Channel Title: The Federalist Society Channel Description: The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities. Learn more at https://fedsoc.org. <video> SOC! SIDEBAR: Physical Fitness [LIVE] Description: The Federalist Society's Student Division & Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law Chapter present SOC! SIDEBAR: Physical Fitness featuring Hon. Lawrence VanDyke U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit Tuesday, January 14, 2025 8:00 P.M. ET https://fedsoc.org/sidebar-5 Each month, the Student Division and a rotating Student Chapter will host a Zoom series called SOC! SIDEBAR, featuring a judge being interviewed by a Student Chapter President about the judge’s passion, hobby, or interest and how it interrelates with the law. Tune into our fifth episode, Tuesday, January 14th at 8:00 p.m. which will feature Judge Lawrence VanDyke who will discuss “Physical Fitness.” * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. </video> <video> New Voices in Civil Rights: How Universities are Responding to SFFA Description: Institutions of higher education released demographic data for their first classes admitted after the Supreme Court's landmark decision Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College held that the Constitution prohibits the use of race as a "bonus" in admissions decisions. The demographic data reflect a variety of admissions policy changes. Four new voices in civil rights law--all recent law school graduates--summarized trends in post-Fair Admissions admissions policies and data to explain how institutions of higher education responded to the Fair Admissions decision. Featuring: - Peter Abernathy, Judicial Law Clerk, 31st Circuit Court of Virginia - Samuel Gellen, Honor Law Graduate Attorney, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Leo O'Malley, Judicial Law Clerk, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas - Anthony Pericolo, Associate, Desmarais LLP - (Moderator) Devon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. </video> <video> Rupe Debate: Are Independent Agencies Constitutional? Description: Featuring: Prof. Adam White, Antonin Scalia Law School Prof. Noah Rosenblum, NYU School of Law Moderator: Hon. Elizabeth Branch, U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. </video> <video> Courthouse Steps Decision: TikTok, Inc. v. Garland Description: In TikTok, Inc. v. Garland, the Court was asked to consider whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment. The PAFACA requires that TikTok either cease operations in the United States or have its parent company ByteDance sell off the American segment of the company by January 19, 2025. Petitioners challenged the law as unconstitutionally abridging their freedom of speech, and after a lower court decision upholding the law, the Supreme Court granted cert on December 18, 2024. Oral Argument was heard on January 10, 2025, and a decision came out on January 17, 2025. This Courthouse Steps Decision program analyzed the decision and likely effects. Featuring: Darpana Sheth Nunziata, Public Interest Litigator * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. </video> <video> Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton Description: Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton concerns Texas Law H.B. 1181, and what precedent should apply in considering its impact on free speech. Passed in 2023, the law requires commercial entities, including social media platforms, "that knowingly and intentionally publish or distribute material on an Internet website... more than one-third of which is sexual material harmful to minors" to age-gate their content, and to verify the age of their users, ensuring they are 18 years of age or older. Soon after the law passed, plaintiffs, including the Free Speech Coalition, "a trade association for the adult industry", sued, claiming the law violated their right to free speech. Drawing on a line of cases including Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004), the plaintiffs argued that since the law impacted constitutionally protected speech, strict scrutiny should be applied and the TX law failed that test. In reviewing the case, the Fifth Circuit denied that argument, instead applying a rational basis test, drawing from the precedent of Ginsburg v. New York (1968). Thus, the Supreme Court is set to consider a relatively narrow question: whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review, instead of strict scrutiny, to a law burdening adults’ access to protected speech. This Courthouse Steps program followed oral argument on January 15, 2025, and broke down and analyzed how arguments went before the Court. Featuring: Erik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. </video> <video> TikTok on the Clock: A Courthouse Steps Oral Argument on TikTok, Inc. v. Garland Description: In TikTok, Inc. v. Garland (consolidated with Firebaugh v. Garland) the Court is set to consider whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA)(enacted by Congress in April 2024), as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment. Put forward as a law focused on national security, PAFACA would require that TikTok either cease operations in the United States or have its parent company ByteDance sell off the American segment of the company by January 19, 2025. The government contends that