Civil Rights

School Discipline and Disparate Impact

Thu, 17 May 2012 00:00:00 EST

At the historic Edmund Pettis Bridge in Selma, Alabama, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced an initiative to examine disparities in achievement, academic opportunity, and discipline to determine whether schools across the country are discriminating against racial and ethnic minorities. The Department of Education would use both data collection and investigations of individual school districts—called compliance reviews—as part of this initiative. The Department would seek to root out both direct discrimination and indirect discrimination, i.e., facially neutral policies and practices that have a disparate impact. This was a change in policy by the Obama Administration. The Department during the Bush Administration had not used “disparate impact analysis in its examination of complaints or compliance reviews.” When the Department finds what it deems to be discrimination, Secretary Duncan noted, “it can ultimately withhold federal funds in extreme cases to schools and districts that refuse to remedy discrimination.” The Department planned to begin thirty-eight compliance reviews by the end of the fiscal year, including reviews of discipline issues in five states... [Read more!]

Madness, Deinstitutionalization & Murder

Thu, 17 May 2012 00:00:00 EST

Clayton Cramer

For those of us who came of age in the 1970s, one of the most shocking aspects of the last three decades was the rise of mass public shootings: people who went into public places and murdered complete strangers. Such crimes had taken place before, such as the Texas Tower murders by Charles Whitman in 1966, but their rarity meant that they were shocking... [Read more!]

Mexico's Federal Law of Firearms and Explosives

Thu, 17 May 2012 00:00:00 EST

David B. Kopel

In recent years, gun control has become an important international issue. For example, some persons have claimed that the gun laws in the United States are responsible for the many homicides perpetrated in Mexico’s drug war. The Organization of American States has proposed a gun control treaty for the western hemisphere, which President Obama has urged the U.S. Senate to ratify. Currently, the United Nations General Assembly is drafting an international Arms Trade Treaty. In contrast to the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration has announced its support for the treaty... [Read more!]

Forgotten No More. A Review of Liberty's Refuge: The Forgotten Freedom of Assembly

Thu, 17 May 2012 00:00:00 EST

Richard A. Epstein

It is a commonplace of constitutional interpretation that the shorter the constitutional provision, the more difficult its interpretation. The truth of that maxim is confirmed in an informative fashion by reading John D. Inazu’s careful and well-constructed book, Liberty’s Refuge, The Forgotten Freedom of Assembly. Inazu’s task is to resurrect the freedom of assembly from its relative neglect in First Amendment law... [Read more!]

The EEOC � Disparate Impact and the Use of Criminal Arrest and Convictions Records - Podcast

Wed, 16 May 2012 00:00:00 EST

Maurice Emsellem, Dominique Ludvigson, Dean A. Reuter

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 of the National Employment Law Project and Ms. Dominique Ludvigson of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. [Listen now!]

The Fisher Case: Mismatch & the Future of Affirmative Action - Podcast

Fri, 04 May 2012 00:00:00 EST

Richard H. Sander, Dean A. Reuter

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. [Listen now!]

James Madison by Richard Brookhiser - Podcast

Tue, 01 May 2012 00:00:00 EST

Richard Brookhiser, James A. Haynes

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, and Mr. James A. Haynes of the Federalist Society's Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group Executive Committee and Baltimore Lawyers Chapter. [Listen now!]

Redistricting Litigation Update - Podcast

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 00:00:00 EST

Justin Levitt, Ilya Shapiro, Dean A. Reuter

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 of Loyola Law School Los Angeles and Mr. Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute. [Listen now!]

Voter Identification and the Right to Vote - Event Audio/Video

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:00:00 EST

Hans A. von Spakovsky, Ben Stone, Edward Mansfield, Samuel Langholz

In recent years, states across the country have considered or implemented stricter voter identification requirements, including photo identification requirements. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Indiana's photo identification law from constitutional challenge in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. In December 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice blocked South Carolina's photo identificationrequirement after concluding the law would significantly burden non-white voters. These debates are taking place in Iowa as well, with multiple voter identification proposals advancing in the legislature in recent years, most recently with legislation enacting a photo identification requirement being proposed by Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz. Come hear from two diverse perspectives on the legal and policy implications of voter identification requirements in Iowa and around the nation. Featuring: Mr. Hans von Spakovsky of The Heritage Foundation and formerly of the Federal Election Commission; Mr. Ben Stone of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa; and Justice Edward Mansfield of the Iowa Supreme Court as the moderator. Introduction by Mr. Samual P. Langholz, State Public Defender of Iowa and President of the Iowa Lawyers Chapter. [Listen or watch now!]

