Overflow: Hutchins Hall Michigan Law School
We are pleased to announce that the Honorable James C. Ho & Allyson Newton Ho will be the keynote speakers for a Fireside Chat at the Saturday evening banquet.
Hon. James C. Ho, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Allyson Newton Ho, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Moderator Katherine Rifiotis Slivensky, Michigan Student Chapter President
Moderator JJ Marshall, Michigan Student Chapter, Symposium Co-Director
We are pleased to announce that the Honorable James C. Ho & Allyson Newton Ho will be the keynote speakers for a Fireside Chat at the Saturday evening banquet.
Hon. James C. Ho, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Allyson Newton Ho, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Moderator Katherine Rifiotis Slivensky, Michigan Student Chapter President
Moderator JJ Marshall, Michigan Student Chapter, Symposium Co-Director
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
To many of us who have attended or currently attend
the University of Michigan, its status is truly something approaching
hallowed ground. Heisman Trophy winner in World War Two, fighter
pilot Tom Harmon, President Gerald Ford, and legend Tom Brady,
just to name a few, all competed on the field
below you. But as you may have heard, we also
know that Michigan Stadium can be intimidating to some people.
(00:26):
I want you to think back briefly to November thirtieth,
twenty nineteen. November thirtieth, twenty nineteen, a wopping one thousand,
nine hundred and twenty five days ago. A lot has
changed since then. We had a pandemic, we had an
entire presidential administration, we have the old guy who's now
back as president. A lot has happened in one nine
hundred and twenty five days. But November thirtieth, twenty nineteen
(00:49):
was the last time Michigan lost a football game to
Ohio State, and incidentally, also the last time large slots
of the state of Ohio felt genuine joy. And if
you have any doubts about how deep the Michigan Ohio
State rapidly runs, you shouldn't at this point. As you've heard,
despite its geographic proximity, none of them have shown up
(01:10):
this evening. We wanted to acknowledge the proud law schools
from the state of Ohio that are here this evening,
which include Akron, Akron. Let's hear it for Akron, you
brought a big group Case Western, Case Western. Let's get
a hand for Case Western Cincinnati where since Cincinnati's in
(01:31):
the house, yeah, there we go, Cleveland State. Cleveland State's
in the house. And last, but certainly not least, Capital
University Law School, which is actually located in Columbus, Ohio.
Funny enough, so, if anyone wants to do a wellness
check on our Ohio State friends when you head back down,
(01:52):
I think that'd be great. We are genuinely worried for them. Actually,
where's Judge Raidler. At Judge Rayler, you'd be perfect for this.
I think if you want to organize a group and
go over there and check on them, that would be great.
So please reassure them it's really not so scary here
when their train wreck of a football team is absent
from the field. Anyway, thank you. So, now that I
(02:19):
got that out of my system, we're going to get
back to our actual program. I would like to it's
my proud privilege in pleasure to introduce you Chicago's Rex Dykes,
the chair of the Joseph Story Award. Rex is a
three to L and a comments editor on the University
of Chicago Law Review. He received his bachelor's degree from
BYU and lives in Chicago with his wife and two kids.
(02:40):
I've also been reliably informed that he's a stellar guitar
player and doesn't mean Billy Joel cover, which we unfortunately
can't hear tonight. But please join me in welcoming Rex.
Thank you, good evening.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
It is an honor to be with all of you tonight,
and it is my privilege to present the twenty twenty
five Joseph Story Award. The Joseph Story Award is given
annually to an up and coming academic who has demonstrated
excellence in legal scholarship, a commitment to teaching, a concern
for students, and who has made a significant public impact
in a manner that advances the rule of law and
(03:25):
of free society. Its namesake, Justice Story, was a prolific scholar, jurist,
and public servant whose sharp legal mind and Keen Wit
helped guide our nation through her early years. Few scholars
today body Justice Stori's extraordinary career more fully than this
year's Story Award recipient Professor Jed Campbell. Professor Campbell is
(03:56):
a professor of law and the Helen L. Crocker Faculty
Scholar at Stanford Law School. Before joining the faculty at Stanford,
Professor Campbell served as a professor of law at the
University of Richmond School of Law and as a visiting
professor at Harvard Law School and the University of Chicago
Law School. His impressive scholarly works have appeared in the
Yale Law Journal, Stanford Law Review, and Harvard Law Review,
(04:18):
among various other journals. Professor Campbell is best known for
his scholarship on the First Amendment in the history of
the Constitution. One of his most thought provoking articles, Natural
Rights in the First Amendment, challenges are contemporary understandings of
free expression freedoms by representing a compelling account of how
the understandings of free expression excuse me of how the
(04:40):
founders viewed these freedoms, not as the legal trumps as
often view them as today, but as natural rights that
while expansive in scope allowed for restrictions of expression to
promote the public good. In just a few short years,
Professor Campbell's work has had a profound impact on legal
scholarship and the law, reshaping temporary understandings of constitutional history
(05:02):
and free speech doctrine. Professor Campbell's work is not only
academically outstanding, but also a powerful unifying force for the
public good.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
At a time when.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
Legal discourse is often deeply polarized, his scholarship brings together
diverse perspectives, fostering a more constructive and inclusive intellectual conversation
about the law. His commitment to engaging with scholars across
a wide spectrum of methodologies and viewpoints demonstrates his belief
in the value of open dialogue. The fact that both
(05:33):
staunch defenders and thoughtful critics of originalism recognize the significance
of his contributions is a testament to his role in
bridging divides and promoting a more cohesive understanding of the
law's most pressing issues. Finally, Professor Campbell is a dedicated
teacher and mentor to his students. In his short time
at Stanford, Professor Campbell has built strong connections with students
(05:56):
both in and out of the classroom, advocated for them
in their pursuit of clerkship, and actively engage them in
his research. Professor Campbell's unwavering dedication to his students serves
as a commendable example for all of us to follow.
I'm now honored to present the twenty twenty five Joseph
Story Award to Professor Judd Campbell.
Speaker 3 (06:26):
All right, thank you so much, Trex. I'm humbled to
join so many wonderful past recipients of the Story Award,
and I'm especially glad that somebody out there is still
paying attention to those of us who aren't on social media.
I write as a historian, and one of my favorite
parts of the job is trying to learn about how
(06:47):
differently the founders thought about the Constitution. I want to
frame my remarks around two of those differences, one relating
to their idea of constitutionalism and the other relating to
the common good. So let's start with the idea of constitutionalism.
We're used to thinking about the Constitution as a legal document,
(07:11):
something that it's principally up to judges to enforce and interpret,
and so we treat politics and constitutional law as separate domains.
The Founders had a different view. It's true that by
the late seventeen eighties many of them were open to
the judicial enforcement of certain well settled rules, but judicial
(07:34):
review is just one piece of the puzzle. Just consider
Madison's Federalist fifty one, which was all about constitutional enforcement
but didn't even mention judicial review. Instead, Madison was focused
on institutional design, on things that shape political relationships and
(07:55):
foster certain ways of thinking, certain norms, and his core
insight is one that other Founders shared. That insight is
that fidelity to the Constitution depends far more on constitutional culture,
both within government and in the public at large, unless
on judicial enforcement. It requires that all citizens and all politicians,
(08:22):
not just judges and lawyers, know and care about the
Constitution and its underlying principles. This is why the Founders
are so obsessed with education and with other ways of
developing civic virtue, including religion. Promoting constitutional culture is also
the primary reason why Madison offered the Bill of Rights,
(08:45):
which he said wouldn't create new rights, it would just
to quote, establish the public opinion in their favor. So
my first point is the Founders had this much broader
sense of what constitutionalism was all about. Enforceable constitutional law
was supposed to be only part of a much bigger
(09:05):
constitutional picture, and that ties to the other concept I
want to mention, the common good. The common good was
a central idea in founding air constitutionalism. As the founder
saw things, the political society itself was formed to advance
the common good, so that concept became the guiding principle
(09:27):
for every exercise of public authority, every legislative vote, every
executive action. The common good was their constitutional north star.
So what did it entail, Well, it was the good
of the political society and its members, the general welfare.
Its opposite was corruption and factionalism, the narrow pursuit of
(09:51):
private interests, or the interests of only those in power
and their supporters. In essence, pursuing the common good required
the rejection and of tribalism. It required considering everyone's interests
equally and only then discerning the good of the whole.
This is what Madison was talking about in Federalist fifty
(10:11):
one when he famously warned against quote the oppressions of
factious majorities violating the rights of the minority. He's not
talking about judicially enforceable constitutional rights. Rather, Madison is referring
to the majority's disregard for the common good, the willingness
of factions to use politics to simply capture wealth and power,
(10:35):
and to pursue their own interests at the expense of
their rivals. Of course, he recognized that men are not angels,
and that we can sometimes harness self interest in useful ways.
But the key point here is that constitutionalism is about
a lot more than just following particular rules. It's about ensuring,
(10:58):
as best we can that all political power is exercised
justly and for the right sorts of reasons, and with
equal regard to all of our fellow citizens. So where
does that leave us. Well, today we've taken a much
narrower view of constitutionalism. Constitutional law only sets the political
(11:23):
ground rules, and otherwise politics is just hardball, and hardball
is a competition for power. Norms that aren't judicially enforceable
are disposable, and the trash been is rapidly filling up.
We can do better. The founders appreciated that politics won't
(11:44):
ever be perfect, but more perfect, self government is always
achievable and very much worth pursuing, and that responsibility resides
with all of us. We can still debate the meaning
of commerce and executive power, or what methods of constitutional
interpretation to follow, and those debates really do matter. But
(12:09):
as constitutional problems go, they pale in comparison to having
a political order dominated by tribalism with a lost sense
of common purpose. And it's on each of us to
do better to not let ourselves get siloed, to understand
and care about each other, especially across difference, and to
(12:32):
not lose faith in a better tomorrow.
