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 Policy Director, FIREProf. Carson Holloway, Professor of Political Science and Department Chair, University of Nebraska OmahaJered Ede, Clare LockeCarol Jean LoCicero, Managing Partner, Thomas & LoCicero, PLModerator: Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP

Featuring:Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, Meese Center, The Heritage FoundationHenry Whitaker, Solicitor General, FloridaModerator, Hon. Raag Singhal, Judge, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida

Featuring:Hon. John B. Nalbandian, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

We’ve grown accustomed to learning about government actions only because an enterprising person or group brought them to light using the Freedom of Information Act. Enacted in 1967 after a decade of debate and Congressional hearings, and most recently amended in 2016, FOIA was intended to correct what some viewed as the Administrative Procedure Act’s tendency toward nondisclosure.This panel will discuss the law, how FOIA requests are used by reporters, researchers, academics, interest groups, trial lawyers and others to obtain information from the government, how the government protects information it considers covered by FOIA exemptions, how courts review government denials of FOIA requests, and some of the more newsworthy disclosures obtained using FOIA.

PRESS: Please email Michael Mead (mmead@crcadvisors.com) to register.

The First Amendment forbids public officials from censoring disfavored speech and speakers. But what happens if public officials enlist private parties to do the censorship? In recent years, public officials and agencies have pressed social-media platforms to silence dissenting views on public health and other “misinformation,” insurers and financial institutions to drop clients engaged in unpopular or controversial advocacy, and health-care providers to dismiss attorneys challenging government policy. Further, there’s no way to know how many private decisions to silence speech and speakers have been influenced or coerced by government actors.Is this phenomenon inevitable in an age of unprecedented opportunity to reach large audiences? Should there be greater transparency when public officials wield their power to influence the exercise of First Amendment rights? What’s the line between encouragement and coercion, and is that the right line to separate constitutional from unconstitutional censorship? What are the prospects that agencies will police themselves and refrain from wielding their power and influence to suppress dissension and debate? Should Congress or the President address third-party censorship and, if so, how exactly? Our panelists will address these questions and more.

The Supreme Court continues to accept for review cases that challenge agency authority on separation of powers grounds, and its decisions may fundamentally reshape the modern administrative state. This term, it heard challenges to the jurisdiction of federal courts to hear challenges to agency proceedings (Axon v. FTC; SEC v. Cochran), and to the Biden administration’s authority to forgive student loan debt (U.S. Department of Education v. Brown; Biden v. Nebraska). Next term, it will hear a constitutional challenge to the funding structure of an independent regulatory agency (CFPB et. al. v. Com. Fin. Services Assn.). And pending in the certiorari queue is a case that raises a triumvirate of issues about the SEC’s administrative proceedings: whether they violate the Seventh Amendment, the non-delegation doctrine, and/or the President’s removal power (SEC v. Jarkesy).This panel will discuss the constitutional questions raised by these cases, the potential effect of the Court’s decisions on agency structure and practices, the rebalancing of power between the three branches, and the future of the administrative state.

Antitrust law has made recent headlines for a host of reasons, ranging from Chairwoman Lina Kahn’s approach to running the Federal Trade Commission to the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division’s high-profile cases against tech giants such as Google. In this lunch session, former FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz, a Democrat, will join former FTC Commissioner Noah Joshua Phillips, a Republican, and moderator Judge Neomi Rao to discuss recent developments in the antitrust world and debate what might come next, including for the future of independent executive branch agencies in general.

At the end of an administration, the President and Vice President are required to relinquish control over certain documents, pursuant to the Presidential Records Act. Recently, it has come to light that former officials of both parties have brought certain classified documents to their private residences and other non-governmental property.This panel will explore the legal, ethical, national security, and policy issues that confront executive-branch lawyers as they assist Presidents and Vice Presidents to comply with the law.

This panel will evaluate efforts in the Biden administration, building upon executive actions dating back to the Clinton administration, to refocus federal agencies in a “whole of government” manner on “environmental justice” (EJ). The Civil Rights Act and various executive orders are cited as the primary legal support for these initiatives. On this basis, enforcement priorities are being adjusted across all federal agencies. Agency budgets for EJ programs are being increased and new EJ offices opened.The panel will explore the myriad legal, regulatory, and policy issues that arise in this context. It will offer a primer on administration EJ actions, and evaluate the use of disparate impacts under current law as well as related issues.

Earlier this month, the White House released much-anticipated changes to federal regulatory practices, including a new Executive Order 14094 on “Modernize Regulatory Review,” draft revisions to Circular A-4 governing regulatory impact analysis, and draft guidance on meetings with entities outside of the executive branch. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has the lead for implementing these changes, which comprise the most significant regulatory policy initiatives of the Biden administration. In this opening session, OIRA experts, including several former OIRA administrators will review these developments.