TikTok poses a notable national security threat given the data it, as a foreign-owned company, collects on American users and the extent to which it could be used to control information (or disinformation) flow to American users. TikTok, along with several users, on the other hand, challenged the law, contending that while there may be a legitimate government interest in national security, the means employed in this case violate the free speech rights of both TikTok and its American users who use the platform to create content. The DC Circuit, in an opinion written by Judge Ginsburg, upheld the law against a First Amendment challenge. The Supreme Court granted cert on December 18, 2024, and oral argument is set for January 10, 2025. This Courthouse Steps program followed oral argument. Featuring: Corbin K. Barthold, Internet Policy Counsel and Director of Appellate Litigation, TechFreedom Christian Corrigan, Solicitor General, Montana Attorney General's Office (Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President, Legal Strategy, Stand Together * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. </video> <video> Politics in the Workplace: The Legal and Business Challenges Description: In the aftermath of the 2024 elections, and as citizens continue to engage in discourse on important political topics and opinions, companies can expect that political speech and activity will continue to occur in the workplace. Recent reports show that 87% of employers expressed concern about managing divisive political and social beliefs among their employees. Because political discussions often involve issues with personal significance to employees, even a small disagreement can erupt into a heated argument. This can negatively impact productivity, employee morale, and working relationships as employees discuss or even advocate their political opinions. The way an employer proactively handles and responds to politics in the workplace is critical because it affects a significant range of issues, such as an organization’s brand, reputation, compliance with labor and employment laws (including anti-discrimination laws and the National Labor Relations Act), and employee rights related to political speech and activities. This panel will examine how companies could address and are addressing politics in the workplace. Featuring: -Bradford Kelley, Shareholder, Littler -Andrew Rogers, Chief Counsel and Chief of Staff (OCL), U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission -Moderator: Amanda Freeman, Associate Corporate Counsel and Staff Attorney, National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. </video> <video> Immigration and the Question of State Invasion Description: Immigration is a spotlight issue, especially heading into the next administration. Some say the United States is under attack—that the entrance of millions of immigrants, some of whom intend to and do cause harm to Americans, constitutes an “invasion” or "predatory incursion" of the sort mentioned in Article I of the Constitution and the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). Others contend, however, that allowing the term “invasion” or "predatory incursion" to apply to illegal immigration is both wrong and dangerous, and would allow for the possibility of states engaging in war or mounting hostility with neighboring countries. Is the US under invasion or predatory incursion by illegal immigrants? Can illegal immigration be an instrument to diminish the sovereignty of a nation? Panelists discuss these important questions and more. Featuring: Hon. Ken Cuccinelli, Former Acting Deputy Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University Moderator: Joseph Humire, Executive Director, Center for a Secure Free Society * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. </video> <video> The Future of Administrative Statutes Description: This panel will explore the Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright as well as its major questions cases. What impact will overturning Chevron deference have on the major questions doctrine? How do the two doctrinal developments relate? How do they connect to the non-delegation doctrine? These and related questions will be examined. Featuring: Prof. Eric Bolinder, Assisant Professor of Law, Liberty University School of Law Prof. Tara Leigh Grove, Vinson & Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas at Austin School of Law Prof. Brian Slocum, Stearns Weaver Miller Professor, Florida State University College of Law Moderator: Prof. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. </video> <video> Young Legal Scholars Paper Presentations Description: Featuring: Prof. Sadie Blanchard, "Adjudicating ESG Reputation," Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School Prof. Benjamin Chen, "What are Linguistic Canons for?," Associate Professor, University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law Prof. Robert Leider, "The Individual Right to Bear Arms for Common Defense," Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University Prof. Tyler Lindley, "Reconstructing Section 1983," Associate Professor, Brigham Young University, J. Reuben Clark Law School Mr. Luke Schumacher, “A Council of Grand Strategists: The Original Hope, Fear, and Intent of the U.S. Senate in Foreign Affairs,” J.D. Candidate, Stanford Law School and Ph.D Candidate, University