Speaker 4 (12:34):
Thank you, all right, if you want to sit back down,
we're gonna go ahead and get started with the main event.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
Please take your seats. Please find down. While you take
your seats, I'm going to tell you a little story
about the chatter, the online chatter we heard upon announcing
that Missus Hoe and Judge Hoe would be joining us
here this evening. So I first have to ask, does
anyone know what the Blue Sky app is? Does anyone
(13:10):
know this? Booh okay, I was not aware what this
was prior to a few weeks ago. There's some more
connected people in our chapter, but it's basically X for
left wing activists in legal academics, which seems redundant to say,
but Professor Walker insists it isn't. But anyway, it is
relevant for our purposes here because I've been informed that,
upon learning we would host this fireside chat at the
(13:30):
Big House. A handful of Blue Sky users question, in
very blunt terms, how missus Hoe and Judge Hoe could
possibly draw one hundred and ten thousand students to come
see them speak one hundred and ten thousand seats in
the Big House, theird largest stadium in the world. Well,
as it turns out, there are almost exactly one hundred
ten thousand total law students in the United States. So
(13:54):
I think you two should feel flattered that the average
Blue Sky user thinks that every single law student and
the entire United States would show up to our symposium
on account of view being here. Unfortunately, we only have
a capacity of four hundred and forty so it should
make us, the lucky, privileged few in the room appreciate
what a treat it is to have you here tonight.
So let's give him a round of applause as they
(14:14):
make what they're in the stage. Judge James C. Hoe
sits on the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit before taking the bench in twenty eighteen. He was
a partner and co chair of the National Appellate and
Constitutional Law practice Group of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher. As
an appellate litigator for over a decade, including three years
(14:36):
as the Solicitor General of Texas, Judge Hoe presented fifty
oral arguments in federal and state courts nationwide. He won
numerous appeals, including three merits cases at the US Supreme Court.
Judge Hoe has served in all three branches of the
federal government. On the Senate Judiciary Committee, he served as
chief counsel of the Subcommittees on the Constitution and Immigration
(14:57):
under Senator John Cornyn DOJ. He served as special Assistant
to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights and an
attorney advisor at the Office of Legal Consul. He clerked
for Judge Jerry E. Smith of the US Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and Justice Clarence Thomas of
the U s Supreme Court. In addition, Judge Hoe has
served as an adjunct professor of law at the University
(15:20):
of Texas School of Law, where he taught seminars on
US Supreme Court litigation and religious liberty He has authored
numerous articles in respected law reviews nationwide. Judge Hoe graduated
from Stanford University with honors in a BA in public
policy and the University of Chicago Law School with high
honors in nineteen ninety nine. Impressive record. Yet a prominent
(15:42):
US Senator from Texas has apparently claimed that Judge Hoe
is only the second best lawyer in his household, and
after hearing his wife's bio, you will perhaps see why.
Missus Allison N. Hoe is a partner in the Dallas
office of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher and co chair of
the firm's nationwide Appellate and Constitutional law practice group. Missus
Hoe is one of the premier appellate lawyers in the
(16:03):
United States. She has presented over one hundred oral arguments
in federal and state courts nationwide, including multiple high stakes
cases before the U. S. Supreme Court. She has appeared
before every Federal Court of Appeals in the country, including
on banc arguments before the Fourth and Sixth Circuits. Missus
Hoe also regularly appears in state appellate courts across the country,
(16:23):
including here in Michigan. She has argued numerous cases in
the Texas Supreme Court, Texas Appellate Courts, and six other
state appellate courts. Missus Hoe also served as Special assistant
to President George W. Bush, counselor to Attorney General John Ashcroft,
and law clerk to Judge Jacques L. Wiener, Junior of
the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor of the U S Supreme Court.
(16:46):
She has also been elected as a member of the
Administrative Conference of the United States, a trustee of the
Historical Societies of the United States Supreme Court in the
Texas Supreme Court. Missus Hoe graduated from Duke University magna
cum lauda with a BA in English, Rice with an
MA and PhD in English Literature, and the University of
Chicago Law School with high honors. She she was a
(17:13):
member of the Law Review and Order of the KOIF.
Missus Hoe and Judge Hoe live in Dallas, Texas with
their twin daughter and son, and to moderate tonight's discussion,
we have my fellow three ils, JJ Marshall and Catherine Slovinski.
Catherine is our chapter president and JJ has been in
the trenches all year preparing for tonight. As our symposium
logistics director, I know how much they are looking forward
(17:41):
to this opportunity to interview you both, especially since JJ
is a proud Texan who may or may not have
a tattoo of the State of Texas somewhere somewhere on
him and Catherine aspires to balance a successful big law
career with family life in the future. So JJ, Catherine,
missus ho judge over to you.
Speaker 5 (18:15):
It's on my arm.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
Nobody was asking.
Speaker 5 (18:22):
My wife wanted me to make that clear.
Speaker 6 (18:25):
Oh, thank you guys so much for being here tonight.
We have a lot to ask you and to talk about,
but so in no overview of what we're trying to
cover in thirty five minutes. We want to talk a
little bit about your family life and how you managed
to be such a prominent couple in this legal industry.
A little bit of substantive law for amendment, administrytive law,
(18:48):
judicial independence, just light things, and then a little bit
of parting advice for the members here tonight.
Speaker 5 (18:55):
But first I do want to take this opportunity. We've
heard a lot of Michigan pride here tonight. As a
fellow Texan, people who live in Texas sit in Texas,
work in Texas. I just want to ask you, guys,
what's the second best state in the Union.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
Oh boy, that.
Speaker 7 (19:15):
Went in a different direction than I expected. Wellok, this
seems like a great fun, rowdy crowd. Let me I
could try to test how rowdy it is by saying
the second best state in the Union is clearly Ohio.
That backfired, all right, I was just testing the crowd. Second,
(19:37):
I don't know. That's I guess I'll answer as a
parent and say that we have had some of our
best family vacations in the states of Florida and Utah.
Speaker 5 (19:49):
Fantastic against it.
Speaker 8 (19:51):
Great.
Speaker 6 (19:52):
So we did reach out to a couple of your
former clerks and colleagues UH to do some of the
research on our own and ask them to describe both
of you in three words, and majority of the words
that you collected were principled, fearless, and loyal. And you
attended the symposium boast as students, which the symposium I
(20:14):
believe was organized under the Fierce administration the chapter president RAO.
So can you tell us a little bit more about
how both of you met and what your experience in
law school was? Like?
Speaker 8 (20:26):
Sure, I guess if I can begin this way with
the blue sky stuff, which I confess i'd never heard.
I hope there's like worse stuff about us that you
didn't say, because I feel like I'm not like doing
what I should be doing. If that's like right, if
that's the worst that's out there. So I just had
to put that out there. So we actually have divergent
(20:51):
views on when and how we met, but I'll tell
the official Jim Hoe version of how we met tonight.
So I was a one L and was walking into
a Federal Society meeting and I walk in with a
(21:13):
friend of mine, and right before the meeting, she had
shared with me that she figured out law school just
wasn't for her and she was going to finish out
the quarter and then go on and do something else.
So the two of us walk in together and the
president at the time, Michelle Boardman, comes up to us
and says, well, look, we're having our election for one
L representative today and right now there's only one person
(21:37):
running and we kind of like to have a you know,
we'd like to have a real election. Would would you guys,
you know, to agree to run? And so she's like, well,
you do it. Because she knew she wasn't going to
be sticking around. And I thought, well, you know, how
hard can this be, like put my name on a ballot? Right, sure,
I'll do it. Well, then I learned that the University
(22:01):
of Chicago way of electing a one L representative is
the candidates Lee's laughing. The candidates stand in the well
of the classroom and field questions from the audience. So
it's quite the Chicago experience, right, And one of the
questions was how many current fedsock officers can you name?
(22:28):
And so I knew Michelle Borgan was the president. I
think you were vice president of speakers at the time
to draw and Jim was the treasurer. And I remember
you came up to me afterwards and said, well, you know,
nobody ever, nobody ever knows who the treasurer is, and
that he he appreciated that. So that is the right y?
Speaker 6 (22:53):
Yeah, Zach, how do you feel about it?
Speaker 1 (22:54):
I got moves.
Speaker 6 (23:04):
Sounds like Zach should be telling folks that he is
the treasurer of our chapter more often.
Speaker 8 (23:14):
That is a great a great story.
Speaker 6 (23:16):
So just to segue from that, how do you manage
to have such a prominent career and family life and
you know, such a such a great marriage. Can you
share a little bit of tips for both of us
who are married, but a lot of folks in the
room who also wish to be, you know, both working
and having a kind of a stable, successful family life.
Speaker 7 (23:38):
Well, I'm gonna invoke justice Tommy here because in addition
to all the various ways in which he's been a
source of wisdom to me and so many others, he's
actually been a source of great marital wisdom. One of
the things he told us as clerks was every morning
he wakes up, he turns to Ginny and he says,
(23:59):
I'm and his theory is just might as well get
ahead of the day. And we have. I've adopted that
tradition as well.
Speaker 6 (24:13):
I did see j J's wife clapping for that, just
keep better.
Speaker 8 (24:19):
So I guess what I would add to that is
as a Christian, I live under the rule of do
everything as unto the Lord. So whether I'm working or mothering,
or wife ing or daughtering, every everything is touched with
(24:45):
that sense of what gives it worth and meaning is
who it's done for, and doing that unto the Lord.
And I think that you know, you hear a lot
about work life balance. I think that's just really hard
and I'm not sure that's the right even the right
way to think about it.
Speaker 5 (25:06):
That's good. My wife has no interest in working, so
we're going to try to strike that balance slightly different way.
But that's great advice for all those power couples out there.
Speaking of law schools and when you guys attended, things
are a little different now back from when you guys
you know, attended law school, and Judge, you've initiated your
own sort of federal hiring freeze on a few institutions.
(25:29):
One could say, how do you feel that's going? How
do you feel what is the current state of law
school institutions specifically, but higher education in general, as far
as free speech and you know, freedom of thought.
Speaker 6 (25:41):
Go.
Speaker 7 (25:42):
Well, let me try to answer to this in a
positive way, because you asked, I think what was it
like for us as students? I have to say I
had a great time at the University of Chicaggo law school.