Keynes vs. Hayek: The Clash that Defined Modern Economics - Podcast

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:00:00 EST

Nicholas Wapshott, James A. Haynes

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, and Mr. James A. Haynes of the Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group Executive Committee and the Baltimore Lawyers Chapter.

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

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 00:00:00 EST

Nancy Abudu, Hans A. von Spakovsky, Roger Clegg, Dean A. Reuter

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 of The American Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project; Mr. Hans von Spakovsky of The Heritage Foundation's Center for Legal and Judicial Studies; and Mr. Roger Clegg of The Center for Equal Opportunity as the moderator.

Felon Voting - Podcast

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:00:00 EST

Nancy Abudu, Hans A. von Spakovsky, Roger Clegg, Dean A. Reuter

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 of The American Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project; Mr. Hans von Spakovsky of The Heritage Foundation's Center for Legal and Judicial Studies; and Mr. Roger Clegg of The Center for Equal Opportunity as the moderator.

Federalism and State Immigration Policy - Event Audio

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:00:00 EST

Gabriel J. (Jack) Chin, John C. Eastman, Joe Sciarrotta, Margaret D. Stock, Edwin Meese III, Eugene B. Meyer

Arizona v. United Statesraises several cutting edge questions about federal preemption of state laws. These questions derive from Arizona’s “mirror image theory” of the case. That is, Arizona argues that its statutes are a mirror image of federal statutes, and therefore that no preemption problem exists. In arguing against that theory, the federal government has voiced what has been unflatteringly called “preemption by executive whim.” That is, that preemption can be created by federal executive branch enforcement (or, non-enforcement) priorities that essentially ignore enforcement of the statutes being mirrored. What do those competing claims mean in preemption analysis where, traditionally, courts have looked to the law as written/established, rather than as enforced? This panel was featured at the Sixth Annual Western Conference on January 28, 2012. Featuring Prof. Gabriel “Jack” Chin of UC Davis School of Law; Prof. John Eastman of Chapman University School of Law; Mr. Joe Sciarrotta, General Counsel to Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona; Prof. Margaret Stock of Lane owell LLC; and The Honorable Edwin Meese of The Heritage Foundation as the moderator. Introduction by Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President of The Federalist Society.

Affirmative Action for Men? Strange Silences and Strange Bedfellows in the Public Debate over Discrimination Against Women in College Admissions

Mon, 05 Dec 2011 00:00:00 EST

Gail Heriot, Alison Somin

While some news reports indicate that discrimination against women on the basis of sex in college admissions is increasingly common, there has been relatively little public discussion about it—especially compared to the much more heated public debate concerning race-based affirmative action. Not surprisingly, therefore, there have been few attempts to study the extent of the problem systematically. One such attempt with which we are both familiar—a study by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights of sex discrimination at nineteen colleges and universities in the mid-Atlantic states—was unfortunately abandoned for what appear to be political rather than substantive reasons. Although the fate of the Commission’s probe may in part be explained by the Commission’s institutional quirks, the muddled politics surrounding the attempted probe may reflect in microcosm the muddled politics of the broader national debate. In this article, we discuss those politics and suggest that the lack of attention the issue has received to date may be unfair. [Read more!]

Federal Initiatives on K-12 School Bullying Prevention - Event Audio/Video

Thu, 10 Nov 2011 00:00:00 EST

Hans Bader, Todd F. Gaziano, Fatima Goss Graves, Eugene Volokh, William R. Yeomans, Stuart S. Taylor

The Civil Rights Practice Group hosted this panel on "Federal Initiatives on K-12 School Bullying Prevention" on Thursday, November 10, 2011, during the 2011 National Lawyers Convention. The panel featured Mr. Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute; CommissionerTodd Gaziano of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and The Heritage Foundation; Ms. Fatima Goss Graves of the National Women's Law Center; Prof. Eugene Volokh of UCLA School of Law; Prof. William R. Yeomans of American University Washington College of Law; and Mr. Stuart Taylor Jr., Contributing Editor of National Journal and Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, as the moderator.

