On Wednesday, November 29, the Harvard Student Chapter held a conversation, produced in partnership with the Harvard Alumni for Free Speech, featuring Prof. Randall Kennedy and Prof. Nadine Strossen to commemorate the 164th anniversary of Frederick Douglass's "Plea for Free Speech in Boston." Featuring: Prof. Randall Kennedy, Michael R. Klein Professor of Law, Harvard Law School Prof. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law Emerita, New York Law School; Former President,...

Collegiality and the presumption that opposing counsel work together in good faith are bedrocks of the American legal profession, as well as unpopular ideas and clients being able to obtain competent representation and equal access to justice under the law. In recent years, there has been an increase in disruptive activity in law schools. We have seen law students declare ideas "too harmful" for open debate and try to “cancel” or “shame” anyone who challenges their views. We have also seen...

Litigation and legislation involving complex issues regarding gender identity are at the forefront of public interest. States and other authorities face questions about legality, morality, or advisability of treatment for minors. Courts are being asked to adjudicate who can participate in sex-segregated sporting competitions. Advocates on all sides of these complex gender identity issues portray their position as a matter of fairness. When minors are involved all sides claim to seek to...

Featuring: Prof. J. Joel Alicea, Co-Director, Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition, Assistant Professor of Law, Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Founding Director, Georgetown Center for the Constitution Prof. Richard H. Fallon, Story Professor of Law, Harvard Law School Prof. Stephen E. Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor...

The 2023 National Lawyers Convention will take place November 9-11, 2023 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference is "Originalism on the Ground." The final day of the conference will feature the fifteenth annual Rosenkranz Debate. RESOLVED: States Can Constitutionally Regulate the Content Moderation Policies of Facebook and Twitter Featuring: Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York...

In patent and copyright law, injunctions are now a subject of significant policy debate. Innovators say they are unable to stop predatory infringement. Creators state they are unable to stop large-scale piracy websites. If so, this undermines the rewards promised by the intellectual property system and devalues the commercial assets that drive the global innovation economy in new technologies and creative works. Others state that intellectual property owners use injunctions to hold up...

Oral argument was held in U.S. v. Rahimi on November 7, 2023. The case asks whether 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(8), which prohibits possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders violates the Second Amendment on its face. What does the Court's jurisprudence foretell about the decision? Is there an obvious originalist answer? Featuring: Prof. William G. Merkel, Associate Professor, Charleston School of Law Prof. Mark W. Smith, Senior Fellow, Ave Maria School...

Is the National Labor Relations Board doing more than any other federal agency to impose broad restrictions on non-coercive speech, based exclusively on whether the speaker is an employer? Under other statutes, speech prohibitions require evidence of actual threats, unlawful retaliation or potential injury to health and safety, and the National Labor Relations Act expressly protects the right to express “views,” “argument” and “opinion” unless the message “contains” an illegal threat or...

Featuring: Prof. John C. Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law Hon. Randolph Moss, United States District Court, District of Columbia Hon. Andrew S. Oldham, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit Prof. Jed H. Shugerman, Boston University School of Law Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

The U.S. Supreme Court’s originalist jurisprudence has been on display in its most recent terms – consider the constitutional analysis in major cases like Bruen and Dobbs. But is the Court’s originalism sound? In his newly released book, Mere Natural Law, Professor Hadley Arkes argues that the Court’s ascendant mode of interpretation insufficiently relies upon the natural moral law. Critics assert that such reliance would be difficult, if not impossible, to moor to objectively discernible...

(Ticketed event) On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society believes that it is most fitting to dedicate an annual lecture on limited government and the spirit of freedom to the memory of Barbara Olson. She had a deep commitment to the rule of law...

Recent years have seen unprecedented controversies about election rules, including mail-in ballots and drop boxes, partisan and racial gerrymandering, early voting, ballot harvesting, and methods of vote counting. Because election laws have partisan consequences, the legislators who make election laws, the officials who administer elections, and the judges who decide election cases are often suspected of exercising power so as to increase their own side’s electoral chances. As we look ahead...

