An Introduction to Sheldon Gilbert

Featuring:

Sheldon Gilbert, President and CEO, The Federalist Society
Moderator: Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:04):
Good afternoon. You're supposed to say good afternoon, Okay. I
just wanted to add one thing. I had the honor
of being the National Student Symposium chair a long time
ago when I was young, which was a long time ago,
and one of our panelists we had so I learned

(00:25):
that the Federal Society is known for having bounce on
the panels, and we had Ruth Bader Ginsburg that year
as one of the panelists. So I wanted to thank
mts Bauer for joining us today and adding some bounce
to the last panel. I think it's Federal Society. One
of the great things about the Federal Society, It's not
just like one sided discussion.

Speaker 2 (00:46):
It's a discussion.

Speaker 1 (00:48):
So I my own applause for all the people that
were here adding bounce. I the honor of giving the
Good Shepherd Award Lisa. In fact, they asked me to
do it and told me who it was. And it's
just coincidental that it's a friend of mine. So they say,

(01:12):
good guys finished last, but not at the Federal Society.
Federal Society, good guys finished first. And this guy is
kind of old school. He also goes back to the eighties,
joining the Federal Society in law school in the eighties.
Then he moved down to Miami. He got active and
helped start the Federal Society in Miami. He's the Lawyer's Chapter.

(01:34):
He then moved up to Pombage County became very involved
in the Pombage County or starting at Pombage County Federal
Society and working on Jay and C's and putting people
with Federal Society perspectives in position to become a judge.
He himself became a judge, appointed by Rick Scott to

(01:55):
the Circuit Court in the fifteenth Circuit in pomb County,
and then about during COVID no coincidence, he was picked
for the District Court at fourth District Court of Appeal
by Governor DeSantis. I think by now he's realized.

Speaker 2 (02:14):
Who I'm talking about.

Speaker 1 (02:16):
A new tradition, just coincidental, I guess maybe started in
addition to getting a plaque, you get a car and driver.
Because it's just a coincidence that I'm his ride to
get home tonight. So I was told to keep it short.
So I will keep it short and then call up
the recipient of the twenty twenty five Good Shepherd Award

(02:37):
Judge Edward Artell.

Speaker 3 (02:53):
What a quint. Wow, I want to hold it and
you take a picture.

Speaker 1 (03:10):
Okay. We had five minutes and I used four minutes
and thirty seconds.

Speaker 4 (03:14):
So fortunately I have no prepared remarks because I wasn't
expecting this at all. But I just I want to
say how much this means to me, because the Federal
Society means everything to me. I remember walking in as

(03:36):
a first year Georgetown law student and I had been
involved and I was chair of in Broward County when
I was in College of College Students for Reagan and
I wanted to get involved in something in the conservative movement.

Speaker 5 (03:56):
And I saw a sign and said Federal Society meeting. Uh,
you know, if you're.

Speaker 4 (04:01):
Interested, show up. And I went to that, uh and uh.
It really changed my life. Federal Society, being involved in
it as a law student and then being able to
sort of export that and bring that to Florida after
I graduated from law school has made all the difference

(04:24):
in my career.

Speaker 5 (04:26):
My commitment to the concepts of.

Speaker 4 (04:31):
That I really learned from people like Antonin Scalia and
Robert Borke. Textualism originalism is the most significant concepts that
I bring to the bench as a judge, and this
organization is the most meaningful organization, uh that really a

(05:00):
brings to the law what it is to be able
to make the rule of law something that is not
about a particular result. It's about a particular process, and

(05:23):
it's about the process of following the law and enforcing
it wherever it leads you, even if that's a liberal result.

Speaker 5 (05:34):
And that's what we do with originalism and textualism.

Speaker 4 (05:37):
I want to thank all the people that came before
me that's received this award, all the people that that
have made have brought this to Florida, in particular Jesse Pinuccio,
Jason Gonzalez, Alan Forrest, and Frank Shepherd. You all have

(06:02):
really made the difference in this state and this award
is is for you guys.

Speaker 5 (06:09):
Thank you so much.

Speaker 6 (06:27):
And with that we'll move to our keynote discussion.

Speaker 7 (06:29):
I'm going to ask Jesse and Sheldon to come up
to the stage and I would introduce Jesse, but I
don't think he needs an introduction.

Speaker 6 (06:36):
After the last day of programming.

Speaker 2 (07:07):
Want to open up a water bottle first, be ready,
let's get yeah, let's get situated here. Yeah, everything's in place. Well,
thanks Lisa, and congratulations to Judge Artal for that very
well deserved award. I remember when we first met in
Palm Beach County and you were at the Water Management
District and ready to help out with Governor Scott and
all he was trying to do and is very well deserved.

(07:30):
And thanks to the namesake of the award, Judge Shepherd,
who I think I saw him here earlier today hopefully
is here and I hope those of you who don't
know him, how about a round of applause for the
namesake of the award. And also I'll just say thanks
to Lisa and to Abby and the whole team from
the Federal Society another as we get ready that we'll
have our reception tonight. But just another record breaking year

(07:52):
for us, and it's you know, every year, the lunch,
the dinner's always large, but the lunch keeps getting bigger too.
So congrats to all of you who did not take
your families to the parks today. You're excellent Federalists and
maybe terrible family members, but that's okay, So congrats for
being here. So Sheldon, welcome back to the Florida Federal

(08:13):
Society you came here. We'll get to this, but you
were at our very first conference or man it was yeah,
and I want to ask you about that. But first
I want to say, on behalf of everyone here, congratulations
on becoming the president of the Federal Society. I think
thank you very well deserved. I and many others when

(08:35):
we saw the news, perhaps early earlier than you intended,
were just thrilled about it. So thank you for taking
on the job, for being here. I think I want
to start out. You know, some of us in this
room know you, some don't. You're replacing the second ever president,
so certainly your predecessor is someone we all knew and
associated with these events in the society. So let's just

(08:56):
start with Rather than me reading your bio, why don't
you start from your tell us your origin story, Sheldon,
Where do you come from and how did you get here?