Engage Volume 12, Issue 2, September 2011

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:00:00 EST

The September 2011 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!]

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin: Could the Supreme Court Revisit Its Decision in Grutter?

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:00:00 EST

Joshua P. Thompson

In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court held that achieving the educational benefits that flow from diversity could be a compelling interest in higher education. Yet Justice O’Connor, writing for a bare majority of the Supreme Court, also wrote that the Court did not expect the use of racial preferences in higher education to be necessary to promote diversity within twenty-five years. A recent case out of the Fifth Circuit, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, has brought the Grutter decision back into the national consciousness. If concurring Judge Garza’s opinion from the Fifth Circuit is heard, the constitutional sanction of racial preferences in higher education will have a shorter lifespan than the twenty-five years announced by Justice O’Connor. Though the plaintiffs in Fisher were recently denied en banc review by the Fifth Circuit, a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court is likely forthcoming. If the writ is granted, Judge Garza has all but assured that the Court’s holding in Grutter will be revisited...

Does the Fourteenth Amendment Protect Unenumerated Rights?

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:00:00 EST

Kurt T. Lash, Alan Gura

The current debates over the incorporation of the Second Amendment have reignited interest in the historical understanding of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court’s history-laden analysis of the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller signaled the Court’s openness to an originalist understanding of the Bill of Rights. Not surprisingly, the Court’s decision to hear McDonald v. Chicago and consider whether to extend the right recognized in Heller against the states triggered an avalanche of briefs (both principle and amici) that explore the history behind the Privileges or Immunities Clause and its relationship to the original Bill of Rights...

Something for (Almost) Everybody in Dodd-Frank: Racial, Gender, and Diversity Considerations in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:00:00 EST

Christopher Byrnes

Scattered throughout the 849 pages of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act are numerous references to diversity, race, and gender. These considerations may seem out of place in a bill whose stated goal was to “promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system." ...

Pruning the Overgrowth of Government Contracting Preferences

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 00:00:00 EST

George R. La Noue

The policy of creating preferences for businesses owned at least fifty-one percent by members of “minority” groups is now more than three decades old. In 1977, Congressman Parren Mitchell, the head of the Congressional Black Caucus, inserted into the Public Works Employment Act an amendment guaranteeing that at least ten percent of the funding of all contracts under this program be awarded to minorities (“blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, Eskimos and Aleuts”). In Fullilove v. Klutznick, the Supreme Court, in a ruling without a clear standard of review, decided that the expenditure program was constitutional. After the Court’s response to these federal racial preferences, copycat programs spread to a variety of federal agencies and to many state and local governments where the political climate was favorable... [Read now]

EEOC Enforcement of Its Arrest & Conviction Records Policy

Tue, 01 May 2012 00:00:00 EST

Maurice Emsellem, Dominique Ludvigson

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. Our experts will discuss the EEOC's new guidance and its recent enforcement actions. Featuring Mr. Maurice Emsellem of the National Employment Law Project and Ms. Dominique Ludvigson of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

Arizona v. United States Litigation Update

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:00:00 EST

John C. Eastman, Margaret D. Stock

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hold oral arguments in the much talked about immigration law case, Arizona v. United States. At issue is the constitutionality of Arizona's statute, S.B. 1070. Does the statute cross the line into territory that has been pre-empted by federal law? Or, as the law's proponents argue, is the statute a proper exercise of the state's police power? After providing their analysis of the case, our experts will take questions from callers. Featuring Dr. John C. Eastman of Chapman University School of Law and Prof. Margaret D. Stock of Lane Powell PC.

The Fisher Case: Mismatch & the Future of Affirmative Action

Thu, 12 Apr 2012 00:00:00 EST

Richard H. Sander

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 will give an overview of this research and discuss its implications for Fisher.

