Free Speech & Election Law

Applying Citizens United - Podcast

Thu, 10 May 2012 00:00:00 EST

Joseph M. Birkenstock, Bradley A. Smith, Dean A. Reuter

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 of Caplin & Drysdale and Prof. Bradley A. Smith of Capital University Law School. [Listen now!]

Judicial Elections and Speech Restrictions - Podcast

Wed, 09 May 2012 00:00:00 EST

James Bopp Jr., Michael R. Dimino, Paul Zimmerman

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., of Bopp, Coleson, and Bostrom and the James Madison Center for Free Speech and Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., of Widener University School of Law. [Listen now!]

The National Popular Vote Plan - Podcast

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:00:00 EST

George C. Edwards, Trent England, John R. Koza, Tara Ross, Dean A. Reuter

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 of Texas A&M University; Mr. Trent England of The Freedom Foundation; Dr. John R. Koza, author of Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote; and Ms. Tara Ross, author of Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College. [Listen now!]

Speaking Freely in Business - Podcast

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:00:00 EST

Clark Neily, Dean A. Reuter

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 of the Institute for Justice and Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups for the Federalist Society, as the moderator.

Illuminating Citizens United: What the Decision Really Did

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:00:00 EST

William R. Maurer

In January 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued one of its most controversial decisions in decades, Citizens United v. FEC. The response among politicians supporting restrictions on campaign finances was immediate and fierce. President Obama said he could not “think of anything more devastating to the public interest” and criticized it during the State of the Union address with members of the Court present. Senator Al Franken called it “an incredible act of judicial activism,” while Rep. Chris Van Hollen called it “a very, very sad day for American democracy,” and a “radical, radical decision." ... [Read more!]

The Obama Justice Department, the 2012 Elections and the Rule of Law - Event Audio

Thu, 08 Dec 2011 00:00:00 EST

J. Christian Adams, Asheesh Agarwal

On December 8, 2011, the Indianapolis Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society hosted an event featuring former DOJ voting rights section attorney and best-selling author Mr. J. Christian Adams. The topic of the address was "The Obama Justice Department, the 2012 Elections and the Rule of Law". Introduction by Mr. Asheesh Agarwal of Ogletree Deakins.

Voter Fraud and Voter ID � The Constitution and the Right to Vote - Event Audio/Video

Fri, 11 Nov 2011 00:00:00 EST

John Fund, Spencer A. Overton, Daniel P. Tokaji, Hans A. von Spakovsky, Thomas B. Griffith

The Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group hosted this panel on "Voter Fraud and Voter ID — The Constitution and the Right to Vote" on Friday, November 11, 2011, during the 2011 National Lawyers Convention. The panel featured Mr. John Fund, formerly of The Wall Street Journal and Opinionjournal.com; Prof. Spencer A. Overton of The George Washington University Law School; Prof. Daniel P. Tokaji of The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law; Mr. Hans von Spakovsky of The Heritage Foundation; and Judge Thomas B. Griffith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as the moderator.

Engage Volume 11, Issue 3, December 2010

Thu, 23 Dec 2010 00:00:00 EST

The December 2010 issue of Engage is now online (exclusively a digital issue). Engage provides original scholarship on current, important legal and policy issues. Through its publication, we aim to contribute to the marketplace of ideas in a way that is collegial, measured, and insightful—and hope to spark a higher level of debate and discussion than we often see in today’s legal community. [Read now!]

Holding the Service's Feet to the Fire: Applying Citizens United and the First Amendment to the IRC � 501(c)(3) Political Prohibition

Thu, 23 Dec 2010 00:00:00 EST

James Bopp Jr., Zachary S. Kester

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Citizens United v. FEC will have a lasting and profound impact on the future of campaign finance regulation. Citizens United will impact several other areas of law as well, not the
least of which is federal tax law. This article explains how Citizens United—and the First Amendment—apply to the law of tax exempt organizations generally, and Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) specifically.

Anonymity and The First Amendment - Event Audio/Video

Fri, 19 Nov 2010 00:00:00 EST

Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, A. Raymond Randolph, Joel R. Reidenberg, Bradley A. Smith, Brett M. Kavanaugh

The Federalist Society's Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group hosted this panel discussion on "Anonymity and The First Amendment" at the 2010 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 19, 2010. Panelists included Prof. Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer of the University of Notre Dame Law School; Prof. Bradley A. Smith Capital University Law School; Judge A. Raymond Randolph of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; Prof. Joel R. Reidenberg of the Center on Law and Information Policy at Fordham University School of Law; and Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as the moderator.