And it's not because everybody agreed, and that's not because
it was easy. It was actually I remember being very
stressed out at various times in law school, but I
(26:03):
was constantly learning, I was constantly interacting. I got to
be engaging with people all across the spectrum of views
on every possible issue. We had faculty across the spectrum.
The way I thought of Chicago was, you know, there
wasn't really any sort of dominant viewpoint. The one thing
you could be assured of was that no matter what
(26:25):
view you held, whatever, no matter what position you expressed,
you could count on being attacked, but in a good way. Right,
iron sharpening iron, you're actually learning. I don't understand the
dynamic today where if somebody disagrees with you, then you
you know, people decide you want to target them, least
of all in law schools. I mean, I'm of the
(26:46):
view you know, we're both you mentioned we're both the
peal litigators. You know, as a pell litigators, one of
the most important things you do is to moot a case.
What do you do with a moot? You get members
of your moot who not only know nothing about your case,
but they're going to attack you. That's the whole point.
You want to get ready for all the toughest questions. Well,
there's no way better way to get ready for that experience.
Whether you're in a pel litigator, any kind of litigator,
(27:09):
than to be constantly challenged in the classroom on campus,
in the law school lounge. You I learned nothing from
talking to people who agree with me. The good news is,
you know, you're never going to mind anybody who agrees
with you on everything. But that's where you learn, is
when you talk to somebody who has a totally different
viewpoint and yet is a good person. It seems to
have good values but has come to a different conclusion
(27:31):
for whatever reason. That's how you learn. You might find
that you're wrong, you might find that they're wrong, but
you have a new way of understanding or a better
way of arguing. But either way you have a good
chance of coming out of that a better person. So
I just fundamentally do not understand the culture on campuses
today at all. It's completely alien to me.
Speaker 8 (27:48):
So I'm coming up on my twenty fifth year since
I graduated, and I just think it's really important for
those of a who came before to acknowledge how hard
and how bad it is out there on campuses for
you all today. You know, twenty five years ago, was
(28:15):
I still asked as president of the Chicago chapter. There
were still discussions around, well should I put fedsock on
my resume when I send it around? My answer today
is still the same, yes, but I realized that the
consequences of doing that are much more severe and potentially
(28:37):
serious than they were back when I was in law school.
And I'm like Jim, I want to think about a
positive way to talk about it. And so when I
think of all of you in the room and back
on your campuses and at the very beginning of your
(28:57):
legal career standing up and being courageous, the least that
those of us can do who have decades on you
in the profession is to stand up and be courageous ourselves.
We can't ask you, guys to do that. It's not
(29:18):
fair at the very beginning of your career if we're
not willing to stand up and be courageous ourselves. And
all of you are an incredible inspiration to us, and
you're a big part of what gives us the courage
in big ways and small to stand So thank.
Speaker 1 (29:39):
You for that.
Speaker 5 (29:40):
Thank you guys for standing up.
Speaker 6 (29:41):
Chris So turning to some substantive discussions. Recently, the ABA
and the Federal Judges Association have spoken out against a
tax on judicial independence. This is for Judge Ho primarily.
What is your reaction to those manifestations. Do they represent
(30:01):
a unified concern for the judiciary or are they a
product of some sort of selective outrage something in between?
What do you say, Jjito?
Speaker 7 (30:16):
Yeah, So the for those of you who don't know,
the Federal Judges Association came out with a statement, I
guess I want to say, Tuesday night of this week,
this is an association that really is just it's normally
it doesn't do anything like that at all. It sends
us newsletters about, you know, judicial education and those sorts
of things, so I'll put it away. I was very
(30:38):
surprised by that statement, and the next morning I sent
an email to the organization saying that I wanted to resign.
Let me explain why I researched for myself, and I
also asked the association if they ever issued any such
statements when Justice Thomas received attacks or Justice Alito, just
(31:03):
as Kavanaugh dealt with an assassination attempt. We've had federal
district judges in Texas and Florida, as well as I'm
sure other states, but those are the ones that come
to mind immediately all faced the kinds of things that
that statement was complaining about. And more, did we see
these statements in twenty twenty four or twenty twenty three
(31:25):
or twenty twenty two, From what I can tell, No,
I researched my archives and found no such statements, and
when I asked, no such statements were provided to me.
You can't say that you're in favor of judicial independence
only when it comes to decisions that you like. That's
(31:48):
not protecting the judiciary. That's politicizing the judiciary. And I
actually think that statements like this, whether intended or not,
I actually think harm the very cause that they're trying
to further, because one of two things turns out to
be true when you're when you're selective in this way,
(32:08):
and either of these options I think is a bad thing.
Option number one is that you're basically lying that you
actually don't care about this principle because you didn't stand
up for it when the shoe was on the other foot,
and so you're essentially telling the world this is not
we're not actually seriously committed to judicial independence. The alternative
(32:29):
is perhaps even worse, which is that you are telling
the truth. You do care about this that this principle,
whether it's judicial dependence or free speech. I think this
concept applies a lot of things. If you're telling the truth,
you really care about this principle. But there are just
some people who have views that are so anathema to
(32:52):
you that you don't think they are worthy of this
principle that you that you expound on. And so what
turns out, what you may think is a statement born
of righteousness, I think is perceived by a lot of
people as merely sactaemonious. And so if you're not willing
to stand up when that principle is at stake in
(33:16):
a way that costs you, then it's not really.
Speaker 8 (33:19):
A principle at all.
Speaker 7 (33:20):
I'm reminded if I think it's the Book of Psalms,
there's a quote about an oath really only means something
if it costs you.
Speaker 8 (33:27):
Well into Pylon a little bit. Hearing a lot of
voices about threat to rule of law and criticizing lawyers
right based on the clients that they represent. I don't
remember hearing these voices speaking out when lawyers were criticized
(33:49):
for representing President Trump. I don't remember these voices speaking
out when lawyers came out of the first administration and
were they were not hired, including firms that they had
been at and been partners at before going and serving
(34:10):
their country in the in the administration. So I strongly
agree with what what Jim said. When you're not when
you're not being consistent about it, then it really it
can only be about whose ox is being gored. And
the sense that in a way only underscoring that the
rule of law means one thing, uh if you agree
(34:33):
with me, and another thing if you don't.
Speaker 5 (34:38):
So I want to turn us to another one of
y'all's interests, free exercise. We both took First Amendment last
semester together. Shout out to everyone who's in done herz
OX First Amendment class. It's a fantastic class. But when
we got to the end of the course, you know,
we had done a lot on free exercise Establishment Clause,
read a lot of O'Connor's opinions. But when we got
(35:00):
to the end of the course, we read Carson and Kennedy,
and I wanted to know the court seems to be
becoming more amenable towards free exercise claims. Can we maybe
give some hope to the room for those of us
who are religiousncy, Like, where do you think the court
is going to go as far as what do you
see on the horizon for free exercise and maybe possibly
(35:21):
more Establishment Clause claims in the future.
Speaker 8 (35:24):
Sure, so I'll take that, And look, I think you're right.
We've really been playing defense for a long time, primarily
on the establishment clause side. Like when I think about
cases like the Blainsboro Across case right where it was
a veteran's memorial in the shape of a cross, and
(35:51):
on one hand, what a great how devastating it would
have been if the Fourth Circuit decision that that memorial
violated the Establishment clause? What a disaster it would have
been if that had stayed the same and had remained
the law, and then the monument would have had to
been taken down, or as one of the judges on
(36:13):
the Fourth Circuit panel astering oral argument in the case,
well why don't you just cut the arms off the
memorial and then it won't look like across anymore. Wasn't
a joke. I mean this was asked in real seriousness,
So it would have been devastating had we not won.
(36:35):
But you sort of think like, Okay, well, we don't
really move the ball forward, right, we just get to
keep what we have. And there's just there's a lot
of bad precedent. There's just a lot of bad case
law on this, and so I'm really excited and encouraged
about where we're going, particularly to the extent that free
(37:00):
exercise means, certainly, but doesn't just mean you have the
freedom to pick the church or the synagogue or the
place where you want to worship, but that you are
free to exercise your faith in all aspects of your life.
(37:21):
And we'll be filing we'll be filing a petition this
week in a case that raises what I think is
a really important issue on free exercise that actually will
benefit all sorts of rights holders in making it easier
for people who want to challenge unconstitutional laws that restrict
(37:42):
the exercise of their religion, will open avenues for those
people to be able to do that. So I am.
I am this one area where I'm very passive. Look,
I it's not going as fast as I would like it,
but definitely moving, definitely moving in the right direction in
(38:04):
an encouraging way.
Speaker 6 (38:06):
Just a follow up for that, Allison, what are some
of the big questions that the court now has to answer.
What are some of the remaining things that need to
be either trinally cleared out that you would you know,
foresee as a priority.
Speaker 8 (38:21):
So from my perspective, I'm I'm firmly in the overall
employment division versus Smith Camp. I think it's it's time
to do that. And to me, that's sort of like
clearing away what's sort of impeding. I kind of see
that as kind of the next the next big frontier
(38:46):
on that score.
Speaker 6 (38:49):
Our next question is about administrative law. We're wondering in
you know, the conservative and libertarian movement expended a lot
of effort in overturning Chevron, and in this host slope
or bright world of administrative law, how are appellate litigators
such as yourself approaching challenges to agency actions differently, if
at all? And what is the role, if any, again,
(39:12):
of the emergency docket in some of these strategic considerations.
Speaker 8 (39:17):
So I first want to put put in a plug
for you know, Low per Bright was one case, but
the companion case was called Relentless. So I'm kind of
on a campaign to to like when we talk about
the case that overruled Chevron, relentless, relentless, relentless.
Speaker 1 (39:42):
Virginia.
Speaker 8 (39:43):
That's cool, that's a cool name, exactly, exactly, Well, where
to start on this score? I guess maybe maybe I'll mention,
I'll mention something that may not be top of mind.