Speaker 7 (09:05):
I'm just a simple country lawyer from Idaho early at
the end of the day. I was born in Carbon County, Utah,
which is coal country, made my way to the burgeoning
metropolis of Idaho Falls, which is where I spent most
of my most of my youth, and really kind of
an accidental lawyer when I was a senior in high school,

(09:30):
a guy named Ryan Nelson, who grew up down the
street from me, was doing an internship with i think
the Senate Chief Council during the Clinton impeachment trial. And
he came home and talked to our scout troop about
his experience in the Senate and in DC. And I

(09:53):
said to myself, you know, wow, that sounds really interesting.
I think I'd like to visit this Washington DC someday.
And and so there was a chance to participate in
the Idaho History Day and if you won, you got
to go to d C. And uh, and so that
was kind of my first trip to Washington, d C.
But really, Ryan Nelson is to blame for me being

(10:15):
interested in Washington, d C.

Speaker 6 (10:17):
And uh.

Speaker 7 (10:18):
You know, my wife and I married as when we
were both undergrads. I was at the University of Utah.
She was at Brigham Young University. She had a degree
in Japanese and I had a degree even less useful
in history. And we decided we wanted to move to Washington,
d C. And what do you do in d C
with a history degree? I guess you go to law school.
So I didn't really know anything about lawyers. Uh but uh,

(10:41):
but I ended up in d C and ended up loving,
loving law school and loving the ideas of the law,
and uh and kind of you know, found my way
into being a lawyer more or less on accident.

Speaker 2 (10:51):
And just take us through. So, well, one, did you
join the Federal Society in law school or was it later?
And then two after law school? What was your career progression?

Speaker 7 (11:01):
So I think I discovered the Federal Society my third
year of law school. I when I moved to d
C again, my wife and I both Thrmidah. We didn't
really have a network of friends or like minded individuals
in the DC area. I found a bunch of really
close friends with my co religionists and got really involved
in religious liberty issues my first couple of years of

(11:24):
law school and it was a great experience, met wonderful people.
And I was a friend at Georgetown who said, Hey,
aren't you involved in the Federal Society yet you seem
like you ought to be. And that's when I learned
about the Federal Society. And my third year of law school,
I met Greg Maggs. For those of you who know
Judge Greg Maggs and the first time I went.

Speaker 6 (11:45):
Into his office is at three L.

Speaker 7 (11:47):
He was he was very upset that his Guinness World
Record for largest slide rule had been beaten, and which
is the nerdiest possible thing to have a Guinness World
Record in. But I found the Federal Society the my
third year of law school, and it kind of changed
the course of my personal and professional life. Jordan Jordan

(12:11):
Lawrence at eightyf we were talking in the hallway and
he described coming to Federal Society conferences as attending family reunions,
and uh, and.

Speaker 6 (12:21):
That's really the case.

Speaker 7 (12:21):
The Federal Society is kind of a found family for me.
It's and every found family has you know, has the
crazy uncle who has a plane called the Federalist.

Speaker 6 (12:30):
Where's Jason?

Speaker 7 (12:32):
Uh So, But it really does feel like, you know,
a family, and it really has been my found family
throughout my professional career.

Speaker 2 (12:39):
Well, I think that's a story that's common for a
lot of people in the room. I think you've heard
that from Judge Artau, for example. It's true for me
as well. Uh, you know, I don't I don't go
to law school reunions, but I go to the National
Lawyer's Convention every year and this convention now and it
feels like a reunion of the people that I, uh,
you know, feel some affinity with in the profession. So
it sounds like you had that aim, that same experience,

(13:01):
and it's.

Speaker 7 (13:02):
It's you find friends, you find ideas, you find a
network of people to help you in your professional life.
So I'm trying to remember when we first met. But
I my first job out of law school was at
the US Chamber of Commerces Litigation Center, and during the
eight years of the Obama administration, I was very involved
in regulatory litigation. So I stole this line from Governor Abbott,

(13:23):
you know, the of the then the Attorney General Abbot
of the state that's not to be mentioned in these rooms,
but he used to say that he would wake up,
Sue Obama, go to bed, and repeat. And that's really
what I did for eight years at the US Chambers
Litigation Center. Is a lot of regulatory litigation in a
whole host of different cases. But for every one of
those cases, when I needed to find a lawyer to

(13:45):
work with to retain to help us, you know, bring
these lawsuits, where did I turn to. I turned to
the Federal Society when I wanted to work with state
ags and state s cheese to partner in these cases
with these kind of you know, business and government alitcience
is to challenge these regulations.

Speaker 6 (14:01):
Where did I go? I turned to friends in the.

Speaker 7 (14:04):
Federal Society who were sgs or working in these AG
offices and made lifelong friends throughout that process. But it's
kind of been how I have been successful my entire
career is tapping into all the amazing talent throughout the
Federal Society and working with them to do everything that
I've ever accomplished throughout my career.

Speaker 2 (14:24):
You know, it's an important point, and well, I want
to get to the rest of your bio. But one
of the goals we had when we started this conference
was to replicate here what the experience I had had
in DC like yours, and what had happened nationally, but
certainly in DC where you had this self reinforcing network
of like minded lawyers. And part of it was for

(14:46):
the judges to make sure that they felt they had
support and they could be courageous. But part of it
is what you're talking about, which is that we could
support each other in the profession and refer cases to
each other and it's a I think maybe underappreciated aspect
of why we do this and why people should come
to this every year and what the society does. Aside
from the excellent programming, it's the networking piece is very important.

Speaker 7 (15:06):
I couldn't agree more. I've described it as the kinetic
energy in the hallway of the Mayflower right. The panels
and debates are crucial and important. We're an organization of ideas,
first and foremost. No movement can succeed if it's not
founded on principles and ideas that matter and that are
debated and that are relevant through a long period of time,

(15:29):
and that is the starting point. You'll also find at
the National Lawyer's Convention or at this conference. There are
a lot of people in this room, I guarantee, during
all those panels, there's lots of people outside. They're milling around.
And what happens a judge who's at the conference bumps
into somebody and says, hey, what do you think about
so and so as a clerk? Can you give a
recommendation for me for a good clerk? Or you bump

(15:51):
into a friend and you say, hey, I saw that
lawsuit that you filed. How did you get around the
standing issue and you kind of cook up the legal ideas?

Speaker 6 (15:59):
Right?

Speaker 7 (16:00):
We all know that that's a big part of this
organization are those kind of the entropy in the hallway
of bumping into each other and sharing ideas and figuring
out how to translate ideas that are so important to
our organization into action. And that's something that our members
in this network.

Speaker 6 (16:18):
Do every day.

Speaker 7 (16:19):
So I love the hallways at every one of our conferences.