Redistricting Litigation Update

Thu, 08 Mar 2012 00:00:00 EST

Justin Levitt, Ilya Shapiro

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

The Future of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Fri, 07 Jan 2011 00:00:00 EST

Alan Gura, Dennis A. Henigan, Nelson Lund, Alan B. Morrison, Roger Pilon

In 2008, for the first time in our history, the Supreme Court invoked the Second Amendment to strike down a gun control law, holding that the federal government may not prohibit law abiding citizens from keeping a handgun in the home for self defense. In 2010, the Court held that state and local governments are also prohibited from banning handguns in the home. Major victories for individual liberty, those decisions were also very narrow. Can we expect future decisions to recognize a wide range of rights to keep and bear arms? Or will the Court's recent decisions turn out to be mostly symbolic, with little effect on legislative discretion to regulate access to firearms? Please join us for a discussion of opposing views about what the courts are likely to do and what they should do.

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!]

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!]

Voting Rights--and Wrongs: The Elusive Quest for Racially Fair Elections

Fri, 22 May 2009 00:00:00 EST

Abigail Thernstrom, Michael A. Carvin, Richard Pildes, Henry Olsen

Has the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the crown jewel of American civil rights legislation, become a period piece that today serves to keep most black legislators clustered on the sidelines of American politics-precisely the opposite of what its framers intended? Author Abigail Thernstrom will be joined by fellow panelists as they consider this question and more. [Register now!]

Civil Rights in the Age of Obama

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:00:00 EST

Theodore M. Shaw, Gail Heriot, Roger Clegg, Todd F. Gaziano, Jocelyn Samuels

Some of President Obama’s admirers and detractors have suggested that his election as President and the Democratic majorities in Congress may usher in a new civil rights era. Whether that is so, and what this new era might usher in, is subject to a healthy and exciting debate. Join us as a panel of experts discuss. [Register now!]

Gay Marriage and the Role of the Judiciary

Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:00:00 EST

Charles J. Cooper, Maggie Gallagher, Lara Schwartz, Stuart S. Taylor, Jamin Ben Raskin The California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts Supreme Courts have all recently ruled on same-sex marriages. Were the decisions of these courts exercises in judicial activism? Or were these jurists, bound by their oath to uphold the state constitution, faithfully applying the law to a novel situation? Join us on October 23 for a panel discussion that will focus on the proper role of the judiciary. [Register now!]

Is the New School Integration Constitutional?

Tue, 02 Sep 2008 00:00:00 EST

Anurima Bhargava, Roger Clegg, Ted Gordon, Byron Leet, Brian T. Fitzpatrick

In the 2007 case of Meredith v. Jefferson Co. Bd. Of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the voluntary integration plan used by the Jefferson County Public Schools constituted unconstitutional racial discrimination. In response, the school district adopted a new plan. Is this new plan any more constitutional than the old system? A panel of local and national experts will discuss. [Register now!]

Hate Crimes: What is the Proper Federal Role?

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EST

John S. Baker, Jr., Gail Heriot, Mark Agrast, Steven Freeman, Edwin Meese III In recent years, several bills have sought to greatly broaden the definition of federal hate crimes. Is new legislation necessary to protect individuals from acts that already violate state law? Or is it feel-good legislation that is counterproductive to deterring and prosecuting such crimes? Please join our panel of experts to discuss these important issues. [Register now!]

The Akaka Bill

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:00:00 EST

Steve King, Joseph Matal, Dean A. Reuter The proposed Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act (known as the "Akaka Bill") would set in motion a process under which ethnic Hawaiians living throughout the country could form themselves into an Indian tribe. In doing so, they would become by far the largest such tribe in our nation's history-with as many as 400,000 members. Supporters argue that the Akaka Bill is a matter of simple justice-that it partially restores ethnic Hawaiians to the sovereignty they held prior to the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani in 1893. Opponents assert that the bill is less about Queen Liliuokalani and more about safeguarding various special benefits-from special schools to special business loans-currently enjoyed by ethnic Hawaiians, some of which are now under challenge in the courts on equal protection grounds. If passed, would the Akaka Bill be constitutional? Is it good policy? What sort of precedent would it set for other groups that may wish to form Indian tribes in the future? These and many other questions will be discussed by our panel of experts.

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!]

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]

A Conversation about Race: How Do We Get Beyond Racial Discrimination and Racial Preferences?

Wed, 14 Mar 2007 00:00:00 EST

Speakers:

Ward Connerly, Founder and Chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute
Connie Rice, Co-Founder and Co-Director, The Advancement Project