I know y'all have had some fantastic panels today on
these topics. You know, choveron is really about saying, you know,
(40:03):
interpreting statutes and laws, and I think, I mean, it's
great and very important to have that settled. But when
you think about it, the whole foundation of the administrative
state is the idea of expertise and agency expertise. And
(40:24):
to me, that's the next big frontier in administrative law.
There's a doctrine and the word actually used is super difference.
Courts should pay super difference to agency findings that are
in the wheelhouse of that agency expertise. Well you can
just hear me talk about that and recognize like the
(40:46):
opportunities for mischief in a doctrine like that. So that's
that's where I see kind of the next frontier. You know,
if your project is his mine is and has long
been like dism mantling the administrative state. I think kind
of challenging this notion of really kicking guitars on expertise,
(41:08):
and that as a basis for deferring to agencies is
probably won't be anytime soon, but I think that's likely
to be the next the next frontier.
Speaker 6 (41:23):
This is for Judge Ho. You're a naturalized citizen, and
in your article Fairweather Originalism, you quoted President Reagan saying
that quote. Every once in a while, all of us
native born Americans should make it a point to have
a conversation with one who is an American by choice
as asson to be naturalized person. Myself, I am wondering
(41:44):
why should people in the room talk to me?
Speaker 7 (41:56):
What a wonderful question.
Speaker 5 (41:57):
I one good reason, please clock.
Speaker 7 (42:05):
I think there's something about the sort of the unique
passion of the converted, if you will, you know, I
think what President Reagan was getting at is that you
may have a special appreciation having not been an American
from birth, as I was not what it means to
now be an American the way I think of it,
as I wasn't born an American, but I get to
(42:27):
thank God every day that I will die an American. Honestly,
the best thing about my job is the fact that
once a year I preside over a naturalization ceremony. It's
actually not something that circuit courts are allowed to do inherently.
I have to get a permission from a district court
(42:48):
to do it, and I do it every May as
sort of a kind of a personal anniversary for my
own naturalization back in May nineteen eighty two. It's an
amazing for those If you've never been to one, you
really should try to go to one. Imagine a room
full of people from literally all over the world, different backgrounds,
different religions, different viewpoints, different experiences, all coming together in
(43:12):
one room for one purpose, to become Americans.
Speaker 1 (43:16):
It is.
Speaker 7 (43:18):
I just always come out of that inspired about for
whatever issues that continue to divide us as a country,
we remain the single country that more people around the
world would do anything to come to. And people come
to this nation and droves not because we're a failed nation.
They come to our country because this is the greatest
(43:41):
country in the history of mankind. And I just I'm
so thankful that I get the opportunity to preside over
those ceremonies.
Speaker 5 (44:01):
Okay, so we have I think the number was four
hundred and forty young budding lawyers in here, some a
little younger than myself. But give us some parting advice.
You talked about, you know, things that standing up and
how you guys have been standing up for this movement
and you know, standing up for what you believe in.
(44:21):
What can we do as chapters and as individuals, well
while we're in law school and also when we get
out into the field and start practicing, that can help,
you know, be more like you guys and you know,
make a difference.
Speaker 7 (44:37):
Well, let me follow up on some of the things
that Alison said earlier. You know, we could say, you know,
to students, you know, just just be brave, you know,
just just just say what you believe. I think that
Risks coming off is very smug. I'm a life tenured
(44:58):
federal judge. Right, Alison and I have an amazing she
has an extraordinary career at her firm. Y'all are just
starting out. I mean, you guys, your job is to
work hard, get good grades, and get a job, right.
I mean no, seriously, it is not for you guys
to be fighting these fights. That's why I wanted to
(45:19):
followup on what else and said. In terms of it,
this is really on the grown ups to be, you know,
running schools in the correct way, to be enforcing the
rules consistently, et cetera, et cetera. So look, I mean,
having said that, yes, I mean, if you have a
viewpoint and you are comfortable standing up for it, no
matter how unpopular, good for you. I mean, I'm certainly
not just trying to say otherwise. I just think it
(45:40):
could be smug coming saying, you know, just just be
you know, just be brave. Having said that, I will
say this, if you can't be that first person, I mean,
if you can, that's great, But if you can't be
the first person to speak up in a classroom on campus,
in the student lounge, at least try to be the second.
And you know, if somebody else sort of sticks their
(46:02):
neck out and says something that, you know, cause a
bit of a stir in the room, try to stand
up for that person. You don't even necessarily have to
agree with them. I mean, one way to do it
is to say, look, you know, I'm still thinking about
what you said. I'm not sure I agree with it,
but I'm kind of curious what the counter arguments are something.
And obviously, if if you do agree with them, then great.
And I don't know how many means I've been at,
(46:23):
you know, as a litigator in government service, where you
know somebody's there's sort of an argument on the table,
and I have this vision in my mind of you
know what, I think that's totally wrong, and I'm debating
whether to say something. There have been times when I
almost said it and said somebody else said it, and
it turns out everybody in the room actually agreed with it,
and I'm sort of kicking myself. Right, this is when
I was younger. I've just determined, you know what, just
(46:43):
say it, you know. So in terms of the advice,
what I would say is, don't be afraid to be wrong.
You can always admit that you're wrong. I do it
all the time. And also don't be afraid to be right.
I mean, you may very well have the majority of
the room behind you. It's just that nobody else is
willing to stick their necks out.
Speaker 5 (47:04):
Allison. For those of us who aren't misfortunates, you know,
go work at Gibson and Dinner Jones Day and but
want to be associates and you know, spark a movement.
What what can we do as conservatives and sometimes hostile
or you know, unfavored to conservative views in these law firms.
Speaker 8 (47:24):
Sure, so I just want to echo something Jim said,
which is there's I don't want to sound be smug like,
oh well here's what you should do right, or or
or give give advice. Maybe the best way for me
to answer is just to tell a place where I
have recently changed my view or my approach to something.
(47:48):
I my view used to be in the pro bonosphere.
You know, if an associate came to me and said, hey,
this is probably to get approved, and I'd say, yeah,
you're right, it's not. So let's conserve our capital, right,
let's really go for things that we believe like we've
(48:10):
got a real shot at And I've changed my view
on that. For two, For a couple of reasons. Number one,
I think it's important for associates to know that there
are people in the firm who will who are farther
along than they would to kind of pick up on
(48:30):
what Jim said, right, who are partners and practice group
leaders who are willing to put something forward like that.
I also think there's value in being told no, because
no one can ever say, oh, we didn't know you
wanted to do that kind of work, right, Nobody nobody
asked us. And so that's that's just an area where
(48:53):
in my own life and my own work, I've just
sort of changed and thought, you know, I don't I
don't have to be a flamethrower every day, but I can.
You know this I can do right when someone comes
to me, or if someone comes to me from outside
the firm with an opportunity. I'm much more comfortable with
(49:16):
being told no. If that's the worst thing that anybody
can say to me, then I live a really privileged,
comfortable life.
Speaker 6 (49:25):
That's beautiful. Allison and Judge Howe, we have a surprise
little for you, and we'd like to ask what did
that moment feel So this is right after, this is
(49:47):
right after your first Supreme Court argument, to have your
kids just run up to you into your arms, But
what did that moment feel like? As a someone who
very much looks forward to one day being a mother,
I'd like to know get a glimpse of that moment.
Speaker 8 (50:00):
So it was such a precious moment, and what really
made it precious was Jim had pulled it off. It
was a surprise that what I thought was going to
happen was that after the argument, I would go back
to the hotel, and later that day, Jim and the
kiddos were flying in because I actually had another argument
(50:25):
twenty one days after my first one, so I was
unfortunately going to have to stay in DC and prepare
for that. So Jim was going to bring the kiddos up,
So I was expecting to see them, but I was
not expecting to see them on the step. So I'll
let Jim fill in the backstory of how that came
to be.
Speaker 7 (50:43):
So believe it or not, this actually took some effort.
Speaker 1 (50:46):
First of all, we believe it.
Speaker 7 (50:47):
First of all, that was actually like a really high
quality photo I got the uh I don't know if
it still exists. The Legal Times, their official photographer took
those pictures, so you know, it's imagine that the kids
were tiny back then, and Alison had to be away
from home for a long time, and so I so
I decided you didn't went rather than showing up the
next day. I think it was the original plan. We
(51:08):
flew them in the night before so that we could
have this sort of courthouse moment. But I had that
it was essentially a conspiracy, right. First of all, as somebody,
we know, if you've get into me court, that's not
the only way to get out of the building. It's
not even necessarily the easiest way. You know, the coming
down the steps is sort of a dramatic, you know,
great photo op, but there are other easier ways to
(51:29):
get out. I had to make sure that she was
going to go that way, so I needed to coordinate
with her second chair to make sure make sure she
walks down this way so she sees us. We definitely
did not stay in a DC hotel. I just sort
of had this image of, you know, bumping into at
dinner or something and completely ruining the surprise. So we
(51:49):
stayed out in Virginia.
Speaker 1 (51:54):
Anyway.
Speaker 7 (51:55):
I carefully planned this. We get off the plane, me
and the kids, and we're walking and we bumped into
Ken Starr, who you know, some of you who may
if you had the pleasure of knowing him, just one
of the friendliest people. And he comes up and, oh,
you know, it's great to see you. What are you
(52:16):
doing here? And then we said that very nice moment.
He was president of Baylor at the time. He was
not a DC person back then, at that time, and
so you know, I walk away and I realized I
stopped for a moment and think, well, wait a minute,
what is he doing here? You know, is it possible
he's going to be at the Supreme Court the next
Day's he going to see Alison, you know, at the
council table and he's going to tell her by side.
(52:38):
You know what, I'll just let fate decide. As it
turns out, he was there to swear in Baylor alums.
I guess to the Supreme Court bar and he actually
did mention the Sallison. But I decide, you know what,
this is great, I now have I now have something
in common with Bill Clinton. Right, I was trying to
(53:01):
hide something from my wife, and Ken Starr exposed us.
On that note.
Speaker 8 (53:21):
I think we'll wrap up for the evening.