Speaker 2 (16:22):
For sure, it's sometimes exasperating for the panelists, but it's
great for everyone in the hallways. So, Sheldon, let's just
go back. You were at the Chamber, you were there
for eight years. What next? What came next?

Speaker 7 (16:35):
So there was an election in twenty sixteen, and it
seemed like the Chamber probably wasn't going to be suing
as many federal agencies, which is what I really enjoyed.
I really enjoyed suing the government. And there was an
organization that I had admired for many years called the
Institute for Justice, which where are my Institute for Justice?

Speaker 6 (16:55):
Peeps?

Speaker 7 (16:56):
Yeah, that table back there, and I love everything about
what the Institute for Justice does to fight for the
little guy. Suing the government and I was very fortunate
to then go work for the Institute for Justice with
their think tank, the Center for Digitial Engagement, and work

(17:17):
on again on the ideas around the role of judges
and the role of courts, and really be involved in
the conservative and libertarian movement in that capacity. And so
I had the greatest privilege to work for IJ. And
one of my favorite experiences at IJ is it overlapped

(17:38):
with the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the fourteenth Amendment,
and we put together a big conference which we just
stole the model of the federal society with great voices
on every side of the issue, debating issues around the
fourteenth Amendment. I met a lot of great people who
are at this conference today. I think Judge Strass came
and spoke. We had a lot of great people there.

(18:01):
But it was a it was a fantastic experience exploring
ideas and then how those ideas remain relevant today.

Speaker 2 (18:09):
And then after I j after I take you through
all of it, So okay, all right, so we'll just
if you want to get to know you and then
we'll you just want.

Speaker 6 (18:16):
To get to the part where I hired you as
my lawyer.

Speaker 5 (18:19):
That was true.

Speaker 2 (18:20):
That's what's important. But I think it's important for people
to know your experience before you got into this job.

Speaker 7 (18:26):
So after the Issup for Justice, when I was in
law school, one of the professors that I really enjoyed
is a guy named Jeff Rosen. And they're not the
Jeff Rosen who is a duj It's a different Jeff Rosen,
very different politics. But Jeff Rosen is someone who is
one of the most delightful people to disagree with that

(18:49):
you will ever meet. Jeff Rosen takes ideas very seriously
and I got to.

Speaker 6 (18:53):
Know him a lot during during law school.

Speaker 7 (18:55):
And he is the CEO of the National Constitution Center,
which is a congressionally charted, nonpartisan platform to teach about
the Constitution. It's that big museum right across from Independence Hall,
and if you haven't been there, you should. There's this
room that has life sized bronze statues of all of
the individuals at the Constitutional Convention. And it's remarkable for

(19:19):
a lot of a lot of reasons, including being able
to see just how short many of the founders were.
And it never did I feel more like an originalist
than the moment when I realized that they were all
about my height. But at the National Constitution Center, again,
it's an organizations that's committed to discussing and debating and

(19:41):
exploring ideas about the Constitution. And one of my favorite
projects there is we built the nation's first and only
permanent exhibit on how the Constitution changed after the Civil War.
And there's something remarkable about, you know, being able to
see right in front of you d Scott's Freedom petition

(20:01):
or John Brown's pike. The Constitution Center acquired the largest
private collection of Civil War artifacts as part of that exhibit.
It's a really amazing exhibit. But what I'm really proud
of is we incorporated textualism and originalism into the entire exhibit.
So if you go in there, there's there's a display

(20:24):
where you can kind of go to the different parts
of the fourteenth Amendment and you can read through the
debates and the text at the time and what the
founders of the Fourteenth Amendment we're talking about, and explore
how the text of what becomes the fourteenth Amendment changed
over time. Through Congress. You can explore articles in the
newspaper in real time and see how those words were

(20:45):
used and it was really important to us as we
put together that exhibit to really tell the story through
the text and through the understanding at the moment in
time when the when the Reconstruction amendments were passed.

Speaker 6 (21:00):
And it was a fantastic experience.

Speaker 7 (21:01):
A shout out to Professor Kurt Lash who kind of
went around the country transcribing by hand a lot of
these Reconstruction era documents that never before had been digitized
or made available. He made them available to the National
Constitution Center and has made them available online to anybody
who wants to access them.

Speaker 6 (21:20):
But to really be able to.

Speaker 7 (21:22):
Encourage originalism, real deep originalism around the Reconstruction amendments.

Speaker 2 (21:27):
Great, there's an aspect of your bio that we might
as well get out of the way now. Although it's
very sensitive for me to talk about. Here we go
get it. It is much reported that you are a
It goes beyond fandom that, like Christmas, dinner at your
house might come from the olive Garden. Of course, you
love the olive garden.

Speaker 5 (21:48):
Yes, so does.

Speaker 7 (21:49):
Everybody in this room. And wait till the National Lawyer's
Convention and it's catered by Olive Garden.

Speaker 2 (21:55):
And you see what I've said to you many times,
is when you're talking to Pinuccio, this borders on a
hate crime. Say that it's very sensitive that you're putting
that up as the standard for Italian food. But be
that as it may, we are in danger of getting
free salad and breadsticks for life. So here's the thing, society.

Speaker 7 (22:13):
Okay, So if you go on Twitter, one of the
only things you'll find is me very zealously defending olive garden.
And this is a little bit of my populist like instincts.
As in Idaho, and I remember growing up in Idaho
for a long time there was this field with a
sign that said all of garden coming soon. And the
city of Idaho Falls, the burgeting metropolis of Idaho Falls,

(22:35):
knew that if we could ever get an olive garden,
we would have arrived right.

Speaker 6 (22:39):
And as a little kid.

Speaker 7 (22:40):
You know, the closest olive garden was Salt Lake City,
which is about three and a half hour drive, and
it was the biggest deal ever to save up money
and have your family go to the olive garden in
Salt Lake. And every time someone like Jesse tells me
that that's not fancy enough food, my popular Idaho instincts

(23:01):
kick in and they say, you know what best restaurant ever?
And so you'll see a lot of pro Olive Garden
propaganda on my Twitter account, to the point that when
the news broke, you know, the news leaked about my
selection as Federal Society CEO, I was flooded with texts
with three questions. Number one is it true? Number two,

(23:25):
who's the guy who leaked the news? And number three
is the Federal Society now going to have Olive Garden
cater the National Lawyers Convention? And somebody put out a
tweet that said that the new slogan of the Federal
Society will be limited government, unlimited breadsticks. And I will

(23:46):
point out that the bread at your tables there was
a limited basket there and it quickly ran out. But
my kids and family now have made me a sign
for my office at the Federal Society that says limited government,
unlimited breads.

