HLS Federalist Society Board

Perhaps the most anticipated case on the Supreme Court’s docket is District of Columbia v. Heller. An appeal of the D.C. Circuit’s decision to strike down parts of the District’s gun control laws, the case hinges on whether the Second Amendment grants individuals a right to possess guns, or only the people collectively. The case is a hot one not only because gun control legislation has been in the news for the last 20 years, but because the Supreme Court has studiously avoided addressing the issue for nearly 70 years, since United States v. Miller.

Last semester, the Federalist Society welcomed Clark Neily, co-counsel to the gun-owners, to talk on campus, and we are glad to have two more advocates from the case coming on Monday. On one side is well-known Supreme Court advocate Tom Goldstein, counsel for the District, who also maintains the popular Supreme Court blog, http://www.scotusblog.com. On the other side is Alan Gura, Mr. Neily’s co-counsel in representing the gun-owners, who will argue the case before the Court.

So come to Pound 335 at noon on Monday, for what should be an interesting and enlightening discussion.

(Co-sponsored with ACS)

–Jeff

At lunch this Thursday, HLS Fed Soc is kicking off the new year with a talk by Visiting Professor Curtis Bradley, speaking on U.S. Detainee Policy Since 9/11. It should be a good talk, and, as usual, pizza will be provided. Also as usual, all are welcome (especially 1Ls needing a study break!).

12:15 PM, on Thursday, January 10.

Pound 100

–Jeff

Have you had to miss any Fed Soc events due to class conflicts, family emergencies, earthquakes, or the like? Thanks to modern technology and the help of HLS Media Services, you can now listen to selected past events online. Audio will be posted to the events page HERE once it becomes available. So far, you can listen to:

Sept 18: A talk by Professor Zuckert on Dred Scott.

Oct. 15: A discussion with Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the 6th Circuit.

Oct. 17: A debate on tort reform between Mark Behrens and Professor Goldberg.

Nov. 1: A discussion with Jan Crawford Greenburg.

Enjoy!

–Jeff

This Sunday is shaping up to be a good day to be a spectator. In addition to the baseball playoffs and some good NFL matchups, we’re lucky to have the Honorable R. Ted Cruz, Solicitor General of Texas, here on campus to moot Medellin v. Texas, a case the Supreme Court will hear on Wednesday. The case involves important issues of federalism and international law, set in the high-stakes context of a death-penalty habeas corpus action. The national Federalist Society held a panel on the case last month at AEI; the audio is available here.

Mr. Cruz returns to HLS only twelve years after graduating, having argued many times before the Supreme Court and other tribunals in that span. He was recently profiled by The American Lawyer (here–free registration required) as one of the top fifty young litigators in the nation.

On the panel will be:

Professor David Shapiro,

Professor Jack L. Goldsmith III, and

Professor Martha Field

When: 2:00 pm (ending ca. 3:00, leaving plenty of time to get to a TV before the Red Sox start)

Where: Ames Courtroom, Austin Hall

Co-sponsored by ACS and the Dean’s Office.

-Jeff

These past few weeks have seen a flurry of good panels, speakers, and meals. We’ve got another good event coming up: at lunch this next Thursday there’ll be a debate on one of the year’s biggest biggest cases: Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007). In Parker, the D.C. Circuit held parts of the District’s strict gun laws unconstitutional. In doing so, it became the first major court in the country to strike down a statute based on the individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. The case is almost certain to go to the Supreme Court and has already created a big stir in legal circles.

For our debate on Thursday, we’ll have Clark Neily, Senior Attorney at the Institute for Justice and co-counsel to the plaintiffs (the gun-owners, in this case); and Mark Tushnet, the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law here at HLS, and author of Out of Range: Why the Constitution Can’t End the Battle over Guns.

So come to Austin North at 12:00 on Thursday, September 27. You won’t be disappointed!

–Jeff

Dear 1L’s,

Welcome to HLS! Our first event of the year will be the annual Academic Tips Panel this coming Wednesday at 5PM in Pound 102. Come hear from experienced Federalist Society 2L’s and 3L’s as they give advice and take your questions on how to succeed in law school. We’ll talk about exams, outlines, class preparation, and anything else you’re interested in. We’ll also provide some more information on how you can get involved in the Federalist Society and the Journal of Law and Public Policy. As with most of our events, snacks and drinks will be provided.

Where: Pound 102
When: Wednesday, Sept. 5, 5PM

–Alex

As classes start up this week, we have a number of events for incoming 1Ls (an academic tips session), incoming 2Ls (a panel on OCI), and everyone (a happy hour and BBQ). Come to catch up with old friends and meet some new ones.

Click here for more info.

–Jeff

C-Span recently aired a recording of an interesting and star-studded conversation about Supreme Court advocacy with Justice Alito. The conversation, which was the inaugural William French Smith Lecture, took place at Pepperdine Law School. Pepperdine Dean and former Solicitor General and D.C. Circuit Judge Ken Starr, Sidley Austin managing partner and veteran Supreme Court advocate Carter Phillips, and Pepperdine professor and former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Doug Kmiec were the other participants in the conversation with Justice Alito.

The event began with the Honorable Mr. Starr sharing memories of William French Smith, the former Attorney General for whom the lecture series was named. Following that introduction, Professor Kmiec moderated a wide-ranging and candid conversation that covered such topics as the shrinking Supreme Court docket, the tendency of cert petitioners to exaggerate (and sometimes fabricate) conflicts between circuit courts, and the Justices’ deliberative process. The conversation also included some comedic self-deprication: Mr. Phillips revealed some of his most embarrassing moments at the Supreme Court podium and Justice Alito discussed the Supreme Court’s unanimous reversal of his final Third Circuit opinion.

Anyone interested in appellate advocacy or in the Supreme Court generally will find this conversation interesting and enlightening.

A video of the conversation is available at C-Span’s “America and the Courts” webpage. Real Player is required to view the video.

– Mike

The Federalist Society’s national website has an interesting online forum in which former OLC attorney and current Georgetown Law professor Marty Lederman, Columbia Law professor Michael Dorf, Moritz College of Law professor Peter Shane, Chuck Cooper of Cooper & Kirk, Yale Law professor Jack Balkin, and University of Chicago Law professor Richard Epstein debate the Bush Administration’s assertion of executive privilege in the context of the U.S. Attorneys matter.

The forum also posts most of the relevant documents so that those unfamiliar with the entire situation can access those documents while following the discussion. If you are interested in experts’ opinions on the Administration’s assertion of privilege or just interested in learning more about constitutional interpretation, then check out this exciting and informative discussion.

Here’s the link:

http://www.fed-soc.org/debates/

– Mike

The Washington Supreme Court yesterday held, by a vote of 6-3, that a Washington statute denying the vote to convicted felons who have not finished paying their fines did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. A state trial court had held that the statute unconstitutionally discriminated based on wealth. The Supreme Court relied heavily on Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which reduces a state’s representation in Congress when the state denies male citizens other than convicted criminals the right to vote. The court concluded that convicted felons do not have a fundamental constitutional right to vote and that, as a result, the state needed only to show a rational basis for denying that right to some felons and not to others. The state’s interest in having felons complete their sentences was therefore sufficient to justify the statute. The plaintiffs had argued that the state’s interest was in ensuring that voters are law-abiding individuals, and that a felon’s inability to promptly pay his fines did not mean that he was not law-abiding.

The case is Madison v. State. The lead opinion, two concurrences, and two dissents are available here.

- Paul