The Potential Impact on Campaign Finance Regulation of SpeechNow.org v. FEC

Fri, 10 Sep 2010 00:00:00 EST

Douglas Chalmers, Jr., Michael Jablonski

The decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission may augur a sea-change in the law governing campaign finance regulation. This article discusses the statutory and jurisprudential context in which the SpeechNow.org challenge to federal campaign finance laws developed; presents an overview of the decision of the Court of Appeals; and notes the potential implications of the decision for the future case law addressing the intersection of campaign finance law and the First Amendment.

Engage Volume 11, Issue 2, September 2010

Fri, 10 Sep 2010 00:00:00 EST

The September 2010 issue of Engage is now online (exclusively a digital issue). Engage provides original scholarship on current, important legal and policy issues. Through its publication, we aim to contribute to the marketplace of ideas in a way that is collegial, measured, and insightful—and hope to spark a higher level of debate and discussion than we often see in today’s legal community. [Read now!]

Recent Developments in Election Law

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:00:00 EST

Kathryn Biber, John Hilton
It is difficult to overstate the extent to which political speech in America today is shaped—in volume, timing, and style—by federal election laws and Federal Election Commission regulations. When political actors and issue groups seek to disseminate a message, their first call is often to a lawyer: “How should I organize? Who may contribute to my cause? What am I, and other people and groups that support me, allowed to say?” In recent months, several groundbreaking decisions have shifted dramatically the boundaries of permissible conduct, raising such questions to a fever pitch...

Voting Rights�and Wrongs: The Elusive Quest for Racially Fair Elections by Abigail Thernstrom

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:00:00 EST

Roger Clegg
No one has written more or better about the Voting Rights Act than Abigail Thernstrom. Her latest book, Voting Rights—and Wrongs: The Elusive Quest for Racially Fair Elections, would, in a just world, be the last word on the subject, but alas the problems raised by the Act will continue, and so, Sisyphean, must Dr. Thernstrom’s efforts...

Doe v. Reed and the Role of Anonymity in a Democracy - Podcast

Fri, 21 May 2010 00:00:00 EST

John C. Fortier, Robert Frommer, Allison R. Hayward
In April 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Doe v. Reed. The Court is expected to decided whether petition signatures should be disclosed to public parties under Washington State's Public Records Act. Do people that sign political petitions to place measures on the ballot have a right to privacy, association, belief or speech that would prevent disclosure of their names and perhaps other personal information? What level of scrutiny should the Court use in examining the question? Does the public have a right (perhaps to police authenticity, to study patterns of support, or from mere curiosity) to know who signed particular petitions? These and other questions are addressed by our experts. Featuring: Mr. John C. Fortier, Research Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute; Mr. Robert Frommer, Staff Attorney for the Institute for Justice; and Ms. Allison Hayward, Constitutional and election law expert in Washington DC, and Chair of the Federalist Society's Free Speech and Election Law Practice Group, as the moderator.

DISCLOSE Act � The Legislative "Fix" to Citizens United

Mon, 10 May 2010 00:00:00 EST

Allison R. Hayward

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Citizens United v. FEC. Since then, congressional critics of the Court's broad holding have promised a legislative "fix." These Members believe that the decision to recognize constitutional protection for corporate (and labor) independent expenditures in federal elections will have a pernicious effect on American politics. Accordingly, on April 29, 2010, Senator Charles Schumer and Representative Chris Van Hollen introduced the DISCLOSE Act.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Podcast

Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:00:00 EST

Richard L. Hasen, Steve Simpson, Eugene Volokh

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The Court struck down as inconsistent with the First Amendment a provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act regarding independent expenditures by corporations that the FEC had said would forbid the airing of advertisements about a documentary about Hillary Clinton that Citizens United sought to air during the 2008 primary season. This podcast will discuss the decision. Featuring: Prof. Richard L. Hasen of Loyola Law School; Mr. Steve Simpson, Senior Attorney at the Institute for Justice; and Prof. Eugene Volokh of the University of California Los Angeles School of Law as the moderator.

The Regulation of Grassroots Lobbying

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:00:00 EST

William R. Maurer
President Obama’s domestic policies have generated opposition among many in the general public and mobilized previously uninvolved citizens. This opposition has manifested itself in public rallies, “tea party” protests, and spirited feedback at town hall meetings. Supporters of the president’s policies have accused those participating of being part of a larger, organized conspiracy or, at the very least, pawns of the healthcare industry, insurance companies, the Republican and Libertarian parties, and K Street lobbyists. Even White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs alleged that the protests were the result of “groups . . . that have bragged about organizing and manufacturing that anger” who have been “busing people in and planting people at these rallies.” ...