Speaker 2 (24:00):
Perfect right. Fancy is not the issue. Let me just
so you know. I mentioned at the outset that you
have a good memory of this conference, and this is
a story that I think is pretty great about you
and your daughter wondering if you could just share that
with everybody when you came, and.

Speaker 7 (24:20):
Yeah, absolutely, I think I was at the very first
I was at the very first Florida state wide chapter.
You all launched this chapter at a moment when I
was at the US Chamber Litigation Center, which almost never
would do amicus briefs in state courts. It's kind of
seen like we do US Supreme Court stuff. And you know,

(24:41):
I think that I had a very strong appreciation that
the state courts are doing massive amounts of really important,
critical work that affects the world in very important ways.
And I pushed really hard for us to create a
state court program at the US Chamber Litigation Center where
we would file amicust briefs in state courts. And as

(25:03):
I you know, kind of surveyed the country and where
we could kind of start this project, the answer I
got again and again and again is the is Florida
is a place where you've got good and better by
the day judges who are open minded to ideas, and
it's you know, an incredibly important state that has a

(25:25):
GDP larger than many countries. And so I went to
the first Florida Chapters Conference and then the second Florida
Chapters Conference, and Jason sent me a text the other day.
He sent me a picture from the first or second
Chapter's conference where I was at one of those microphones
getting ready to ask a question.

Speaker 6 (25:42):
And it was fantastic.

Speaker 7 (25:44):
Because you have a group of people who are so
dedicated to their state courts, their state constitution, which I
think is pivotal in our system of federalism. And I
just geeked out over how amazing it was. So the third,
your third and conference, I was scheduled to I think
speak for IJ at an event and it overlapped or

(26:06):
actually was still at the Litigation Center, but it overlapped
with my daughter's tenth birthday February fifth, and I thought, gosh,
I want to go to the conference. I've made it
to the first two. I got to keep going, but
I don't want to miss my daughter's birthday. And you
know two, you know, I two three really fantastic mentors

(26:26):
at the US Chamber Litigation Center, Rachel Brand, Kate Todd,
Lilly Claffey, and they said, you know what, you don't
have to have a conflict between having an amazing career
and your family.

Speaker 6 (26:37):
Take your daughter with you.

Speaker 7 (26:39):
And so I took my ten year old daughter, and
I thought, I don't know if she's going to like this,
it could be a terrible experience.

Speaker 6 (26:46):
We did the Disney thing.

Speaker 7 (26:48):
She then sat through all of the panels and it
turned into one of the best experiences of our relationship
where we talked about the Constitution, we talked about government,
we talked about separation of powers. We had an amazing
experience together. I've got a picture somewhere. She chased down
Justice Lawson to get a picture with him, She chased
down Marco Roubio to get a picture with him, and

(27:09):
it was an amazing experience for her that she's now
getting ready to go to college next year. She turns
eighteen next week. And it's still one of these core
memories of our father daughter relationship. And it's tied to
the people in this room who put together an amazing event,
and it helped that it was also a Disney World.
But I think that's the Florida Chapters conference has not

(27:33):
just been important to me professionally but personally. One of
my closest memories with my daughter is at this conference.

Speaker 2 (27:39):
Well thanks for that, and I think that is worth
a roundom applause. I think actually a lot of people
in this room and who are at the conference share
that it's always been indifferent. I think from national it's
a family oriented event. Everyone brings their families. Disney helps.
Although it reminds me of when we had Justice Score
such a few years ago. I remember at the beginning
of the conference, he was, you know, sort of like

(28:03):
you was, but you know, just just like you know,
people wanted pictures and it was sort of like, well
is this going on social media? And then you know,
that was Thursday night, and by the time Saturday night came,
when we got to the reception, everyone showed up with
their babies and he was surrounded. It had to be
fifteen to twenty babies. And the next week on LinkedIn,
I just saw people posting their pictures of their kids

(28:24):
with Justice Score session. I thought, well, and it really
took a good turn. That's what we want. It's like
it's a very family friendly environment and I think people
feel that one.

Speaker 5 (28:32):
Well, I.

Speaker 7 (28:34):
You know, first first couple of days on the job,
I think the first day on the job of the
Federal Society, I met one of our staffers, an IT
guy named Everett, really terrific and said, tell me by yourself,
and he said he was expecting his first baby any
day now. Actually I think the baby was was, you know,
scheduled to be born on Inauguration day. He lives in DC,

(28:54):
and I said, good luck with your traffic trying to
get around. But uh, but uh, we were very excited
to celebrate that. And my colleague Peter Redpath, who many
of you know, he runs our student division, he has
now designed these uh, these fedsock onesies for babies and
uh oh it's amazing. So it's got like a gavel

(29:17):
and then a baby rattle and then it quotes Federal's
paper one that one of the benefits of a union
well constructed. Uh and uh and he's he's now made
a onesie for for Everett And I'm like, dude, we need.

Speaker 6 (29:32):
Like a pile of these.

Speaker 7 (29:33):
We got to give these out to every uh FEDSOC
member who has h who has a baby. So come
to me if you've got a new one coming soon,
and we'll make sure to get you one of the
one of the new onesies. But I really do think that,
you know, this taps into something bigger, right, which is
throughout my entire professional career, we talk a lot in

(29:54):
places like this about the importance of the constitution, of
separation of powers of government, of rule of law.

Speaker 6 (29:59):
One thing that concerns me is how.

Speaker 7 (30:01):
We make sure that those ideas are embraced and appreciated
by you know, children and a younger generation. It's really
important for our country to succeed and to persist that
that there's a healthy appreciation for just how important the
rule of law is and the constitution is, and how
great we have it. The American experiment in democracy and

(30:24):
constitutional republic is amazing and exciting, and it expands liberty
and the opportunity to flourish. But it only can exist
long term if there's an appreciation for how we built
this and the importance of the rule of law and government.
And that's something that I, you know, I really want
to explore, is how we can make sure that we

(30:46):
are translating these ideas into into explanations that you know,
we can teach you know, younger and younger groups of
citizens and really helping the next generation of citizens have
that civic virtue that we need as a civilization to exist.