Policymaker interest in alternatives to traditional public schools has sharply increased post-pandemic, with some states considering and adopting proposals to provide educator regulatory relief; increase access to charter schools; offer additional vouchers and tax credit programs; and create education savings account options to increase choice in education. Optics on professions in education have been challenging. Many of these proposals address the number of religious schools in school choice programs, which has led to both new legislation and litigation. Panelists will survey relevant proposals and developments in the midwest while considering the perspective of stakeholders in the field. Featuring: Séamus Boyce, Partner, Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP Leslie Davis Hiner, Vice President of Legal Affairs & Director of Legal Defense & Education Center, EdChoice Daniel Suhr, Senior Fellow, National Opportunity Project Moderator: Hon. Sarah Pitlyk, Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri

Anxiety regarding parental rights in American healthcare and education is at an all time high. Our panel will discuss questions such as, “Are parental rights being circumvented at the schoolhouse and medical office doors?”; “Who decides the best interest of the child?”; “When should the state’s judgment supersede parents’ judgment?”; and “Who determines the parental right to know?” Featuring: Luke Berg, Deputy Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty Thomas M. Fisher, Solicitor General, Indiana Office of the Attorney General Emilie Kao, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Advocacy Strategy, Alliance Defending Freedom Moderator: Hon. Matthew W. McFarland, United States District Judge, Southern District of Ohio

Featuring: The Honorable Todd Rokita, Attorney General, State of Indiana

Panelists will offer their diverse perspectives on the current state of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the issues it is facing, its potential docket, and emerging legal controversies that may affect the court's future work. They will explore issues such as the role of the court in shaping public policy, the importance of judicial independence, and challenges that the court will face as it adapts to a rapidly changing legal landscape.Featuring:Jeffrey A. Mandell, Partner, Stafford Rosenbaum LLPRyan J. Walsh, Partner, Eimer Stahl LLPProf. Robert Yablon, Associate Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin-MadisonModerator: Hon. Shelley A. Grogan, Judge, District II, Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Although many lawyers spend their careers in front of judges, the process by which a judge is elected or appointed can sometimes seem shrouded in mystery. What makes for a good judge? How are they chosen? Are there opportunities Wisconsin lawyers aspiring to the state or federal bench should pursue, or pitfalls they should avoid? A panel of Wisconsin-based judges from a variety of courts joins us to discuss the path to the judiciary in Wisconsin, moderated by Milwaukee Chapter President Matthew Fernholz.Featuring:Hon. Michael J. Aprahamian, Judge, Waukesha County Circuit CourtHon. Rebecca Grassl Bradley, Justice, Wisconsin Supreme CourtHon. William C. Griesbach, Senior District Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of WisconsinModerator: Matthew M. Fernholz, Partner, Cramer, Multhauf & Hammes, LLP & President, Milwaukee Lawyers Chapter

Join us for a Texas-sized BBQ banquet featuring Austin BBQ. Dress in your Texas best! Attire is dressy, but cowboy boots and hats are welcome! *This event requires the purchase of a separate ticket.

Judicial Review has been criticized throughout American history as undemocratic, creating what has been known in the modern era as the counter-majoritarian difficulty. Is the Court in fact counter-majoritarian? To what degree? If so, is it a difficulty? What theories of constitutional interpretation best reconcile judicial review with democracy—originalism or living constitutionalism or something else?Featuring:Moderator: Hon. James Ho, The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitProf. Tara Leigh Grove, Vinson & Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas School of LawProf. Lawrence Sager, Alice Jane Drysdale Sheffield Regents Chair, University of Texas School of LawProf. Keith Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University

The United States is constitutionally not one, but fifty-one, democracies. How can they all fit together? The oldest issue in our republic is the relation between the federal and state governments: where does the democratic decision-making power of one leave off and the other begin? The question remains relevant today on such issues as the proper locus of decisions about abortion. But the relation of the states to one another is now also pressing as states deploy their authority to influence the democratic decision making of other states, on issues as disparate as gun and climate policy. Are the proper boundaries between our different democracies best policed by the judiciary or by democratic politics?Featuring:Moderator: Hon. Andrew Oldham, The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitProf. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law SchoolProf. Jud Campbell, Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of LawProf. Michael S. Greve, Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School

Many aspects of the United States governing structure have been criticized as inconsistent with democracy or at least with majority rule. Elections for the House of Representatives and state legislatures are subject to gerrymandering. The Senate represents large and small states equally and thus unequally weights the voters across the nation. The Electoral College, too, provides electoral advantages to some states over others. And the institutions themselves sometimes depart from majority rule, most notably in the United States Senate with its filibuster. Can these arrangements be justified, or should they be reformed?Featuring:Moderator: Hon. Patrick J. Bumatay, The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitProf. Sanford V. Levinson, W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair in Law, University of Texas School of LawProf. Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law, Capital University Law SchoolProf. Stephanie Barclay, Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Religious Liberty Initiative, Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Lori A. Ringhand, J. Alton Hosch Professor of Law & Josiah Meigs Distinguished Teaching Professor, University of Georgia School of Law