor Fix in Patent Reform? Qui Tam Actions and the False Marking Statute 4-8-11

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 8 Apr 2011 21:48:28 GMT

Intellectual Property Practice Group Podcast

The false marking statute of the Patent Act (35 U.S.C. § 292) prohibits marking as “patented� any product that is not patented. Section 292 also gives individuals the right to bring a qui tam action and to collect statutory damages up to $500 for each falsely marked product. Although once rarely invoked, the qui tam provision is increasingly being used by plaintiffs against large manufacturers of patented and formerly patented products. The number of qui tam lawsuits has exploded in the past couple years, and there is now a debate raging among lawyers and commentators as to whether the qui tam provision still serves its original function of punishing firms who improperly seek to squelch both free trade and the public domain by false claiming a product or service as patented. Congress is considering various ways of amending or even eliminating the qui tam provision as part of the patent reform legislation that is currently being debated on the Hill. Complicating matters, in early March 2011, a federal district court in Ohio held that the qui tam provision is unconstitutional, violating the Take Care Clause in Article II, § 3. This panel discusses the current state of play and what changes, if any, should be made to the qui tam provision of the false marking statute.

Featuring:

Mr. Trevor K. Copeland, Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione
Mr. Arthur Gollwitzer, Floyd & Buss LLP
Prof. Elizabeth I. Winston, Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America
Moderator: Prof. Adam Mossoff, George Mason University School of Law

The President's Authority in Libya - 4-7-11

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 7 Apr 2011 20:31:20 GMT

International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast

As the country, and Congress, continues to debate the President's authority for action in Libya, the Federalist Society presents a podcast of four Constitutional law experts with contrasting views to debate the issues.

Featuring:

Prof. Saikrishna Prakash, David Lurton Massee, Jr., Professor of Law, Sullivan & Cromwell Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Mr. David B. Rivkin, Jr., Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP
Prof. Peter J. Spiro, Charles Weiner Professor of Law, Temple University - Beasley School of Law
Hon. Edwin D. Williamson, Senior Counsel, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP and former Legal Advisor to the U.S. Department of State
Moderator: Hon. Ronald A. Cass, President, Cass & Associates, PC

Birthright Citizenship 2-8-11

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 8 Mar 2011 19:37:37 GMT

Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But what is the proper interpretation of this clause? What does it mean to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? To what extent can states seek to control or alter birthright citizenship? Our experts debate these and other questions in this podcast.

Featuring:

Dr. John C. Eastman, Donald P. Kennedy Chair in Law and Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Chapman University School of Law
Hon. James C. Ho, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, and Former Solicitor General of Texas
Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Miranda & Terror Suspects 2-4-11

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 4 Feb 2011 20:52:55 GMT

International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast

Slide Presentation by Paul G. Cassell

To what extent are law enforcement personnel required to read the standard Miranda warning to terror suspects? Does the reading of such a warning so compromise the government's ability to investigate acts of terror, both prospectively and retrospectively, that a public safety exception exists? Or does such a public safety exception for terror suspects effectively erode a vital protection for all criminal suspects?

Featuring:

Hon. Paul G. Cassell, Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law, The University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law
Prof. Amos N. Guiora, Professor of Law, The University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law
Moderator: Mr. Richard D. Klingler, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP

Terror Trials and Executive Power 1-28-11

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 28 Jan 2011 19:10:47 GMT

International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast

To what extent may the U.S. Congress, using its power of the purse, determine in which courts war terror detainees must be tried? Is the decision solely that of the President as a core executive power? Or does Congress have a measure of control, using its appropriations authority, to prohibit expenditure of funds for certain trials?

Featuring:

Mr. Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National Review Institute
Mr. David B. Rivkin Jr., Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP
Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Predator Drones and Targeted Killings 1-27-11

info@fed-soc.org (The Federalist Society) — 27 Jan 2011 21:46:00 GMT

International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast

In this Practice Groups Podcast, Professor Michael W. Lewis and ACLU National Security Project Litigation Director Ben Wizner discuss the legal limits and policy considerations of unmanned aerial vehicles in the War on Terror.

Featuring:

Prof. Michael W. Lewis, Ohio Northern University Pettit College of Law
Mr. Ben Wizner, Litigation Director, National Security Project, American Civil Liberties Union
Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society