Speaker 2 (31:05):
So Sheldon, you know, turning to the society itself and
maybe probing a little bit. You know it's on it's
what twenty five in twenty six years? Now? What was
the first quarter century about? And then I want to
talk to you a little bit about you know, your
presidency is going to mark a new chapter. So but
just looking back, what do you see the.

Speaker 7 (31:27):
First I just want to start with how polite it
was of you to talk about a forty three year
old organization as a twenty five year old.

Speaker 2 (31:34):
I say, yeah, forty three Sorry, yeah, you know what
it is. The problem is I'm not accepting, so I
just keep everything sort of in the two thousands. Yeah, yeah,
so you're right, I guess back to the early eighties.

Speaker 7 (31:46):
Yeah, yeah, So the Federal societyho's founded in nineteen eighty two.
It will not surprise you, as someone who is a
student of originalism that as I've stepped into this role,
I have gone and searched through newspaper coverage of the
Federal Society for the first five years and really trying
to understand the origin story of the Federal Society. But

(32:07):
the origin Society, the Federal Society starts with a group
of students at Harvard and Yale and University of Chicago
who are really bold and daring students who are saying,
there's something amiss. We are not hearing conservative ideas about
the Constitution in our law schools. If anything, the law

(32:30):
schools are hostile.

Speaker 6 (32:31):
To these ideas.

Speaker 7 (32:32):
And so it's a group of students who band together
to create what becomes the Federal Society. And in fact,
one of the favorite articles that I found in the
first five years of the Federal Society is a column
by the economist Thomas Soul And actually, I'm gonna I'm
gonna be geeky and read this to you because it's amazing.

(32:53):
So the first National Lawyer's Convention was nineteen eighty seven
and Thomas sol actually spoke and then he wrote about it,
and I think this is applicable today.

Speaker 6 (33:04):
The great thing.

Speaker 7 (33:04):
About originalism is that you find that you poke around
in history and you find that these brilliant ideas of
the past have salience today.

Speaker 6 (33:12):
So he said, it is easy to.

Speaker 7 (33:14):
Become discouraged and even cynical about the social deterioration and
political irresponsibility that plagued our country and Western civilization in general.
That sound like an evergreen statement, but before you give
up hope, you might want to attend a meeting of
the Federal Society. My first awareness of the Federal Society

(33:34):
came only last year and has been in existence just
five years. Yet its meeting in Washington at the end
of January attracted speakers at two deans of law schools,
five US Circuit Court judges. I think we had that
on one banel, a justice of the California Supreme Court,
a justice of the US Supreme Court, and the Attorney
General of the United States.

Speaker 6 (33:56):
That's pretty impressive.

Speaker 7 (33:57):
And then you look at the audience here and you
think how much we've developed and grown since then.

Speaker 6 (34:03):
But here's the paragraph that I like.

Speaker 7 (34:06):
It is not these dignitaries who are the real cause
for hope. However, what is an enormously refreshing and hopeful
sign is to see the young people who make up
the membership of the Federalist Society, earnest, intelligent, and unpretentious.
These are young men and women of whom any nation
in any age could be proud, and that, to me

(34:30):
is the secret sauce of the Federal Society. It's started
by students who wanted to be revolutionaries, and they conscripted
the people who are older than them and more advanced
in their careers to help them be revolutionaries. That's the
story of the Federal Society. So we have a lot
of student volunteers here today, Lisa, I don't know if

(34:52):
you have a number of how many student volunteers we have,
but we have a lot of student volunteers here today.

Speaker 6 (34:59):
We have o two hundred student chapters.

Speaker 7 (35:01):
And I will say that, like the students in nineteen
eighty two, our law students have spines of steel. They
want to do amazing things to advance the conservative and
libertarian legal movement. They believe in the role of law,
they believe in the Constitution, they believe in the separation
of powers. And what I take from that article from

(35:23):
Thomas soul in nineteen eighty seven is that what should
make us proud is if we can look at what
we accomplished this last year to help the next generation
of the people who will be the judges and the
heads of all the organizations that are in this room.
What have we done this past year to help that
next generation be successful and succeed. And that, I think

(35:44):
is what makes the Federal Society is amazing is because
it starts with the students, and we're really Our job
for everybody in this room is to help the students
become the next generation of all the amazing jobs that
you do today.

Speaker 2 (35:58):
You know, I remember when I was a student in
the Federal Society, and I some of my mentors were
the people who were around those early days of the chapters.

Speaker 1 (36:08):
And.

Speaker 2 (36:10):
You know, they said, you know, back in the early eighties,
the idea of originalism rotextuals was a joe. I mean,
you bring it up in class and it was truly
laughed at. And by the time you know, I was
in law school in the early two thousands, it was
very with the rise of Scalia. It was a very
serious part of the debate. The professors were still hostile
to it, but it had to you had to. It
was in the case books. You had to engage with it.

(36:33):
And so I felt like it was really a golden
age for the Federal Society. At least when I was there.
The chapters were booming, The conference was great. It was
the Bush years. But it always has been a refuge
for students of conservative libertarian leanings on campuses that have
been hostile since the nineteen sixties. And you think about

(36:53):
all of the success we've had in the Federal Society
over these forty some odd years. But what's interesting, and
you and I were talking about this the other day,
is even for all that success, what is the state
of law school campuses today? And what's your take on that?

Speaker 7 (37:09):
Yeah, I think it depends on the law school campus. Again,
there are Federal Society chapters in over two hundred schools
law schools across the country, and in some respects you
see an inverse correlation between how successful the ideas of

(37:30):
originalism and textualism are and how hostile some corners of
the legal academy are to those ideas and to the
students who are inviting speakers to talk about these ideas.
So it is we've made a tremendous amount of progress.
If you go look back at nineteen eighty two, there
was a deep concern that there really were no voices

(37:53):
on campus talking about these issues. That's not true today.
The first week on my job here at the Federal Society,
in the Federal Society Faculty Conference in California and meant
just an amazing network of conservative and libertarian scholars who
are doing amazing research and really providing kind of the

(38:14):
intellectual substrate of our entire movement, and that's just something
that didn't exist in nineteen eighty two. That said, that
does not mean that it is a friendly environment in
every law school. And we still have law students who
are brave and want to do exciting things, and they
want to have debate and discussion, and they want ideas

(38:38):
debated and explored. But it can be a pretty challenging
environment in many of the schools today. And I think
particularly in the last two years, we've seen a number
of troubling incidents in the law schools of attempts to
shout down speakers and to intimidate.