of Virginia Department of Politics Commenter: Prof. Jud Campbell, Professor of Law, Stanford Law School Commenter: Prof. Tara Leigh Grove, Vinson & Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas at Austin School of Law Commenter: Prof. Robert Miller, F. Arnold Daum Chair in Corporate Finance and Law, University of Iowa College of Law Commenter: Prof. Brian Slocum, Stearns Weaver Miller Professor, Florida State University College of Law Commenter: Prof. Keith Whittington, David Boies Professor of Law, Yale Law School Moderator: Prof. Dale Carpenter, Judge William Hawley Atwell Chair of Constitutional Law, Altshuler Distinguished Teaching Professor, and Professor of Law, SMU Dedman School of Law * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. </video> <video> Open Minds with Prof. Richard Epstein and Prof. Todd Zywicki Part I Description: Prof. Richard Epstein joins Prof. Todd Zywicki to discuss his academic journey, where he learned early on, particularly through the lens of Roman law, that legal issues cannot be understood by mere definitions, but by understanding deeper substantive theory. Prof. Epstein emphasizes valuable lessons he learned along the way, such as the importance of figuring out where one’s particular strengths lie and how to “do” law by oneself. How does one transition from a dutiful student to a sui generis thinker? Join us for an engaging discussion on Prof. Epstein’s evolution of academic thought and the adaptation of Roman law and early English common law to the world around us. Featuring: Prof. Richard A. Epstein Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law Prof. Todd J. Zywicki George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. </video> <video> The Perils and Promise of A.I. in Criminal Justice Description: Our liberty, safety, and prosperity are based on the rule of law, not the rule of man or machine. However, given that the criminal justice system suffers from many efficiencies and errors, could artificial intelligence aid the efforts of police, prosecutors, and other actors tasked with protecting public safety with limited resources? Given the power of A.I. technologies to find proverbial needles in haystacks and identify patterns that would otherwise be overlooked, it is not surprising that some criminal justice agencies are already deploying these tools. How can we harness the potential benefits while also ensuring that our liberty and privacy are not compromised? This discussion featured experts in both the law and technology to help us sort though these questions and identify policies and practices that promote innovation while ensuring constitutional rights are protected. Featuring: - Michael R. Holley, First Assistant District Attorney, Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office, Conroe Texas - Patrick Robinson, Owner, VSV Leadership - Jesse Rothman, Senior Fellow, Council on Criminal Justice - Hon. Scott U. Schlegel, Judge, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, State of Louisiana - (Moderator) Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice; Senior Advisor, Right on Crime * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. </video> <video> 1996 Civil Justice and Litigation Conference: Punitive Damages [Archive Collection] Description: On September 12-13, 1996, the Federalist Society presented a conference at the Capital Hilton in Washington, DC. The subject of the conference was "Civil Justice and the Litigation Process: Do the Merits and the Search for Truth Matter Anymore?". The second day of the conference featured a debate on "Punitive Damages". Featuring: - Moderator: Judge Anthony Scirica, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit - Thomas Gottschalk, General Counsel, General Motors - David Weiner, Hahn Loeser & Parks ******* As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers. </video> <video> Abortion Law After Dobbs Description: Featuring: Prof. Stephanie Barclay, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center Dean Rachel Rebouché, Kean Family Dean and Peter J. Liacouras Professor of Law, Temple University School of Law Prof. Stephen Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law School Prof. Mary Ziegler, Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, UC Davis Law School Moderator: Sherif Girgis, Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. </video> <video> Open Minds with Prof. Richard Epstein and Prof. Todd Zywicki Part II Description: Prof. Todd Zywicki and Prof. Richard Epstein turn to his legal intellectual development in property rights, contracts, and torts. Prof. Epstein reflects on how, in the early days of teaching, he was pushed to think critically about the connections between vastly different areas of law, particularly in relation to developing his core principles. Is libertarian theory sufficient to approach causation, and the creation of dangerous conditions? How does one apply theoretical principles to practical legal challenges? What challenges does one face when critiquing established views? Featuring: Prof. Richard A. Epstein Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law Prof. Todd J. Zywicki George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. </video>

Contacts and Links

Description

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities.

Learn more at https://fedsoc.org.

Videos from channel