FedSoc Forums

Ballot box voting is often considered the essence of political freedom. But it has two major shortcomings: individual voters have little chance of making a difference, and they also face strong incentives to remain ignorant about the issues at stake. "Voting with your feet," however, avoids both of these pitfalls and offers a wider range of choices. In his new book Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom (Oxford University Press), Ilya Somin argues that broadening opportunities for foot voting can greatly enhance political liberty for millions of people around the world.People can vote with their feet through international migration, by choosing where to live within a federal system, and by making decisions in the private sector. These three types of foot voting are rarely considered together, but Somin explains how they have important common virtues and can be mutually reinforcing. He contends that all forms of foot voting should be expanded and shows how both domestic constitutions and international law can be structured to increase opportunities for foot voting while mitigating possible downsides.Somin addresses a variety of common objections to expanded migration rights, including claims that the "self-determination" of natives requires giving them the power to exclude migrants, and arguments that migration is likely to have harmful side effects, such as undermining political institutions, overburdening the welfare state, and increasing crime and terrorism. While these objections are usually directed at international migration, Somin explains how, if taken seriously, they would also justify severe restrictions on domestic freedom of movement. By making a systematic case for a more open world, Free to Move challenges conventional wisdom on both the left and the right. Featuring: -- Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, and Author, Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom-- Moderator: Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law

Nigel Farage has been campaigning for Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union since 1999, when he founded the UK Independence Party, which got more votes in the 2014 European elections than either the Labour or Conservative Parties. Farage then played a leading role as advocate for the “leave” side in the 2016 UK referendum on EU membership. He followed up by organizing a new Brexit Party to keep up pressure for full withdrawal in subsequent UK elections. Farage has been a frequent commentator on FOX NEWS and hosts his own program on British radio station LBC. In this Teleforum, Mr. Farage will address current developments in Britain and the EU but also talk about nationalist and populist trends in the U.S. and other countries. Featuring:-- Nigel Farage, Former Member of the European Parliament, South East England Constituency-- Moderator: Prof. Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

The first lawsuit against the Chinese government seeking damages for personal and property injuries was filed in the Southern District of Florida by the Berman Law group. The lawsuit was later amended to add the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as a defendant. Other lawsuits have followed elsewhere in the country. The panelists will discuss whether the CCP enjoys sovereign immunity and whether the acts and omissions of the Chinese government fall within one or more exceptions to sovereign immunity as provided in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Featuring: -- Karen Lugo, Founder, Libertas-West Project-- Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor, George Washington University Law School-- Matthew T. Moore, Attorney, Berman Law Group-- Tatiana Sainati, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP

Since 1930, the Supreme Court has recognized a failing firm defense to an otherwise unlawful merger under the U.S. antitrust laws. The three-part test to prove a failing firm defense generally is met when the company sought to be acquired is in danger of imminent failure, cannot reorganize successfully in bankruptcy, and has made unsuccessful good faith efforts to find alternative purchasers. In past economic crises, such as the 2008-2009 financial crisis, the U.S. antitrust agencies have not eased merger requirements or the standards governing the failing firm defense. Will this change with the COVID-19 pandemic shuttering countless businesses? Could we see litigated merger challenges brought by the U.S. antitrust agencies that turn on the three-part test to prove a failing firm defense?Featuring:-- Greg Eastman, Ph.D., Vice President, Cornerstone Research-- George L. Paul, Partner, White & Case LLP-- Moderator: Eric Grannon, Partner, White & Case LLP, and former Counsel to the AAG of the DOJ Antitrust Division

A majority of states have legalized the sale and possession of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Eleven states and the District of Columbia allow recreational use. Yet marijuana production, sale, and possession remain illegal under federal law. Is this federalism in action? Or a perversion of our federal system? Although the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the federal prohibition on the distribution and possession of marijuana in Gonzales v. Raich, most enforcement of the nation's drug laws occurs at the state and local level. Even without routine enforcement, federal law creates distinct pressures on financial institutions, lawyers, among other constituencies. Should the federal government cede the field, and allow states to set marijuana policy? Or should the federal government seek to end these state-level experiments in marijuana policy reform. Discussing this topic will be Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law at Case Western Reserve University and editor of the new book, Marijuana Federalism: Uncle Sam and Mary Jane, and Paul Larkin, John, Barbara, and Victoria Rumpel Senior Legal Research Fellow in the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation.Featuring: Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of LawPaul J. Larkin Jr., Senior Legal Research Fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Institute for Constitutional Government, The Heritage Foundation Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Earlier this year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit did something almost unheard of: it took an appeal from an order entered by an MDL judge and reversed it. The order came from the Opioid MDL in the Northern District of Ohio, and the Sixth Circuit’s action raises the question whether appeals like this should be more common in MDL litigation—a question the federal civil rules committee is taking up right now. Please join us for a discussion of the Sixth Circuit’s decision and whether it bolsters or undermines the need for a rulemaking to facilitate appeals in MDL cases.Featuring: -- Robert Keeling, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP-- Tim Pratt, Formerly General Counsel at Boston Scientific

Secretary Perdue will discuss USDA’s response to the coronavirus pandemic including the stability of the food supply chain, President Trump’s invocation of the Defense Production Act regarding meatpacking facilities, and USDA’s deregulatory agenda with regard to biotechnology and beyond.Featuring: -- Hon. George Ervin "Sonny" Perdue III , U.S. Secretary of Agriculture

The Insurrection Act of 1807 empowers the President of the United States to deploy U.S. military and National Guard troops inside the United States in certain circumstances. But what are the limits of this Presidential power; does does the Insurrection Act narrow the powers granted to the President under the Constitution, or is it perfectly compatible with the Constitution? Who decides the precise scope of these powers? Can a governor or state legislature reject the offer for help or assertion of power? Featuring: -- John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation-- Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law

In the last few years there has been a lot of critical attention directed towards Chevron and Seminole Rock/Kisor deference. In Kisor the Supreme Court narrowed and clarified but ultimately retained the deference given to agency interpretations of their own regulations. But amidst this incremental reform at the federal level, there has been a much more dramatic anti-deference revolution at the state level. In the past twelve years, 10 states have rejected deference either judicially or by statute or constitutional amendment. And several other states seem poised to do the same thing. This teleforum analyzes the anti-deference revolution and whether and where it is likely to continue to spread.Featuring:-- Daniel Ortner, Attorney , Pacific Legal Foundation

Can states unilaterally decide not to pay takings judgments? Some states think so. Louisiana and Florida have laws that say no takings judgment can be paid unless money is specially appropriated to do so—and then they never get around to appropriating the money to pay. These laws are currently being challenged in the Fifth Circuit and the Florida Supreme Court. Please join us for an interesting discussion of this litigation.Featuring: Robert McNamara, Senior Attorney, Institute for JusticeDaniel Woislaw, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.