Speaker 6 (38:59):
Our students.

Speaker 7 (39:00):
And so I don't think that the problem is solved yet.
If anything, I think that it means that everybody in
this room needs to double down their support for the
law student chapters.

Speaker 6 (39:13):
And you know, when you.

Speaker 7 (39:15):
Have judges and others serving as adjunct faculty in these schools,
often they're the only ones who are providing courses on
textualism and originalism and providing a voice for the students.

Speaker 6 (39:28):
For example, when you have for when you have.

Speaker 7 (39:34):
A lawyer's chapter president in a city where there's a
law school with no faculty on campus, it matters so
much that that Lawyer's Chapter is president is very involved
with the student chapter president. And I was talking with
Lisa about this, and you know, she gave me a
list off the top of her head of all of
these amazing Lawyer Chapter presidents, many of whom are in

(39:57):
this room right now, who are doing amazing work with
the students directly to try and make sure that they
have a great law school experience where they're connected to
the ideas and they're connected with a network of people
who can help them when there are difficult situations. So
I just am really proud of all of the stories

(40:18):
that I've heard of our Lawyer chapters and our judges
and others reaching out to our students just as crucial
as the faculty who are on these campuses at helping
our students, because it isn't it's genuinely a really tougher
environment at a lot.

Speaker 6 (40:31):
Of our schools.

Speaker 2 (40:33):
Yeah, and especially in recent years with some of the
it's no longer shoutdowns, it's actual violence to shut down
speech on campuses. We've seen some of that, and I
know you've you've heard tell of some stories where students
have to actually have physical bravery to get their ideas
out on campus.

Speaker 7 (40:49):
It's kind of of a piece with something that judge
the Part was talking about last night when we talk
about judicial independence and judicial legitimacy. Going back to again
the origin story of the Federal Society. If you go
to the Mission Statement of the Federal Society, it talks
about the principles of the Federal Society and some of
the principles that the Federal Society is committed to a

(41:11):
separation of powers and it is emphatically the duty of
judges to say what the law is and not what
it should be to me. Those are both fundamentally about
judicial independence and judicial legitimacy.

Speaker 6 (41:24):
Right.

Speaker 7 (41:25):
You cannot have healthy separation of powers without two things.
Number one, you have to have the branches staying in
their lanes. And number two, each branch needs to be
healthy and each branch needs to be respected.

Speaker 6 (41:38):
Right.

Speaker 7 (41:39):
And I am really, you know, troubled by you know,
some of the examples that you heard last night of
of you know, even threats of violence to judges. I
think that is a danger to the rule of law.
It's a danger to the separation of powers. Judges should
not have to ex experience that. Uh, it threatens legitimacy

(42:04):
and independence. And it's the same thing in the schools.
And I think that the question then is what's the
you know, what's the solution to to challenges like this.
I think part of it is exactly what the federal
society does. There's a lost art to disagreeing without being disagreeable.

Speaker 2 (42:20):
Right.

Speaker 6 (42:22):
I was delighted when I.

Speaker 7 (42:26):
Saw on Twitter uh Senator McCormick and Senator Fetterman tweet
out that they went on a double date with their wives.
You have, you know, a Republican and a Democrat and
they're going out in a social outing together, and they
tweeted it out and they all looked happy and like
they had a good time, pretty confident. They don't agree
on a lot of things. Similarly, I think the model

(42:49):
of you know, Justice Ginsburg and Justice Scalia UH is
is just a really terrific and admirable one. And Chris
Scalia and talks about a story he heard from Chief
Judge Sutton, and I'll probably get the specifics wrong, but
as I recall, Chief Judge Sutton was visiting Justice Scalia's

(43:10):
chambers on on Justice Skinsborth's birthday and Justice Scalia had
two dozen roses in his office ready to take to
uh to to Justice Skinsburg, and as the story goes,
uh Judge Sutton teased Justice Scalia a bit and said,
you know, it's a lot of roses for you know,

(43:31):
someone who's you know, gonna vote five to four and
is not going to vote for you.

Speaker 6 (43:35):
And Justice Scalia said, Uh, somethings.

Speaker 7 (43:38):
More important than than a vote, and uh, you can
be principled. And Chris Scalia says, look, my dad and
Justice Skinsburg were very principled individuals. They did not back
down from their principles full stop. At the same time,
Justice Scalia took two dozen roses to Justice skins on

(44:00):
our birthday. And that, I think is is a powerful example.
So so part of it is that part of it
is dealing with and addressing the incentives and and the
and and and really empowering students to be able to
respond in situations like this, not backing down when these
situations arise. But I think there's you know, we need
to think about the toolkit that we need as a

(44:23):
civilization and as a society to make sure that we
can have respectful dialogue and debate and disagreement on campus,
that we can have respectful dialogue and debate and disagreement
within the judiciary and with respect to the judiciary, and
that's that's that's an essential ending place where we need
to be. And I think that, you know, I am

(44:46):
optimistic that the American experience will endure another two hundred
and fifty years, so we're going to get it right.

Speaker 6 (44:55):
But I think it's.

Speaker 7 (44:55):
Something that takes a lot of effort to make sure
that we ensure that the environment is such that you know,
we have a healthy respect for the judiciary is one
of the three branches of government, that we respect, independence
and legitimacy, that we have a healthy respect for different
ideas on campus. It just takes a lot of work
to get there.

Speaker 2 (45:15):
Let me shift focus a little bit. So we were
just talking about the law school campus, one of the
main institutions for lawyers when they're starting their career. But
we eventually all leave and our law school has become
a memory and the short you know, in many ways,
the institution in law that we spend the least time at.
We go out into the world. We become lawyers at
law firms, and some go in house and they're at corporations,

(45:37):
some go into government, but I want to focus on
those two institutions, which would be corporate America and let's
call it Big law America. And I'm wondering what your
thoughts are because we have these lawyers chapters that serve
many of the same functions as a student chapters. What
are your thoughts on the current state of corporate America
For conservatives and libertarians, especially lawyers, you have a lot

(45:59):
of erience at the chamber and elsewhere seeing up close
and personal. The world is changing a little bit now
in the last few months. It's it's been somewhat remarkable
to see corporate CEOs show up at mar A Lago
and change. Their attitude is very different in twenty seventeen.
So I'm wondering what you're thinking is And on top

(46:19):
of that and relevant to this, what role is the
federal society playing and helping reshape some of those attitudes
and be a supportive network for lawyers in those environments.