Speaker 5 (53:22):
Ja ja yeah, guys, can we give a hand for
Allison and Judge Ho. Thank you guys so much for
being here, and thank y'all for standing up for all
of us in this room today. Thank you guys so much.
To many of us who have attended or currently attend
the University of Michigan, its status is truly something approaching
hallowed ground. Heisman Trophy winner in World War Two, fighter
pilot Tom Harmon, President Gerald Ford, and legend Tom Brady,
just to name a few, all competed on the field
below you. But as you may have heard, we also
know that Michigan Stadium can be intimidating to some people.
(00:26):
I want you to think back briefly to November thirtieth,
twenty nineteen. November thirtieth, twenty nineteen, a wopping one thousand,
nine hundred and twenty five days ago. A lot has
changed since then. We had a pandemic, we had an
entire presidential administration, we have the old guy who's now
back as president. A lot has happened in one nine
hundred and twenty five days. But November thirtieth, twenty nineteen
(00:49):
was the last time Michigan lost a football game to
Ohio State, and incidentally, also the last time large slots
of the state of Ohio felt genuine joy. And if
you have any doubts about how deep the Michigan Ohio
State rapidly runs, you shouldn't at this point. As you've heard,
despite its geographic proximity, none of them have shown up
(01:10):
this evening. We wanted to acknowledge the proud law schools
from the state of Ohio that are here this evening,
which include Akron, Akron. Let's hear it for Akron, you
brought a big group Case Western, Case Western. Let's get
a hand for Case Western Cincinnati where since Cincinnati's in
(01:31):
the house, yeah, there we go, Cleveland State. Cleveland State's
in the house. And last, but certainly not least, Capital
University Law School, which is actually located in Columbus, Ohio.
Funny enough, so, if anyone wants to do a wellness
check on our Ohio State friends when you head back down,
(01:52):
I think that'd be great. We are genuinely worried for them. Actually,
where's Judge Raidler. At Judge Rayler, you'd be perfect for this.
I think if you want to organize a group and
go over there and check on them, that would be great.
So please reassure them it's really not so scary here
when their train wreck of a football team is absent
from the field. Anyway, thank you. So, now that I
(02:19):
got that out of my system, we're going to get
back to our actual program. I would like to it's
my proud privilege in pleasure to introduce you Chicago's Rex Dykes,
the chair of the Joseph Story Award. Rex is a
three to L and a comments editor on the University
of Chicago Law Review. He received his bachelor's degree from
BYU and lives in Chicago with his wife and two kids.
(02:40):
I've also been reliably informed that he's a stellar guitar
player and doesn't mean Billy Joel cover, which we unfortunately
can't hear tonight. But please join me in welcoming Rex.
Thank you, good evening.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
It is an honor to be with all of you tonight,
and it is my privilege to present the twenty twenty
five Joseph Story Award. The Joseph Story Award is given
annually to an up and coming academic who has demonstrated
excellence in legal scholarship, a commitment to teaching, a concern
for students, and who has made a significant public impact
in a manner that advances the rule of law and
(03:25):
of free society. Its namesake, Justice Story, was a prolific scholar, jurist,
and public servant whose sharp legal mind and Keen Wit
helped guide our nation through her early years. Few scholars
today body Justice Stori's extraordinary career more fully than this
year's Story Award recipient Professor Jed Campbell. Professor Campbell is
(03:56):
a professor of law and the Helen L. Crocker Faculty
Scholar at Stanford Law School. Before joining the faculty at Stanford,
Professor Campbell served as a professor of law at the
University of Richmond School of Law and as a visiting
professor at Harvard Law School and the University of Chicago
Law School. His impressive scholarly works have appeared in the
Yale Law Journal, Stanford Law Review, and Harvard Law Review,
(04:18):
among various other journals. Professor Campbell is best known for
his scholarship on the First Amendment in the history of
the Constitution. One of his most thought provoking articles, Natural
Rights in the First Amendment, challenges are contemporary understandings of
free expression freedoms by representing a compelling account of how
the understandings of free expression excuse me of how the
(04:40):
founders viewed these freedoms, not as the legal trumps as
often view them as today, but as natural rights that
while expansive in scope allowed for restrictions of expression to
promote the public good. In just a few short years,
Professor Campbell's work has had a profound impact on legal
scholarship and the law, reshaping temporary understandings of constitutional history
(05:02):
and free speech doctrine. Professor Campbell's work is not only
academically outstanding, but also a powerful unifying force for the
public good.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
At a time when.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
Legal discourse is often deeply polarized, his scholarship brings together
diverse perspectives, fostering a more constructive and inclusive intellectual conversation
about the law. His commitment to engaging with scholars across
a wide spectrum of methodologies and viewpoints demonstrates his belief
in the value of open dialogue. The fact that both
(05:33):
staunch defenders and thoughtful critics of originalism recognize the significance
of his contributions is a testament to his role in
bridging divides and promoting a more cohesive understanding of the
law's most pressing issues. Finally, Professor Campbell is a dedicated
teacher and mentor to his students. In his short time
at Stanford, Professor Campbell has built strong connections with students
(05:56):
both in and out of the classroom, advocated for them
in their pursuit of clerkship, and actively engage them in
his research. Professor Campbell's unwavering dedication to his students serves
as a commendable example for all of us to follow.
I'm now honored to present the twenty twenty five Joseph
Story Award to Professor Judd Campbell.
Speaker 3 (06:26):
All right, thank you so much, Trex. I'm humbled to
join so many wonderful past recipients of the Story Award,
and I'm especially glad that somebody out there is still
paying attention to those of us who aren't on social media.
I write as a historian, and one of my favorite
parts of the job is trying to learn about how
(06:47):
differently the founders thought about the Constitution. I want to
frame my remarks around two of those differences, one relating
to their idea of constitutionalism and the other relating to
the common good. So let's start with the idea of constitutionalism.
We're used to thinking about the Constitution as a legal document,
(07:11):
something that it's principally up to judges to enforce and interpret,
and so we treat politics and constitutional law as separate domains.
The Founders had a different view. It's true that by
the late seventeen eighties many of them were open to
the judicial enforcement of certain well settled rules, but judicial
(07:34):
review is just one piece of the puzzle. Just consider
Madison's Federalist fifty one, which was all about constitutional enforcement
but didn't even mention judicial review. Instead, Madison was focused
on institutional design, on things that shape political relationships and
(07:55):
foster certain ways of thinking, certain norms, and his core
insight is one that other Founders shared. That insight is
that fidelity to the Constitution depends far more on constitutional culture,
both within government and in the public at large, unless
on judicial enforcement. It requires that all citizens and all politicians,
(08:22):
not just judges and lawyers, know and care about the
Constitution and its underlying principles. This is why the Founders
are so obsessed with education and with other ways of
developing civic virtue, including religion. Promoting constitutional culture is also
the primary reason why Madison offered the Bill of Rights,
(08:45):
which he said wouldn't create new rights, it would just
to quote, establish the public opinion in their favor. So
my first point is the Founders had this much broader
sense of what constitutionalism was all about. Enforceable constitutional law
was supposed to be only part of a much bigger
(09:05):
constitutional picture, and that ties to the other concept I
want to mention, the common good. The common good was
a central idea in founding air constitutionalism. As the founder
saw things, the political society itself was formed to advance
the common good, so that concept became the guiding principle
(09:27):
for every exercise of public authority, every legislative vote, every
executive action. The common good was their constitutional north star.
So what did it entail, Well, it was the good
of the political society and its members, the general welfare.
Its opposite was corruption and factionalism, the narrow pursuit of
(09:51):
private interests, or the interests of only those in power
and their supporters. In essence, pursuing the common good required
the rejection and of tribalism. It required considering everyone's interests
equally and only then discerning the good of the whole.
This is what Madison was talking about in Federalist fifty
(10:11):
one when he famously warned against quote the oppressions of
factious majorities violating the rights of the minority. He's not
talking about judicially enforceable constitutional rights. Rather, Madison is referring
to the majority's disregard for the common good, the willingness
of factions to use politics to simply capture wealth and power,
(10:35):
and to pursue their own interests at the expense of
their rivals. Of course, he recognized that men are not angels,
and that we can sometimes harness self interest in useful ways.
But the key point here is that constitutionalism is about
a lot more than just following particular rules. It's about ensuring,
(10:58):
as best we can that all political power is exercised
justly and for the right sorts of reasons, and with
equal regard to all of our fellow citizens. So where
does that leave us. Well, today we've taken a much
narrower view of constitutionalism. Constitutional law only sets the political
(11:23):
ground rules, and otherwise politics is just hardball, and hardball
is a competition for power. Norms that aren't judicially enforceable
are disposable, and the trash been is rapidly filling up.
We can do better. The founders appreciated that politics won't
(11:44):
ever be perfect, but more perfect, self government is always
achievable and very much worth pursuing, and that responsibility resides
with all of us. We can still debate the meaning
of commerce and executive power, or what methods of constitutional
interpretation to follow, and those debates really do matter. But
(12:09):
as constitutional problems go, they pale in comparison to having
a political order dominated by tribalism with a lost sense
of common purpose. And it's on each of us to
do better to not let ourselves get siloed, to understand
and care about each other, especially across difference, and to
(12:32):
not lose faith in a better tomorrow.
Speaker 4 (12:34):
Thank you, all right, if you want to sit back down,
we're gonna go ahead and get started with the main event.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
Please take your seats. Please find down. While you take
your seats, I'm going to tell you a little story
about the chatter, the online chatter we heard upon announcing
that Missus Hoe and Judge Hoe would be joining us
here this evening. So I first have to ask, does
anyone know what the Blue Sky app is? Does anyone
(13:10):
know this? Booh okay, I was not aware what this
was prior to a few weeks ago. There's some more
connected people in our chapter, but it's basically X for
left wing activists in legal academics, which seems redundant to say,
but Professor Walker insists it isn't. But anyway, it is
relevant for our purposes here because I've been informed that,
upon learning we would host this fireside chat at the
(13:30):
Big House. A handful of Blue Sky users question, in
very blunt terms, how missus Hoe and Judge Hoe could
possibly draw one hundred and ten thousand students to come
see them speak one hundred and ten thousand seats in
the Big House, theird largest stadium in the world. Well,
as it turns out, there are almost exactly one hundred
ten thousand total law students in the United States. So
(13:54):
I think you two should feel flattered that the average
Blue Sky user thinks that every single law student and
the entire United States would show up to our symposium
on account of view being here. Unfortunately, we only have
a capacity of four hundred and forty so it should
make us, the lucky, privileged few in the room appreciate
what a treat it is to have you here tonight.
