On October 7, 2020, the Federalist Society's Pennsylvania Student Chapter and the Regulatory Transparency Project co-sponsored an event on "Antitrust Populism and the Conservative Movement." During the 1986 Supreme Court confirmation hearings for then-Judge Antonin Scalia, he was asked about his views on antitrust. “In law school, I never understood [antitrust law],” Scalia explained, “I later found out, in reading the writings of those who now do understand it, that I should not have understood it because it did not make any sense then.” Some contend that the much-needed coherency in antitrust law was brought about by the Chicago School revolution and the adoption of the consumer welfare standard.
Ashley Baker and Neil Chilson discuss the implications for data security under recently-enacted privacy laws. Although data privacy regulations may shield your data from companies that seek to use it for commercial purposes, certain legal requirements found in these regulations can leave your sensitive information vulnerable to bad actors.
In the latest episode of the Fourth Branch Podcast, Ashley Baker and Jennifer Huddleston discuss how an Illinois biometric privacy law offers a cautionary tale for policymakers as they consider data privacy regulations. What makes this law so powerful is that it allows for a private right of action for individuals to bring suit and pursue damages for violations of the act even if they suffered no injury.
In a new Federalist Society Regulatory Transparency Project podcast, Ashley Baker, director of public policy at the Committee for Justice, and Jennifer Huddleston, research fellow at the Mercatus Center, discuss the implications of the Supreme Court's decision that the warrantless seizure of the cell phone location records violate the Fourth Amendment.
With emerging debates around facial recognition technology, the issue of regulating biometric access technologies has become more prominent. San Fransisco, notably, has banned government use of facial recognition, and states like Illinois and Texas have also begun more agressive regulations on biometrics.
Major American corporations are pressuring their outside law firms to meet diversity goals both firm-wide and in the legal teams assigned to the company’s work. This pressure has resulted in the widespread use of race and gender preferences in hiring, promotion, and work assignment decisions by America’s premier law firms. Are these preferences legal under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981? Are they good policy?
Podcast now available on SoundCloud:
On November 9, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Lynch v. Morales-Santana. Morales-Santana’s father was born in Puerto Rico but acquired U.S. citizenship in 1917 under the Jones Act of Puerto Rico. Morales-Santana was born in 1962 in the Dominican Republic to his father and Dominican mother, who were unmarried at the time. In 1970, upon his parents’ marriage, he was statutorily “legitimated” and was admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident in 1976.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which was in effect at the time of Morales-Santana’s birth, limits the ability of an unwed citizen father to confer citizenship on his child born abroad, where the child’s mother is not a c...