Speaker 7 (46:31):
Well, InChI, as a first matter, I do think your
observation about what our students do after they leave law school.
There's lots of different paths that our students might take,
including government, including corporations, but including a lot of the
cause organizations that are part of our movement. You have

(46:53):
lots of different groups here I see there, you know,
a continue of people's experience within the conservative and libertarian
you know, legal movement. You start with the law schools
where you know, that's really where you know, students get
excited about our ideas and kind of start getting involved.

Speaker 6 (47:13):
But for for.

Speaker 7 (47:15):
Individuals who start to be excited by those ideas of
law school, for them to continue throughout that career and
to be involved in the movement, you know, they need
a few other things. They need to you know, meet
other people in the movement. They kind of need a
network and a mentor they need to be constantly exposed
to the ideas. So it's important that you know, activities
like this exists throughout people's careers and need a responsibility,

(47:39):
you know, some way that they can continue to help
help within the movement, and there are lots.

Speaker 6 (47:43):
Of ways that that happens.

Speaker 7 (47:45):
So so I think it's it's really important to kind
of appreciate the the variety of ways in which our
members are contributing to society and the legal order. On
corporate America, look I've spent you know, again, the entirety
of the Obama years working with corporate America while at
the US Chambers Litigation Center, the entirety of the Biden years.

(48:11):
I think that in twenty twenty one, the National Lawyer's
Convention had a rosen Krantz debate that I would encourage
everyone to go revisit if you didn't have a chance
to watch it at the time, or if you haven't.

Speaker 6 (48:26):
Reviewed it recently.

Speaker 7 (48:27):
But it was a debate between I believe, Ashley Keller
and John Allison about a lot of these issues about
corporations and the term, you know, WoT corporations. And I
can't remember the exact title of the Rosencrantz debate, but
it was something to the effect of whether corporations or
government are a greater threat to liberty today in twenty

(48:52):
twenty one, And it's a really robust debate with a
lot of really interesting observations both from actually and from
John Allison about the state of corporate America, about the
various pressures that exist in corporate America, you know, pushing
in particular directions.

Speaker 6 (49:11):
So I would refer you.

Speaker 7 (49:12):
To that debate as a really good discussion of that.
There are some anecdotes from the debate that I that
stick out in my mind and I remember really well.
So one of the one of the moments in the
debate John Allison, who is the you know, previously the
CEO of BB and T Bank, he tells this story

(49:33):
where he and his bank very much opposed the TARP
bank bailouts and publicly opposed them, as I recall from
his story, and he got a call from a government
official who said, look, your bank is healthy, but we
want this program to succeed by conscripting, you know, the
healthy banks in with the troubled banks so that we

(49:55):
can kind of mix those assets together. And we and
we think that we need to do that to succeed.
And here's the next part of the conversation. He said
that the government I shal said, you know, I've got
a lot of auditors and inspectors. They're going to go
visit your banks, and I'm confident we will find a problem.

(50:15):
And I'm just letting you know that we will find
a problem if we go and look at you And
he said, gosh, we don't want that to happen. How
do we, you know, prevent that from happening. Not that
his company did anything wrong, It's just that with any
large entity, you can always find a mistake somewhere.

Speaker 6 (50:32):
And he said that.

Speaker 7 (50:33):
The government official responded, you know, there's an easy way
to make this go away. You can participate in the
TART program. And he said, you know, when you're a
CEO and you have that kind of government pressure behind
closed doors, which you know is not exactly the type
of thing that you can bring a lawsuit to address,
it will often be referred to as not final agency action.

Speaker 6 (50:54):
The legal process is going to be really slow.

Speaker 7 (50:56):
You've got a threat behind closed doors in that moment
that has to be addressed and decided, and you know
his company, he said, his company had to make a decision.
We'll fast forward to more recent times and you see,
for example, Mark Zuckerberg issuing a letter talking about the

(51:17):
pressure that he felt behind closed doors to adopt certain
positions with respect to speech. And so I think you
see these stories out there, and I love that we
hosted that Rosencrantz debate because it was a great way
to be able to discuss these stories, to debate and discuss,

(51:38):
you know, how big of a problem this is and
what are the potential solutions. And I think that what
is happening in the last few months is a lot
of these debates and discussions that were happening in nerdy
places like a National Lawyer's convention in twenty twenty one
at the Federal Society are kind of bursting into the
front page of the newspaper.

Speaker 6 (52:00):
You know.

Speaker 7 (52:00):
I like to think that the Federal Society was ahead
of the curve in hosting debates on this on this
topic and really trying to to engage with the you know,
the issues in in corporate America and the relationship with
government and all these other pressures out there. But I
think that's what you're seeing is you're seeing a lot
of these these issues that have been behind closed doors

(52:22):
and people have talked about, and they're getting more and
more attention, and now they're bursting out into public as
people are really debating and discussing the you know a
lot of these issues about you know, the proper role
of corporations, what drives corporations to engage in some of
the activities that they engage in. What are the legal pressures,
what are the private pressures, What are the pressures that
are emerging on the other side to kind of push

(52:44):
back in another direction. And that's something that I think
we at the Federal Society can do to be very
you know, helpful to the general public on this is
to continue to host these discussions and debates precisely on
these topics so that they can be aired in the
fresh light of day. And I think that that's really healthy.

Speaker 2 (53:02):
Great, Well, we're getting to the end of our time.
So I want to close out with two questions. One,
I think a lot of people in this room are interested.
There's changed an administration. First time in a very long time,
we've had a president with a break in terms. But
one of the hallmarks of the first Trump administration was

(53:22):
the incredible influence he had on the federal judiciary. There
are judges in this room who are appointed by President
Trump in term one, and of course he had just
a huge swath of appointments from the Supreme Court on down.
What do you see in the second term, not as
many vacancies available, But what do you think do you

(53:42):
think we're going to see a different kind of judge appointed?
Do you think he'll have the president will have similar
influence on the future of the federal judiciary?