So let's give him a round of applause as they
(14:14):
make what they're in the stage. Judge James C. Hoe
sits on the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit before taking the bench in twenty eighteen. He was
a partner and co chair of the National Appellate and
Constitutional Law practice Group of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher. As
an appellate litigator for over a decade, including three years
(14:36):
as the Solicitor General of Texas, Judge Hoe presented fifty
oral arguments in federal and state courts nationwide. He won
numerous appeals, including three merits cases at the US Supreme Court.
Judge Hoe has served in all three branches of the
federal government. On the Senate Judiciary Committee, he served as
chief counsel of the Subcommittees on the Constitution and Immigration
(14:57):
under Senator John Cornyn DOJ. He served as special Assistant
to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights and an
attorney advisor at the Office of Legal Consul. He clerked
for Judge Jerry E. Smith of the US Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and Justice Clarence Thomas of
the U s Supreme Court. In addition, Judge Hoe has
served as an adjunct professor of law at the University
(15:20):
of Texas School of Law, where he taught seminars on
US Supreme Court litigation and religious liberty He has authored
numerous articles in respected law reviews nationwide. Judge Hoe graduated
from Stanford University with honors in a BA in public
policy and the University of Chicago Law School with high
honors in nineteen ninety nine. Impressive record. Yet a prominent
(15:42):
US Senator from Texas has apparently claimed that Judge Hoe
is only the second best lawyer in his household, and
after hearing his wife's bio, you will perhaps see why.
Missus Allison N. Hoe is a partner in the Dallas
office of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher and co chair of
the firm's nationwide Appellate and Constitutional law practice group. Missus
Hoe is one of the premier appellate lawyers in the
(16:03):
United States. She has presented over one hundred oral arguments
in federal and state courts nationwide, including multiple high stakes
cases before the U. S. Supreme Court. She has appeared
before every Federal Court of Appeals in the country, including
on banc arguments before the Fourth and Sixth Circuits. Missus
Hoe also regularly appears in state appellate courts across the country,
(16:23):
including here in Michigan. She has argued numerous cases in
the Texas Supreme Court, Texas Appellate Courts, and six other
state appellate courts. Missus Hoe also served as Special assistant
to President George W. Bush, counselor to Attorney General John Ashcroft,
and law clerk to Judge Jacques L. Wiener, Junior of
the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor of the U S Supreme Court.
(16:46):
She has also been elected as a member of the
Administrative Conference of the United States, a trustee of the
Historical Societies of the United States Supreme Court in the
Texas Supreme Court. Missus Hoe graduated from Duke University magna
cum lauda with a BA in English, Rice with an
MA and PhD in English Literature, and the University of
Chicago Law School with high honors. She she was a
(17:13):
member of the Law Review and Order of the KOIF.
Missus Hoe and Judge Hoe live in Dallas, Texas with
their twin daughter and son, and to moderate tonight's discussion,
we have my fellow three ils, JJ Marshall and Catherine Slovinski.
Catherine is our chapter president and JJ has been in
the trenches all year preparing for tonight. As our symposium
logistics director, I know how much they are looking forward
(17:41):
to this opportunity to interview you both, especially since JJ
is a proud Texan who may or may not have
a tattoo of the State of Texas somewhere somewhere on
him and Catherine aspires to balance a successful big law
career with family life in the future. So JJ, Catherine,
missus ho judge over to you.
Speaker 5 (18:15):
It's on my arm.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
Nobody was asking.
Speaker 5 (18:22):
My wife wanted me to make that clear.
Speaker 6 (18:25):
Oh, thank you guys so much for being here tonight.
We have a lot to ask you and to talk about,
but so in no overview of what we're trying to
cover in thirty five minutes. We want to talk a
little bit about your family life and how you managed
to be such a prominent couple in this legal industry.
A little bit of substantive law for amendment, administrytive law,
(18:48):
judicial independence, just light things, and then a little bit
of parting advice for the members here tonight.
Speaker 5 (18:55):
But first I do want to take this opportunity. We've
heard a lot of Michigan pride here tonight. As a
fellow Texan, people who live in Texas sit in Texas,
work in Texas. I just want to ask you, guys,
what's the second best state in the Union.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
Oh boy, that.
Speaker 7 (19:15):
Went in a different direction than I expected. Wellok, this
seems like a great fun, rowdy crowd. Let me I
could try to test how rowdy it is by saying
the second best state in the Union is clearly Ohio.
That backfired, all right, I was just testing the crowd. Second,
(19:37):
I don't know. That's I guess I'll answer as a
parent and say that we have had some of our
best family vacations in the states of Florida and Utah.
Speaker 5 (19:49):
Fantastic against it.
Speaker 8 (19:51):
Great.
Speaker 6 (19:52):
So we did reach out to a couple of your
former clerks and colleagues UH to do some of the
research on our own and ask them to describe both
of you in three words, and majority of the words
that you collected were principled, fearless, and loyal. And you
attended the symposium boast as students, which the symposium I
(20:14):
believe was organized under the Fierce administration the chapter president RAO.
So can you tell us a little bit more about
how both of you met and what your experience in
law school was? Like?
Speaker 8 (20:26):
Sure, I guess if I can begin this way with
the blue sky stuff, which I confess i'd never heard.
I hope there's like worse stuff about us that you
didn't say, because I feel like I'm not like doing
what I should be doing. If that's like right, if
that's the worst that's out there. So I just had
to put that out there. So we actually have divergent
(20:51):
views on when and how we met, but I'll tell
the official Jim Hoe version of how we met tonight.
So I was a one L and was walking into
a Federal Society meeting and I walk in with a
(21:13):
friend of mine, and right before the meeting, she had
shared with me that she figured out law school just
wasn't for her and she was going to finish out
the quarter and then go on and do something else.
So the two of us walk in together and the
president at the time, Michelle Boardman, comes up to us
and says, well, look, we're having our election for one
L representative today and right now there's only one person
(21:37):
running and we kind of like to have a you know,
we'd like to have a real election. Would would you guys,
you know, to agree to run? And so she's like, well,
you do it. Because she knew she wasn't going to
be sticking around. And I thought, well, you know, how
hard can this be, like put my name on a ballot? Right, sure,
I'll do it. Well, then I learned that the University
(22:01):
of Chicago way of electing a one L representative is
the candidates Lee's laughing. The candidates stand in the well
of the classroom and field questions from the audience. So
it's quite the Chicago experience, right, And one of the
questions was how many current fedsock officers can you name?
(22:28):
And so I knew Michelle Borgan was the president. I
think you were vice president of speakers at the time
to draw and Jim was the treasurer. And I remember
you came up to me afterwards and said, well, you know,
nobody ever, nobody ever knows who the treasurer is, and
that he he appreciated that. So that is the right y?
Speaker 6 (22:53):
Yeah, Zach, how do you feel about it?
Speaker 1 (22:54):
I got moves.
Speaker 6 (23:04):
Sounds like Zach should be telling folks that he is
the treasurer of our chapter more often.
Speaker 8 (23:14):
That is a great a great story.
Speaker 6 (23:16):
So just to segue from that, how do you manage
to have such a prominent career and family life and
you know, such a such a great marriage. Can you
share a little bit of tips for both of us
who are married, but a lot of folks in the
room who also wish to be, you know, both working
and having a kind of a stable, successful family life.
Speaker 7 (23:38):
Well, I'm gonna invoke justice Tommy here because in addition
to all the various ways in which he's been a
source of wisdom to me and so many others, he's
actually been a source of great marital wisdom. One of
the things he told us as clerks was every morning
he wakes up, he turns to Ginny and he says,
(23:59):
I'm and his theory is just might as well get
ahead of the day. And we have. I've adopted that
tradition as well.
Speaker 6 (24:13):
I did see j J's wife clapping for that, just
keep better.
Speaker 8 (24:19):
So I guess what I would add to that is
as a Christian, I live under the rule of do
everything as unto the Lord. So whether I'm working or mothering,
or wife ing or daughtering, every everything is touched with
(24:45):
that sense of what gives it worth and meaning is
who it's done for, and doing that unto the Lord.
And I think that you know, you hear a lot
about work life balance. I think that's just really hard
and I'm not sure that's the right even the right
way to think about it.
Speaker 5 (25:06):
That's good. My wife has no interest in working, so
we're going to try to strike that balance slightly different way.
But that's great advice for all those power couples out there.
Speaking of law schools and when you guys attended, things
are a little different now back from when you guys
you know, attended law school, and Judge, you've initiated your
own sort of federal hiring freeze on a few institutions.
(25:29):
One could say, how do you feel that's going? How
do you feel what is the current state of law
school institutions specifically, but higher education in general, as far
as free speech and you know, freedom of thought.
Speaker 6 (25:41):
Go.
Speaker 7 (25:42):
Well, let me try to answer to this in a
positive way, because you asked, I think what was it
like for us as students? I have to say I
had a great time at the University of Chicaggo law school.
And it's not because everybody agreed, and that's not because
it was easy. It was actually I remember being very
stressed out at various times in law school, but I
(26:03):
was constantly learning, I was constantly interacting. I got to
be engaging with people all across the spectrum of views
on every possible issue. We had faculty across the spectrum.
The way I thought of Chicago was, you know, there
wasn't really any sort of dominant viewpoint. The one thing
you could be assured of was that no matter what
(26:25):
view you held, whatever, no matter what position you expressed,
you could count on being attacked, but in a good way. Right,
iron sharpening iron, you're actually learning. I don't understand the
dynamic today where if somebody disagrees with you, then you
you know, people decide you want to target them, least
of all in law schools. I mean, I'm of the
(26:46):
view you know, we're both you mentioned we're both the
peal litigators. You know, as a pell litigators, one of
the most important things you do is to moot a case.
