Federalist Society

The Congressional Review Act is taking on a larger role in battles over federal regulation. Recent efforts to overturn California Clean Air Act waivers have raised major questions about congressional procedure, administrative law, and the balance of power between Congress and federal agencies. How far can the CRA reach, and what does its growing use mean for the future of regulation? Join us TODAY at 12:00PM for a discussion on the evolving role of the Congressional Review Act. Ft. Prof. Jonathan Adler (@jadler1969), Michael Buschbacher, Dean Alan B. Morrison, and Laura Stanley Watch: fedsoc.org/events/emergin…

As America approaches its 250th anniversary, we’re excited to launch the newly revamped America250 webpage from The Federalist Society. 🇺🇸 Featuring content such as our “Forgotten Founders” and “250 in 60” video series, recent films, virtual discussions, upcoming events, and pages highlighting the full text of both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, this webpage is a reflection of 250 years of American exceptionalism. Explore the new site and follow along as we commemorate American liberty, constitutional government, and the rule of law. fedsoc.org/america-250

In case you missed it last night, tune in to watch Governor Ron DeSantis’ remarks concluding the Federalist Society’s Inagural Executive Branch Summit

.@GovRonDeSantis on the dangers of institutions being "captured" by left-wing ideology: "This goes to the larger issue in our society — what conservatives have had to deal with, and I think we've dealt with it better in Florida than anyone — the capturing of institutions by leftist ideology. The ABA is captured, the medical societies are captured… so many of the universities."

.@GovRonDeSantis: “Whatever Washington or Hamilton or Jefferson thought about tax policy is not necessarily going to be the same as what it is now. The policy issues change, but the underlying principles endure — and the more we're faithful to those principles, the better we do."

.@GovRonDeSantis on the bravery of the Founders: "We are celebrating a very important milestone — not just in our history, but in the history of the West and really the history of the human race. Because when the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia to sign the Declaration of Independence in 1776, they had a lot to lose. They were very successful people, many of them were very wealthy. They had asserted this right to independence, and part of it was they just felt they were being disrespected. They didn't want anything special. They just wanted the rights of Englishmen.”

Mr. David Dewhirst, Solicitor General, Florida Attorney General's Office, on how Florida is working to loosen the grip of the American Bar Association (ABA): “The ABA is incredibly powerful across the country. Over the last year, we encouraged our state Supreme Court to revisit the requirement that you graduate from an ABA-accredited school in order to be qualified to take the Florida bar exam — and so they did. They just removed that back in February. … We're doing our best to defang them as a relevant actor when it comes to representing the legal community nationwide and particularly playing such a pivotal role in legal education.”

Mr. @EWess92, Solicitor General, Iowa Attorney General's Office, raises the concern over how states like New York are attempting to impose their laws nationwide, including in Iowa: “New York has decided that it wants to impose a policy of mandating certain disclosures relating to greenhouse gas emissions — and as I've always said, that'd be fine if they wanted to do that for folks in New York. But they also want that to apply to anyone who does any business in New York. And it turns out that no matter how self-important New York City thinks it is, there's more stuff going on outside of New York than there is in New York, even New York state. And so we think there are a lot of reasons why New York or California or any one of a number of states should not be able to mandate what the rest of the states do in their own state.”

Mr. Tyler Green, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC, on the foundational violations states are committing when they attempt to impose their policies nationwide and on other states: “This notion of territorial sovereignty or territorial jurisdiction — the idea, going all the way back to the law of nations, with which the Framers were intimately familiar — is the idea that a state or political entity has no power to exercise its regulatory authority outside its own political boundaries. So if you're talking about, either through legislation or here through court action, direct regulation of activities that happen within your borders that might have some ripple effect down the line, that's different. ‘We don't produce pork in California, but we are going to tell everyone else how to produce pork’ — that's not a ripple effect. That's primary regulation. You're instructing someone how to do something even though they're not within your territorial jurisdiction. That's something we were talking about 250 years ago — equally well established. And so this is the accident that's happening right now.”