Engage Volume 11, Issue 1, March 2010

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:00:00 EST

The March 2010 issue of Engage is now online (exclusively a digital issue). Engage provides original scholarship on current, important legal and policy issues. Through its publication, we aim to contribute to the marketplace of ideas in a way that is collegial, measured, and insightful—and hope to spark a higher level of debate and discussion than we often see in today’s legal community. [Read now!]

Why Vote in Secret? Balancing Autonomy and Accountability in Absentee, Card Check, and Corporate Voting Contexts

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:00:00 EST

Allison R. Hayward

The way a group, jurisdiction, or nation votes, and makes decisions binding on their members and citizens, is fundamental and deceptively prosaic. Why do some groups (e.g., faculties, Congress, caucuses, HOAs) take public votes in most contexts, accompanied by debate, sometimes heated? Why do others (e.g., electorates, labor unions) take private votes (often by ballot cast in a secure setting where “heated debate” is not allowed) in most contexts? ...

Applying Citizens United

Thu, 05 Apr 2012 00:00:00 EST

Joseph M. Birkenstock, Bradley A. Smith

As the election season accelerates, our panel of experts will discuss 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? Join us as our experts address these and other questions. Featuring Mr. Joseph M. Birkenstock of Caplin & Drysdale and Prof. Bradley A. Smith of Capital University Law School.

Judicial Elections and Speech Restrictions

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 00:00:00 EST

James Bopp Jr., Michael R. Dimino

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., of Bopp, Coleson, and Bostrom and the James Madison Center for Free Speech and Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., of Widener University School of Law.

The National Popular Vote Plan

Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:00:00 EST

George C. Edwards, Trent England, John R. Koza, Tara Ross

2010 National Lawyers Convention

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:00:00 EST

Barry E. Carter, Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Patrick McSweeney, Antonin Scalia, Dennis G. Jacobs, Marvin Ammori, Paul S. Atkins, John S. Baker, Jr., Randy E. Barnett, Sara Sun Beale, Bradford A. Berenson, Lillian R. BeVier, Carl T. Bogus, James Bopp Jr., Steven G. Calabresi, Michael A. Carvin, Ronald A. Cass, Michael Chertoff, Roger Clegg, Robert D. Cooter, R. Ted Cruz, Frank H. Easterbrook, John C. Eastman, Richard A. Epstein, William N. Eskridge, Jr., David French, Charles Fried, Richard W. Garnett, Michael Gerhardt, C. Boyden Gray, Thomas W. Hazlett, Christine Jolls, Douglas T. Kendall, Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, Edwin Meese III, Thomas W. Merrill, Paul R. Michel, John O. McGinnis, Barrington D. Parker, Jr., Michael S. Paulsen, Thomas R. Phillips, A. Raymond Randolph, David B. Rivkin, Jr., Mark F. Schultz, Bradley A. Smith, Paul M. Smith, Margaret D. Stock, Thomas J. Tauke, Clifford W. Taylor, Mark Tushnet, Eugene Volokh, Howard Waltzman, Ruth J. Wedgwood, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Mitch McConnell, Noah D. Bookbinder, Lawrence A. Hamermesh, Brett M. Frischmann, Gigi B. Sohn, Kris W. Kobach, James C. Ho, William H. Pryor Jr., Joel R. Reidenberg, Diane S. Sykes, Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, Edith H. Jones, Ronald M. Levin, Victoria A. Lipnic, Roger Martella Jr., Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Roger Pilon, Rena I. Steinzor, Sarah B. Teslik, Peter J. Wallison, Arthur E. Wilmarth, John C. Yoo, Michael Barone, Michael S. Lee, Michael J. Madigan, Lanny J. Davis, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Jan Crawford, Carlos T. Bea, Kim Bobo, Shawn H. Chang, Thomas M. Hardiman, Jordan Lorence, Jeffrey P. Mahoney, Robert M. McDowell, Margaret E. McGuinness, Brandon Rees, David B. Sentelle, Jerry E. Smith, David Stras, Jeffrey S. Sutton, C. Gibson Vance, Pete Williams, Michael R. Pence, Daniel E. Lungren, Jeffrey Rosen

The Federalist Society's National Lawyers Convention is scheduled for Thursday, November 18 through Saturday, November 20 at the Mayflower Hotel. The theme for this year's convention is "Controlling Government: The Framers, the Tea Parties and the Constitution." The Annual Dinner will take place the evening of Thursday, November 18 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel. [Register now!]