What do you do with a moot? You get members
of your moot who not only know nothing about your case,
but they're going to attack you. That's the whole point.
You want to get ready for all the toughest questions. Well,
there's no way better way to get ready for that experience.
Whether you're in a pel litigator, any kind of litigator,
(27:09):
than to be constantly challenged in the classroom on campus,
in the law school lounge. You I learned nothing from
talking to people who agree with me. The good news is,
you know, you're never going to mind anybody who agrees
with you on everything. But that's where you learn, is
when you talk to somebody who has a totally different
viewpoint and yet is a good person. It seems to
have good values but has come to a different conclusion
(27:31):
for whatever reason. That's how you learn. You might find
that you're wrong, you might find that they're wrong, but
you have a new way of understanding or a better
way of arguing. But either way you have a good
chance of coming out of that a better person. So
I just fundamentally do not understand the culture on campuses
today at all. It's completely alien to me.
Speaker 8 (27:48):
So I'm coming up on my twenty fifth year since
I graduated, and I just think it's really important for
those of a who came before to acknowledge how hard
and how bad it is out there on campuses for
you all today. You know, twenty five years ago, was
(28:15):
I still asked as president of the Chicago chapter. There
were still discussions around, well should I put fedsock on
my resume when I send it around? My answer today
is still the same, yes, but I realized that the
consequences of doing that are much more severe and potentially
(28:37):
serious than they were back when I was in law school.
And I'm like Jim, I want to think about a
positive way to talk about it. And so when I
think of all of you in the room and back
on your campuses and at the very beginning of your
(28:57):
legal career standing up and being courageous, the least that
those of us can do who have decades on you
in the profession is to stand up and be courageous ourselves.
We can't ask you, guys to do that. It's not
(29:18):
fair at the very beginning of your career if we're
not willing to stand up and be courageous ourselves. And
all of you are an incredible inspiration to us, and
you're a big part of what gives us the courage
in big ways and small to stand So thank.
Speaker 1 (29:39):
You for that.
Speaker 5 (29:40):
Thank you guys for standing up.
Speaker 6 (29:41):
Chris So turning to some substantive discussions. Recently, the ABA
and the Federal Judges Association have spoken out against a
tax on judicial independence. This is for Judge Ho primarily.
What is your reaction to those manifestations. Do they represent
(30:01):
a unified concern for the judiciary or are they a
product of some sort of selective outrage something in between?
What do you say, Jjito?
Speaker 7 (30:16):
Yeah, So the for those of you who don't know,
the Federal Judges Association came out with a statement, I
guess I want to say, Tuesday night of this week,
this is an association that really is just it's normally
it doesn't do anything like that at all. It sends
us newsletters about, you know, judicial education and those sorts
of things, so I'll put it away. I was very
(30:38):
surprised by that statement, and the next morning I sent
an email to the organization saying that I wanted to resign.
Let me explain why I researched for myself, and I
also asked the association if they ever issued any such
statements when Justice Thomas received attacks or Justice Alito, just
(31:03):
as Kavanaugh dealt with an assassination attempt. We've had federal
district judges in Texas and Florida, as well as I'm
sure other states, but those are the ones that come
to mind immediately all faced the kinds of things that
that statement was complaining about. And more, did we see
these statements in twenty twenty four or twenty twenty three
(31:25):
or twenty twenty two, From what I can tell, No,
I researched my archives and found no such statements, and
when I asked, no such statements were provided to me.
You can't say that you're in favor of judicial independence
only when it comes to decisions that you like. That's
(31:48):
not protecting the judiciary. That's politicizing the judiciary. And I
actually think that statements like this, whether intended or not,
I actually think harm the very cause that they're trying
to further, because one of two things turns out to
be true when you're when you're selective in this way,
(32:08):
and either of these options I think is a bad thing.
Option number one is that you're basically lying that you
actually don't care about this principle because you didn't stand
up for it when the shoe was on the other foot,
and so you're essentially telling the world this is not
we're not actually seriously committed to judicial independence. The alternative
(32:29):
is perhaps even worse, which is that you are telling
the truth. You do care about this that this principle,
whether it's judicial dependence or free speech. I think this
concept applies a lot of things. If you're telling the truth,
you really care about this principle. But there are just
some people who have views that are so anathema to
(32:52):
you that you don't think they are worthy of this
principle that you that you expound on. And so what
turns out, what you may think is a statement born
of righteousness, I think is perceived by a lot of
people as merely sactaemonious. And so if you're not willing
to stand up when that principle is at stake in
(33:16):
a way that costs you, then it's not really.
Speaker 8 (33:19):
A principle at all.
Speaker 7 (33:20):
I'm reminded if I think it's the Book of Psalms,
there's a quote about an oath really only means something
if it costs you.
Speaker 8 (33:27):
Well into Pylon a little bit. Hearing a lot of
voices about threat to rule of law and criticizing lawyers
right based on the clients that they represent. I don't
remember hearing these voices speaking out when lawyers were criticized
(33:49):
for representing President Trump. I don't remember these voices speaking
out when lawyers came out of the first administration and
were they were not hired, including firms that they had
been at and been partners at before going and serving
(34:10):
their country in the in the administration. So I strongly
agree with what what Jim said. When you're not when
you're not being consistent about it, then it really it
can only be about whose ox is being gored. And
the sense that in a way only underscoring that the
rule of law means one thing, uh if you agree
(34:33):
with me, and another thing if you don't.
Speaker 5 (34:38):
So I want to turn us to another one of
y'all's interests, free exercise. We both took First Amendment last
semester together. Shout out to everyone who's in done herz
OX First Amendment class. It's a fantastic class. But when
we got to the end of the course, you know,
we had done a lot on free exercise Establishment Clause,
read a lot of O'Connor's opinions. But when we got
(35:00):
to the end of the course, we read Carson and Kennedy,
and I wanted to know the court seems to be
becoming more amenable towards free exercise claims. Can we maybe
give some hope to the room for those of us
who are religiousncy, Like, where do you think the court
is going to go as far as what do you
see on the horizon for free exercise and maybe possibly
(35:21):
more Establishment Clause claims in the future.
Speaker 8 (35:24):
Sure, so I'll take that, And look, I think you're right.
We've really been playing defense for a long time, primarily
on the establishment clause side. Like when I think about
cases like the Blainsboro Across case right where it was
a veteran's memorial in the shape of a cross, and
(35:51):
on one hand, what a great how devastating it would
have been if the Fourth Circuit decision that that memorial
violated the Establishment clause? What a disaster it would have
been if that had stayed the same and had remained
the law, and then the monument would have had to
been taken down, or as one of the judges on
(36:13):
the Fourth Circuit panel astering oral argument in the case,
well why don't you just cut the arms off the
memorial and then it won't look like across anymore. Wasn't
a joke. I mean this was asked in real seriousness,
So it would have been devastating had we not won.
(36:35):
But you sort of think like, Okay, well, we don't
really move the ball forward, right, we just get to
keep what we have. And there's just there's a lot
of bad precedent. There's just a lot of bad case
law on this, and so I'm really excited and encouraged
about where we're going, particularly to the extent that free
(37:00):
exercise means, certainly, but doesn't just mean you have the
freedom to pick the church or the synagogue or the
place where you want to worship, but that you are
free to exercise your faith in all aspects of your life.
(37:21):
And we'll be filing we'll be filing a petition this
week in a case that raises what I think is
a really important issue on free exercise that actually will
benefit all sorts of rights holders in making it easier
for people who want to challenge unconstitutional laws that restrict
(37:42):
the exercise of their religion, will open avenues for those
people to be able to do that. So I am.
I am this one area where I'm very passive. Look,
I it's not going as fast as I would like it,
but definitely moving, definitely moving in the right direction in
(38:04):
an encouraging way.
Speaker 6 (38:06):
Just a follow up for that, Allison, what are some
of the big questions that the court now has to answer.
What are some of the remaining things that need to
be either trinally cleared out that you would you know,
foresee as a priority.
Speaker 8 (38:21):
So from my perspective, I'm I'm firmly in the overall
employment division versus Smith Camp. I think it's it's time
to do that. And to me, that's sort of like
clearing away what's sort of impeding. I kind of see
that as kind of the next the next big frontier
(38:46):
on that score.
Speaker 6 (38:49):
Our next question is about administrative law. We're wondering in
you know, the conservative and libertarian movement expended a lot
of effort in overturning Chevron, and in this host slope
or bright world of administrative law, how are appellate litigators
such as yourself approaching challenges to agency actions differently, if
at all? And what is the role, if any, again,
(39:12):
of the emergency docket in some of these strategic considerations.
Speaker 8 (39:17):
So I first want to put put in a plug
for you know, Low per Bright was one case, but
the companion case was called Relentless. So I'm kind of
on a campaign to to like when we talk about
the case that overruled Chevron, relentless, relentless, relentless.
Speaker 1 (39:42):
Virginia.
Speaker 8 (39:43):
That's cool, that's a cool name, exactly, exactly, Well, where
to start on this score? I guess maybe maybe I'll mention,
I'll mention something that may not be top of mind.
I know y'all have had some fantastic panels today on
these topics. You know, choveron is really about saying, you know,
(40:03):
interpreting statutes and laws, and I think, I mean, it's
great and very important to have that settled. But when
you think about it, the whole foundation of the administrative
state is the idea of expertise and agency expertise. And
(40:24):
to me, that's the next big frontier in administrative law.
There's a doctrine and the word actually used is super difference.
Courts should pay super difference to agency findings that are
in the wheelhouse of that agency expertise. Well you can
just hear me talk about that and recognize like the
(40:46):
opportunities for mischief in a doctrine like that. So that's
that's where I see kind of the next frontier. You know,
if your project is his mine is and has long
been like dism mantling the administrative state. I think kind
of challenging this notion of really kicking guitars on expertise,
(41:08):
and that as a basis for deferring to agencies is
probably won't be anytime soon, but I think that's likely
to be the next the next frontier.