Featuring: Hon. Stewart Baker, Of Counsel, Steptoe & Johnson LLP Hon. Beth A. Williams, Board Member, United States Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board Mr. Gene C. Schaerr, Partner, Schaerr Jaffe LLP Prof. John Yoo, Emanuel Heller Professor of Law, University of California Berkeley School of Law Moderator: Hon. Paul Matey, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Featuring: Prof. William Baude, Professor of Law and Faculty Director, Constitutional Law Institute, University of Chicago Law School Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution Moderator: Prof. Julia D. Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law and Joseph C. Carter, Jr. Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law

In recent months, the U.S. Senate confirmed a third Democratic Commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission, putting the agency in full force for the first time since January 2021. This panel will focus on the FCC’s likely agenda as we look to 2024. It will also explore the bounds of the Communications Act of 1934, as updated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, when applied to modern technology, areas for possible legislative reform, and how the existing regulatory authority...

This year the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. The Court held that the admissions programs of Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court’s ruling elevates a colorblind reading of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the college admissions context, the decision makes unconstitutional certain policies that would favor one...

In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has emphasized the federalist nature of our national Constitution and the importance of preserving state sovereignty. This trend is evident in several of the Court's decisions – Dobbs most notable among them – that have recognized and reinforced the authority of individual states in matters of health, safety, and morals. As a result of this return to federalism, some of the nation’s most interesting and groundbreaking legal work is being done at the...

The administrative state - the agencies comprising the Executive Branch of the U.S. federal government - has exploded in size and reach since 1946 when President Truman signed the Administrative Procedure Act into law. The APA has been amended a bit since then, but has it kept up with current challenges? While the Executive Branch has been growing, the other two branches of government have been changing as well. Congress has increasingly tended to delegate authority to agencies. And courts...

Featuring: Hon. Lina M. Khan, Chair, Federal Trade Commission Prof. Todd J. Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia, Law School, George Mason University

Article III of the Constitution vests the “judicial Power” in “one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Our founding document recognizes that the Supreme Court stands apart from the rest of the federal judiciary. Yet, Congress has long regulated several aspects of the high court, including its appellate jurisdiction, rules for establishing a quorum, and standards for recusal. Some critics argue that Congress should go further...

No one maintains that the Court has always and forever been originalist in its orientation. By any definition of "originalism," there is a vast body of case law that does not conform to it. How do and should modern originalists - and here one might specifically include lower-court judges who consider themselves originalist - handle this case law? Do non-originalist precedents count for nothing, no matter the expectations built upon them? If they count, how much do they count? Given the...

The Supreme Court’s decisions in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis and in Groff v. DeJoy posed issues about religious freedom in the workplace and religiously motivated speech in the marketplace. This panel will consider the cases and their implications for religious freedom, especially how future cases might apply the tests articulated by the Court for “substantial costs” to a business for making an accommodation in Groff, and for what counts as expressive messages protected against the application...

Stare Decisis, a Latin term meaning “let it stand,” is a key element of how American law is interpreted, applied, and adjudicated. When applied, it leads courts to stand by decided cases, to uphold precedents, and/or to maintain former adjudications. How exactly that principle should be applied, however, is a topic of some debate. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court held that a proper application of stare decisis required an assessment of the strength of the...

Featuring: Ms. Erin E. Murphy, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLC Mr. Patrick Strawbridge, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC Hon. Seth P. Waxman, Partner, WilmerHale; Former United States Solicitor General Moderator: Hon. Timothy M. Tymkovich, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in New York Times v. Sullivan treating public figures to a different, more onerous standard when they were the victims of defamator falsehoods than in traditional libel cases. Recently, Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch have expressed skepticism about the constitutional infirmity of this decision. Our panelists will provide their perspectives on this decision and whether the Court should reconsider it. Featuring: Joe Cohn, Legislative and...