Is the Electoral College Obsolete?

Thu, 01 Jul 2010 00:00:00 EST

John R. Koza, Tara Ross, Roger Pilon

The Electoral College has been a staple of American presidential elections since the nation's founding, but it may not be for long: a new legislative effort has been gaining momentum in state legislatures and could soon fundamentally change presidential elections as we know them. A California-based group, National Popular Vote, hopes to convince a critical mass of state legislatures to sign an interstate compact that will dictate a new method of allocating presidential electors: rather than states allocating electors as they do now, NPV wants states to give their electors to the winner of the national popular vote. The compact has been approved in five states (61 electoral votes) and is currently being considered in three other states (46 electoral votes). Three additional state legislatures approved the compact but did not receive gubernatorial approval (62 electoral votes). The compact goes into effect when states holding 270 electoral votes have signed the agreement. At this critical moment in the progress of NPV's legislation, Ms. Ross and Dr. Koza will debate the benefits and detriments of both NPV and the Electoral College. Should the Electoral College be retained? If not, is NPV's solution a good one, or might there be unintended logistical ramifications? Should Electoral College opponents instead go through the formal constitutional amendment process?

The Impact of the Citizens United Decision on Federal Elections

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 00:00:00 EST

Jan W. Baran, Joseph M. Birkenstock, Marc E. Elias, Micheal E. Toner, Hans A. von Spakovsky On January 21, the Supreme Court issued a major decision on campaign finance law in Citizens United v. FEC, a case involving a 2008 documentary critical of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton produced by a nonprofit advocacy organization. A panel of experts will discuss the case and the surrounding issues. [Register now!]

2009 National Lawyers Convention

Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:00:00 EST

Samuel A. Alito, Douglas H. Ginsburg, Guido Calabresi, Frank H. Easterbrook, Jefferson B. Sessions III, Paul S. Atkins, Randy E. Barnett, Janice Rogers Brown, Linda Chavez, Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cu�llar, Susan E. Dudley, Miguel Estrada, Richard A. Epstein, Steve Forbes, Maurice R. Greenberg, Michael S. Greve, Oona Hathaway, Peter N. Kirsanow, David G. Leitch, Michael W. McConnell, Burt Neuborne, Jeremy A. Rabkin, A. Raymond Randolph, Theodore M. Shaw, Stephen Bainbridge, Carlos T. Bea, Stephanie R. Breslow, Fran�ois-Henri Briard, Alan E. Brownstein, Ronald A. Cass, John C. Eastman, C. Boyden Gray, Lisa Heinzerling, Edith H. Jones, David A. Katz, Brett M. Kavanaugh, F. Scott Kieff, Michael Livermore, Ira C. "Chip" Lupu, Paul G. Mahoney, Robert D. McTeer, Michael J. Meurer, Geoffrey P. Miller, Alan B. Morrison, Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Michael Paese, Harvey L. Pitt, William H. Pryor Jr., Lucas "Scot" A. Powe Jr., Jamin Ben Raskin, Daniel B. Ravicher, Andrew J. Redleaf, Roberta Romano, David B. Sentelle, Catherine M. Sharkey, Amity Shlaes, Damon A. Silvers, Jerry E. Smith, Gigi B. Sohn, Ilya Somin, Bret Stephens, Jeffrey S. Sutton, Diane S. Sykes, Daniel E. Troy, J.W. Verret, Steven M.H. Wallman, John P. Walters, W. Bradley Wendel, Shirley J. Wilcher, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Stephen F. Williams, Todd J. Zywicki, John A. Allison, John S. Baker, Jr., Jennifer Walker Elrod, Malcolm M. Feeley, Thomas W. Hazlett, Roderick M. Hills Jr., Brian H. Hook, Daryl Joseffer, Annette L. Nazareth, Aryeh Neier, Jed Rubenfeld, Robert P. Young, Jr., David Zaring, Mark R. Levin, Thomas M. Hardiman, John F. Manning, William Black, Cornish F. Hitchcock, Steven J. Law, Harold Meyerson, Alex J. Pollock, Andrew L. Stern, Michael B. Mukasey, David Berenbaum, Robert M. McDowell, Mark F. Schultz, David M. McIntosh, Kyle E. McSlarrow, Seton Motley, Laura M. Olson, Marvin Ammori

The Federalist Society's National Lawyers Convention is scheduled for Thursday, November 12 through Saturday, November 14 at the Mayflower Hotel. The theme for this year's convention is "The Federal Government's Economic Role in our Constitutional System." The Annual Dinner will take place the evening of Thursday, November 12 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel. [Register now!]