Speaker 6 (41:23):
This is for Judge Ho. You're a naturalized citizen, and
in your article Fairweather Originalism, you quoted President Reagan saying
that quote. Every once in a while, all of us
native born Americans should make it a point to have
a conversation with one who is an American by choice
as asson to be naturalized person. Myself, I am wondering
(41:44):
why should people in the room talk to me?
Speaker 7 (41:56):
What a wonderful question.
Speaker 5 (41:57):
I one good reason, please clock.
Speaker 7 (42:05):
I think there's something about the sort of the unique
passion of the converted, if you will, you know, I
think what President Reagan was getting at is that you
may have a special appreciation having not been an American
from birth, as I was not what it means to
now be an American the way I think of it,
as I wasn't born an American, but I get to
(42:27):
thank God every day that I will die an American. Honestly,
the best thing about my job is the fact that
once a year I preside over a naturalization ceremony. It's
actually not something that circuit courts are allowed to do inherently.
I have to get a permission from a district court
(42:48):
to do it, and I do it every May as
sort of a kind of a personal anniversary for my
own naturalization back in May nineteen eighty two. It's an
amazing for those If you've never been to one, you
really should try to go to one. Imagine a room
full of people from literally all over the world, different backgrounds,
different religions, different viewpoints, different experiences, all coming together in
(43:12):
one room for one purpose, to become Americans.
Speaker 1 (43:16):
It is.
Speaker 7 (43:18):
I just always come out of that inspired about for
whatever issues that continue to divide us as a country,
we remain the single country that more people around the
world would do anything to come to. And people come
to this nation and droves not because we're a failed nation.
They come to our country because this is the greatest
(43:41):
country in the history of mankind. And I just I'm
so thankful that I get the opportunity to preside over
those ceremonies.
Speaker 5 (44:01):
Okay, so we have I think the number was four
hundred and forty young budding lawyers in here, some a
little younger than myself. But give us some parting advice.
You talked about, you know, things that standing up and
how you guys have been standing up for this movement
and you know, standing up for what you believe in.
(44:21):
What can we do as chapters and as individuals, well
while we're in law school and also when we get
out into the field and start practicing, that can help,
you know, be more like you guys and you know,
make a difference.
Speaker 7 (44:37):
Well, let me follow up on some of the things
that Alison said earlier. You know, we could say, you know,
to students, you know, just just be brave, you know,
just just just say what you believe. I think that
Risks coming off is very smug. I'm a life tenured
(44:58):
federal judge. Right, Alison and I have an amazing she
has an extraordinary career at her firm. Y'all are just
starting out. I mean, you guys, your job is to
work hard, get good grades, and get a job, right.
I mean no, seriously, it is not for you guys
to be fighting these fights. That's why I wanted to
(45:19):
followup on what else and said. In terms of it,
this is really on the grown ups to be, you know,
running schools in the correct way, to be enforcing the
rules consistently, et cetera, et cetera. So look, I mean,
having said that, yes, I mean, if you have a
viewpoint and you are comfortable standing up for it, no
matter how unpopular, good for you. I mean, I'm certainly
not just trying to say otherwise. I just think it
(45:40):
could be smug coming saying, you know, just just be
you know, just be brave. Having said that, I will
say this, if you can't be that first person, I mean,
if you can, that's great, But if you can't be
the first person to speak up in a classroom on campus,
in the student lounge, at least try to be the second.
And you know, if somebody else sort of sticks their
(46:02):
neck out and says something that, you know, cause a
bit of a stir in the room, try to stand
up for that person. You don't even necessarily have to
agree with them. I mean, one way to do it
is to say, look, you know, I'm still thinking about
what you said. I'm not sure I agree with it,
but I'm kind of curious what the counter arguments are something.
And obviously, if if you do agree with them, then great.
And I don't know how many means I've been at,
(46:23):
you know, as a litigator in government service, where you
know somebody's there's sort of an argument on the table,
and I have this vision in my mind of you
know what, I think that's totally wrong, and I'm debating
whether to say something. There have been times when I
almost said it and said somebody else said it, and
it turns out everybody in the room actually agreed with it,
and I'm sort of kicking myself. Right, this is when
I was younger. I've just determined, you know what, just
(46:43):
say it, you know. So in terms of the advice,
what I would say is, don't be afraid to be wrong.
You can always admit that you're wrong. I do it
all the time. And also don't be afraid to be right.
I mean, you may very well have the majority of
the room behind you. It's just that nobody else is
willing to stick their necks out.
Speaker 5 (47:04):
Allison. For those of us who aren't misfortunates, you know,
go work at Gibson and Dinner Jones Day and but
want to be associates and you know, spark a movement.
What what can we do as conservatives and sometimes hostile
or you know, unfavored to conservative views in these law firms.
Speaker 8 (47:24):
Sure, so I just want to echo something Jim said,
which is there's I don't want to sound be smug like,
oh well here's what you should do right, or or
or give give advice. Maybe the best way for me
to answer is just to tell a place where I
have recently changed my view or my approach to something.
(47:48):
I my view used to be in the pro bonosphere.
You know, if an associate came to me and said, hey,
this is probably to get approved, and I'd say, yeah,
you're right, it's not. So let's conserve our capital, right,
let's really go for things that we believe like we've
(48:10):
got a real shot at And I've changed my view
on that. For two, For a couple of reasons. Number one,
I think it's important for associates to know that there
are people in the firm who will who are farther
along than they would to kind of pick up on
(48:30):
what Jim said, right, who are partners and practice group
leaders who are willing to put something forward like that.
I also think there's value in being told no, because
no one can ever say, oh, we didn't know you
wanted to do that kind of work, right, Nobody nobody
asked us. And so that's that's just an area where
(48:53):
in my own life and my own work, I've just
sort of changed and thought, you know, I don't I
don't have to be a flamethrower every day, but I can.
You know this I can do right when someone comes
to me, or if someone comes to me from outside
the firm with an opportunity. I'm much more comfortable with
(49:16):
being told no. If that's the worst thing that anybody
can say to me, then I live a really privileged,
comfortable life.
Speaker 6 (49:25):
That's beautiful. Allison and Judge Howe, we have a surprise
little for you, and we'd like to ask what did
that moment feel So this is right after, this is
(49:47):
right after your first Supreme Court argument, to have your
kids just run up to you into your arms, But
what did that moment feel like? As a someone who
very much looks forward to one day being a mother,
I'd like to know get a glimpse of that moment.
Speaker 8 (50:00):
So it was such a precious moment, and what really
made it precious was Jim had pulled it off. It
was a surprise that what I thought was going to
happen was that after the argument, I would go back
to the hotel, and later that day, Jim and the
kiddos were flying in because I actually had another argument
(50:25):
twenty one days after my first one, so I was
unfortunately going to have to stay in DC and prepare
for that. So Jim was going to bring the kiddos up,
So I was expecting to see them, but I was
not expecting to see them on the step. So I'll
let Jim fill in the backstory of how that came
to be.
Speaker 7 (50:43):
So believe it or not, this actually took some effort.
Speaker 1 (50:46):
First of all, we believe it.
Speaker 7 (50:47):
First of all, that was actually like a really high
quality photo I got the uh I don't know if
it still exists. The Legal Times, their official photographer took
those pictures, so you know, it's imagine that the kids
were tiny back then, and Alison had to be away
from home for a long time, and so I so
I decided you didn't went rather than showing up the
next day. I think it was the original plan. We
(51:08):
flew them in the night before so that we could
have this sort of courthouse moment. But I had that
it was essentially a conspiracy, right. First of all, as somebody,
we know, if you've get into me court, that's not
the only way to get out of the building. It's
not even necessarily the easiest way. You know, the coming
down the steps is sort of a dramatic, you know,
great photo op, but there are other easier ways to
(51:29):
get out. I had to make sure that she was
going to go that way, so I needed to coordinate
with her second chair to make sure make sure she
walks down this way so she sees us. We definitely
did not stay in a DC hotel. I just sort
of had this image of, you know, bumping into at
dinner or something and completely ruining the surprise. So we
(51:49):
stayed out in Virginia.
Speaker 1 (51:54):
Anyway.
Speaker 7 (51:55):
I carefully planned this. We get off the plane, me
and the kids, and we're walking and we bumped into
Ken Starr, who you know, some of you who may
if you had the pleasure of knowing him, just one
of the friendliest people. And he comes up and, oh,
you know, it's great to see you. What are you
(52:16):
doing here? And then we said that very nice moment.
He was president of Baylor at the time. He was
not a DC person back then, at that time, and
so you know, I walk away and I realized I
stopped for a moment and think, well, wait a minute,
what is he doing here? You know, is it possible
he's going to be at the Supreme Court the next
Day's he going to see Alison, you know, at the
council table and he's going to tell her by side.
(52:38):
You know what, I'll just let fate decide. As it
turns out, he was there to swear in Baylor alums.
I guess to the Supreme Court bar and he actually
did mention the Sallison. But I decide, you know what,
this is great, I now have I now have something
in common with Bill Clinton. Right, I was trying to
(53:01):
hide something from my wife, and Ken Starr exposed us.
On that note.
Speaker 8 (53:21):
I think we'll wrap up for the evening.
Speaker 5 (53:22):
Ja ja yeah, guys, can we give a hand for
Allison and Judge Ho. Thank you guys so much for
being here, and thank y'all for standing up for all
of us in this room today. Thank you guys so much.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Law & Order: Criminal Justice System - Season 1 & Season 2
Season Two Out Now! Law & Order: Criminal Justice System tells the real stories behind the landmark cases that have shaped how the most dangerous and influential criminals in America are prosecuted. In its second season, the series tackles the threat of terrorism in the United States. From the rise of extremist political groups in the 60s to domestic lone wolves in the modern day, we explore how organizations like the FBI and Joint Terrorism Take Force have evolved to fight back against a multitude of terrorist threats.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com