FedSoc Executive Branch Summit x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

Mr. O.H. Skinner, Executive Director, @for_consumers, on how blue states are moving to use extraterritorial reach rather than legislation to pursue policy changes: “You see political movements, ideological movements, retreating into their bastions. And you see a lot more of a belief system amongst the progressive lifestyle set that their only way out is through California and Vermont — through places that can extraterritorialize. They've stopped thinking, ‘I'm going to run an election and win the legislature of more states in the country.’ It's a lot easier to just try to find an extraterritorial reach. … So I think you're just seeing more and more of an effort to use home bases to export policy preferences than we've had in a long time.”

Hon. Stuart Kyle Duncan, Hon. Paul Newby, and Prof. Renée Lettow Lerner joined us for a lunchtime discussion exploring the judiciary’s role in maintaining the balance between the branches of government.

Hon. Paul Newby, Chief Justice, North Carolina Supreme Court, on the greatest danger to judicial independence: “Let me tell you the greatest danger — and I haven't figured out a good answer to it — and that's when judges take up positions on policy questions that are coming before the court: ‘vote for me, and I will rule this way.’ When I ran in 2004, I ran on the fact that I will not be a legislator in a black robe. I do not believe somebody died and made me king. I believe in judicial modesty, judicial self-restraint. Frankly, if there's not judicial self-restraint, there is no restraint. And it scares me to death… where folks try to find a policy issue that they think people are supportive of, and they say, ‘vote for me, and I will give you whatever you're looking for from a policy perspective.’”

FedSoc Executive Branch Summit x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

Hon. Paul Newby, Chief Justice, North Carolina Supreme Court, on the difference between a state constitution and the federal Constitution: “This [federal] Constitution is a grant of limited power… the state constitution is a limitation on power. All political power resides in we the people, and we the people exercise that power through our state constitution.”

Hon. Stuart Kyle Duncan, Stuart Kyle Duncan, on why the structural Constitution matters: “The one feature I would say is underappreciated is the fact that there is a structure. That point is vastly underappreciated by lawyers and commentators writing about the work of the federal courts and about the Constitution in general. … The fact that we have a constitution that constitutes a structure of government is the whole purpose of having a constitution to begin with. I suppose the alternative to a structural constitution would be the constitution that Woodrow Wilson wanted — no structure at all, where experts would simply govern us because we, the people, don't really know what's good for us.”

FedSoc Executive Branch Summit x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

Mr. Samuel Adkisson, Associate Counsel to the President, White House Counsel's Office, on presidential accountability over the executive branch: “To the extent federal agencies exercise significant executive power, that agency must be accountable to the president. Article II of the Constitution vests the executive power in a president of the United States of America, period. The Constitution also provides that the president shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. But if the president can't effectively supervise his subordinates in the executive branch — if, in other words, he is not in charge — it becomes practically impossible for the president to fulfill his duties under Article II of the Constitution. It also begs the question: who would be in charge? It's not the courts. It's not Congress. It's certainly not the people.”

FedSoc Executive Branch Summit x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

Hon. Jonathan Berry, Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, on what is different between President Trump's first and second terms: “I would point out two things that are different this time around. One is the level of responsiveness of the civil service. A big piece of that is the civil service reform that was commenced toward the end of the first term — those reforms framed the beginning of the second term. You have a series of reforms in place being driven that have resulted in positioning the civil service to actually be responsive to the politically accountable leadership of the agencies. That is a major difference… The other one that comes to my mind is an intensification of focus and understanding of what it is that we are here for. I can point to nothing better than the incredible amount of executive activity flowing from President Trump's pen… I am not tired of winning. I'm a little bit dizzy, but in the best possible way. There's a new layer of thoughtfulness and coherence that kicked things off, and I think it's helping all of us focus more intentionally on the mission.”