Browse our site by:
FedSoc on Facebook
FedSoc on YouTubeStudent Resources
Special Projects
Practice Groups
- Administrative Law & Regulation
- Civil Rights
- Corporations, Securities & Antitrust
- Criminal Law & Procedure
- Environmental Law & Property Rights
- Federalism & Separation of Powers
- Financial Services & E-Commerce
- Free Speech & Election Law
- Intellectual Property
- International & National Security Law
- Labor & Employment Law
- Litigation
- Professional Responsibility & Legal Education
- Religious Liberties
- Telecommunications & Electronic Media
DC Chapter Luncheon with Andrew Redleaf
Washington, DC - March 12, 2010
Join us on March 12, 2010, for the Washington, DC Lawyers Chapter Luncheon featuring Andrew Redleaf of Whitebox Advisors LLC and co-author of Panic: The Betrayal of Capitalism by Wall Street and Washington. The cost is $15 for members of the Society and $20 for non-members. [Register now!]
Vicarious Criminal Liability
In January 2010, the U.S. Sentencing Commission submitted for public comment several proposed changes to the way in which corporate compliance programs receive credit under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The Commission will vote on whether to move forward with these changes in April 2010. On the heels of this announcement, Elizabeth Bingold and Mike Huneke consider the historical evolution of vicarious criminal liability for corporations, as well as the efficacy and appropriateness of using the criminal law to regulate corporate conduct. [Read it now!]
Originally
Speaking
February 3, 2010
Last updated: Wednesday, March 3, 2010 at 9 AM
On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The Court held that the government may not limit corporate independent expenditures in elections. The Court reasoned that such limitations violate the First Amendment because the First Amendment prohibits restrictions on disfavored speakers. In addition, the Court held that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act’s disclosure requirements, as they applied to Hillary: The Movie, were constitutional. The Court reasoned that such requirements were permissible due to a governmental interest in providing the electorate with knowledge about sources of election spending. In this installment of Originally Speaking, Barry Friedman, Erik S. Jaffe, Trevor Potter, Larry E. Ribstein, and Howard M. Wasserman will discuss the decision, the soundness of its reasoning, and its implications.
The Olin/Searle Fellows in Law program will offer top young legal thinkers the opportunity to spend a year writing and developing their scholarship with the goal of entering the legal academy. Stipends will include $50,000 plus benefits. Applications due by March 15.
[Read More]
The Federalist Society - 1015 18th Street, NW - Suite 425 - Washington, DC 20036
Tel: (202) 822-8138 - Fax: (202) 296-8061 - info@fed-soc.org