Speaker 7 (53:53):
I will tell you that I'm an ideas guy. I
love the ideas of originalism and textualism. I love that
that they have taken purchase not just among federal society types,
but across the academy and across the judiciary. You know,
whatever type of judge you are, you have to seriously

(54:13):
engage with textualism and originalism as the principal framework. That
is that that is uh, that that is used in
kind of a principled way to interpret texts, whether it's
the Constitution or other texts. And I am very heartened
and optimistic because that is the paradigm to beat now

(54:35):
from my perspective. And uh and look, I think that
the president has now the largest network in history of
amazing individuals UH with with proven track records and thinking
on these important ideas and issues. So there's there's no

(54:58):
end of the number of really amazing and impressive individuals
who have shown exactly what it's like to be a
textualist and originalist.

Speaker 6 (55:09):
The pool is just huge.

Speaker 7 (55:10):
And that's really because of the network of people, you
know in this room, the work that you all are
doing every day, whether it's in state courts or in
federal courts to build the ideas and to make sure
that that people are you know, have a mentor and
learn learn about originalism and textualism. Those ideas have succeeded

(55:33):
and gotten purchased because of the terrific network of people
in this room and rooms like this across the country.
So I think that there's just a tremendous pool of
talent out there, and I'm really excited to see what.

Speaker 6 (55:49):
Happens next.

Speaker 7 (55:51):
But you know, I think that you saw during the
first Trump administration. You saw a lot of really remarkable
talented individuals who are committed to the rule of law,
who are committed to the separation of powers, who have
a principled approach to judging, who believe that their job
is to say what the law is, not what it
should be. And it's really you know, a hallmark of

(56:15):
of you know, a successful approach to the judiciary that
first that first administration. I'm really excited to see what
happens next.

Speaker 2 (56:22):
Thanks for that. Let me ask you last question. I
think you of the people I've met in this space,
I think you have a real expertise on State A
G offices and how they operate. And you're a strategic
thinker about that from your your time in corporate America
and dealing with AG investigations and everything else. But you

(56:44):
said something interesting at the beginning, and I want to
tie back to that. I think you said when then
Texas ag Abbott said, you know, I wake up, I
sue the Obama administration. I go to bed rinse repeat
the next morning. There's a lot. There are some people
in this room who work in state government, work for
state ags in red states. Obviously you know for this room,
and you know now we have a Republican president with

(57:08):
conservative ideals, and so those state ags who were you know,
always flips now the blue states to what, if any
ideas do you have? What should red state ags conservative
ags be focusing on when they are in agreement with
the federal government on most things. Where do you have
any ideas about staffers in this room who might work
in those environments in state government? Where would you if

(57:30):
you were in that position, where would you be turning
spending your time? Now?

Speaker 6 (57:33):
My hunch is that.

Speaker 7 (57:37):
Red state ags will find no end of projects to
keep themselves busy. Look, I I love federalism. I love
uh you know, dynamic state I love you know, dynamic states.
I love exploring state constitutions. It's one of my favorite

(57:58):
topics in the world. In fact, that's a you know,
discussion for another day. But one of the things that
we're thinking about at the Federal Society right now is
we've done such an amazing job as a movement in
encouraging discussion and debate and research on the US Constitution
and providing kind of the again, the intellectual substrate for

(58:19):
everything that you need to do to be an originalist
when it comes to the federal Constitution. The next challenge
is that a lot of these issues are moving into
state courts under state constitutions, and you need originalism for
the states, and just the reality is that all of
that historical research and academic research has not yet been
done for many of the state constitutions out there. In fact,

(58:43):
in a lot of circumstances, you have to physically go
to an archive somewhere in the state and find these
original source documents to be able to even do the
type of originalism that you might see with respect to
the federal Constitution. So, you know, as a little bit
of a tangent, would love to talk to anybody who's
interested in this issue of originalism for the states, and

(59:04):
particularly originalism with respect to the Florida Constitution and how
the Florida State courts are approaching that. That's a conversation
that I invite after this call. But the reality is
that a lot of these issues that have been in
the federal courts are moving into state courts, or they're

(59:25):
in state courts and federal courts, And I suspect that
a lot of state ags will be spending their time
over the next few years playing defense a little bit.
As you know, they face lawsuits in their own state
courts and under their own state constitutions. So I suspect
that state ags will spend a lot of time playing defense.

(59:47):
I also suspect that you'll continue to see this phenomenon
that I think needs to be explored more with respect
to kind of the health of state sovereignty. You know, traditionally,
when we think about what makes states healthy and federalism
and state sovereignty, you know, federal society host debates about
how and discussions about how the federal government is chipping

(01:00:09):
away at state authority. Right, so you've got kind of
pressure from the top squeezing out the states. That's a
frequent topic of conversation at federal society events in the
last decade or two decades, particularly the last decade. You
also have this phenomenon of states getting squeezed from the
bottom by their own municipalities and political subdivisions. Right, So,

(01:00:33):
I think something that we need to talk about more,
and that I suspect a lot of state ags will
be involved in is is you know, even if there's
less pressure coming from above from the federal government, you
know that if that turns out to be true, at
the same time, I suspect that there will be pressure
coming from the bottom up from political subdivisions within those states,

(01:00:55):
and that also needs to be addressed with the question
and the discussion and the debate about Wait a second,
how do the political subdivisions fit in with the notions
of state sovereignty embodied in our US Constitution but also
in state constitutions. So I suspect that the state ags
will get suit a fair amount and they will be

(01:01:16):
defending their government agencies.

Speaker 6 (01:01:18):
That just happens every day.

Speaker 7 (01:01:20):
Some people in this room will probably follow lawsuits against
state governments for different things, and so the state ags
are going to be plenty busy playing defense. I also
think that they're probably going to be involved in a
lot of these issues exploring exactly what state sovereignty means
at a moment in time when political subdivisions are flexing
their muscles in ways that start to affect what it

(01:01:42):
means to have state power. So I think they'll stay
pretty busy.

Speaker 2 (01:01:46):
Thanks for that. Before I close out, I should probably
give are you going to give reminders at the end
or do you want me? Okay, so I'll invite Lisa backup.
But to close out our conversation first, let me say
again on behalf of everyone who is a Federal Society
member in Florida, congratulations on becoming the second president of
the Federal Society. We are really excited for what you're

(01:02:07):
going to do for the organization as a whole, for
our chapters in this state. Everybody, please give a round
of applause Sheldon Gilbert, because you're defense