The Federal Lawyer (2008)

From Sept. 18-20, the FBA convened for the 2008 Annual Meeting and Convention in Huntsville, Ala. The convention featured two tracks of continuing legal education: a civil/criminal track focused on issues such
as professionalism and bench/bar relations, civil rights and the Supreme Court, wage-hour law, criminal justice policy, and…

Since Judge Learned Hand’s 1945 decision in the “Alcoa” case, it has become well-established law that the Sherman Antitrust Act—legislation that was adopted over 100 years ago—applies to and prohibits conduct in foreign countries if that conduct has an illegal “effect” in the United States. But to what extent does the Sherman Act and other U.S. legislation apply to conduct in foreign countries? Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions do not clearly define the exact reach and limits of U.S. jurisdiction on the international scene. In the United States, this jurisdiction is now known as the “jurisdiction to prescribe”—in contrast to the jurisdiction that we all know as the jurisdiction to adjudicate.

Huntsville, the site of the 2008 FBA Annual Meeting and Convention, has something to offer everyone, from shopping and dining to historical and educational venues. The Federal Bar Association highlights two of Huntsville’s greatest attractions with receptions at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center and the Huntsville Botanical Gardens. This section will focus on the 2008 home for the FBA’s networking receptions, annual business meetings, and continuing legal education (CLE) programs.

The Southern District of New York and Eastern District of New York Chapters honored the U.S. Marshals Service at a reception in Federal Hall on April 17. Speeches and photos from the reception are included.

Popular dissatisfaction with the present electoral college method of electing our presidents has increased since 2000, when the possibility of the winner of the presidency having lost the popular vote gave impetus to suggestions of reform. The National Popular Vote Plan, under which states would amend their laws to require that their electoral votes be cast in favor of the winner of the national popular vote, has attracted support. That plan raises serious constitutional issues: whether such state enactments are subject to gubernatorial veto, and whether, as interstate compacts, the consent of Congress would be required.

Your individual privacy is more at risk in the United States than in other countries that are also fighting terrorism. Has our Homeland Security bureaucracy failed us in protection of our privacy rights? We can expect congressional efforts in 2009 to create a European-style robust protector of privacy rights as the outgoing administration’s secrecy fetishes fade away.

Kenneth Feinberg has been involved with nearly every major mass tort action in the past several decades and has demonstrated his commitment to pro bono work by volunteering to serve as special master for both the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund and the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund.

Federal institutions actively shape many aspects of modern Indian identity in a variety of ways, such as defining tribal actions as “governmental” or “commercial” in nature or by connecting tribal jurisdiction with the extent to which tribal institutions mirror the practices of non-Indian institutions. The 2008 Federal Bar Association Indian Law Conference will examine these issues through discussions on tribal finance, labor concerns in Indian country, tribal courts, Indian energy policy, and the future of plenary power in the legislative arena…

Bipartisan patent reform legislation has defied skeptics and made substantial progress in Congress this year. Although some in the patent community have not embraced specific elements, most, at least grudgingly, acknowledge a broad need for modernization of the patent system. Many small inventors, however, have maintained a…

It is the definition of “unconstitutional” personified: The extinguishment of a constitutionally protected confrontation right by a statutorily created hearsay exception. Yet, in our U.S. courts, a federal rule dealing with hearsay evidence—Rule 804(b)(6)—has such unbelievable power.