California's Anti-SLAPP Statute: A Cure for Frivolous Lawsuits, or a Mixed Blessing?

Tue, 05 May 2009 00:00:00 EST

Mark Goldowitz, Rex Heinke, Jeremy B. Rosen

Speakers:

Mark Goldowitz, The Anti-SLAPP Project
Rex Heinke, Akin Gump
Jeremy Rosen, Horvitz & Levy

2008 Election Law Conference

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:00:00 EST

David B. Muhlhausen, Douglas Kellner, Hans A. von Spakovsky, Wendy R. Weiser, Allison R. Hayward, Joseph M. Birkenstock, James Bopp Jr., Bradley A. Smith, Scott E. Thomas, Reid Alan Cox, Adam Bonin, John Fund, Erik S. Jaffe The election season is upon us, but many experts disagree on important legal questions that might decide races. What are the most important campaign finance requirements and restrictions? Who is eligible to vote, and who should decide who is eligible? What should be and what will be the role of the courts be in deciding election day questions, and post election day contests and protests? [Register now!]

Reporters' Shield

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EST

Lillian R. BeVier, Erik S. Jaffe, Lee Levine, Rachel Brand

A number of high profile court orders in the recent past have demanded reporters divulge confidential sources or face contempt charges. In response, both the House and the Senate have considered versions of a federal "reporters’ shield" law to supplement the common law privilege often extended to reporters to keep sources confidential. This topic provokes a number of questions about the role of the press and whether it should be treated more leniently, the issue of who is "press," the proper balance of governmental confidentiality and the "public right to know," and the ability of law enforcement and national security experts to pursue leakers of confidential or classified information.

Is a federal reporters’ shield law a good idea? How broadly should it reach? Should it protect professional journalists only or extend to ad hoc writers and bloggers, and if so, where and how is a line to be drawn? Are there other ways to balance reporters' and sources' interests with law enforcement? Is there a better mechanism than contempt to employ?

2007 National Lawyers Convention

Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:00:00 EST

Samuel A. Alito, Randy E. Barnett, Robert H. Bork, Frank H. Easterbrook, Richard A. Epstein, Charles Fried, Jamie Gorelick, Gail Heriot, Neal K. Katyal, Alex Kozinski, Andrew C. McCarthy, Michael W. McConnell, Edwin Meese III, Theodore B. Olson, Walter K. Olson, Stephen Reinhardt, John G. Roberts Jr., Antonin Scalia, Phyllis Schlafly, Jay Alan Sekulow, Nadine Strossen, George J. Terwilliger III, David C. Vladeck, Eugene Volokh, Akhil Reed Amar, Robert Audi, John S. Baker, Jr., Michael Barone, Bob Barr, Carlos T. Bea, Fran�ois-Henri Briard, Janice Rogers Brown, James S. Burling, Steven G. Calabresi, Lawrence W. Casey, Ronald A. Cass, Brett M. Kavanaugh This year marks the 25th Anniversary of the Federalist Society and on November 15-17 we will be celebrating this milestone during our Annual National Lawyers Convention. The theme for this year's convention is "Shining City Upon a Hill: American Exceptionalism." In addition to the numerous panels containing noted legal experts and scholars from across the political spectrum, The convention will also feature the Seventh Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture, to be delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts. The highlight of the convention will be the 25th Anniversary Gala, attended by many more special guests, which will be held in the Main Hall of Washington, DC's Union Station.
[Register now!]

Should Campaign Finance Laws or Disclosure Restrictions Apply to Ballot Measure Campaigns?

Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:00:00 EST

William R. Maurer, Steve Simpson, James Weinstein, Daniel H. Lowenstein, Andy Gordon

Speakers:

Bill Maurer, Executive Director Institute for Justice Washington Chapter
Steve Simpson, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Andy Gordon, Partner, Coppersmith, Gordon, Schermer, Owns & Nelson PLC
Professor Daniel Lowenstein, UCLA Law School
Professor James Weinstein, Amelia Lewis Professor of Constitutional Law, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Moderator)

How Should the Courts Interpret Split Decisions?

Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:00:00 EST

The Supreme Court occasionally renders plurality opinions, which may involve 4-1-4 decisions or any number of other formulations of justices where no clear majority on particular issues emerges. These plurality opinions often address significant issues yet, due to the lack of a clear majority, are difficult for the lower courts, the regulated community, and practitioners to interpret and apply. On June 21, the Federalist Society presented a live audiocast of a panel of experts who discussed these issues and more. [Click here to listen to a replay of this event]