Tuesday, July 28, 2015
3:00 pm - 5:00 pm
Texas Public Policy Foundation - Joe B. Hogsett Theater
901 Congress Avenue
For decades, liberal advocacy groups have used “sue and settle” tactics with friendly government agencies to advance their agenda outside the legislative process. Even in Texas, government overreach has threatened individual liberty. In response, conservative public interest law firms have emerged to serve as the protectors of the freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
In a panel format moderated by Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett, liberty litigators from Institute for Justice, Liberty Institute, and the Foundation’s Center for the American Future will discuss current public interest litigation topics, such as:
• Should commercial zoning and ordinances regulate worship in a private home?
• Should hair braiding be an activity that requires government licensure?
• Should species existing only within Texas be regulated under the Endangered Species Act?
Join the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Institute for Justice, and Liberty Institute to discuss local, state, and federal litigation efforts that have advanced economic opportunity, defended religious freedom, and fought for private property rights.
Accredited by the State Bar of Texas for 1.0 MCLE, including .5 ethics
Moderated By: Justice Don Willett, Texas Supreme Court
Robert Henneke – Director, Texas Public Policy Foundation Center for the American Future
Jeff Mateer – General Counsel, Liberty Institute
Matt Miller – Managing Attorney, Texas Office, Institute for Justice
PART I – Ethical Considerations in Representing Clients in a Public Interest Setting
Topics for Discussion:
• Differences in obtaining clients in a public law setting versus a for-profit setting.
• How to address situations were the client’s interests and public purpose of the litigation diverge.
PART II – Recent Developments in Public Interest Law
Topics for Discussion:
• Local Government o Municipal attempts to regulate worship in private homes as an infringement upon federal and state law. Case example: City of Dallas v. Gothelf, et. al.; Cause No. DC-15-02336; In the 116th Judicial District Court; Dallas County, Texas.
• State Government o State licensure requirements not related to health and safety as a violation of 14th Amendment Due Process. Case example: Brantley, et. al. v. Kuntz, et. al.; Cause No. A-13-CA-872-SS; In the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas – Austin Division.
• Federal Government o Endangered Species Act regulation of intrastate species as beyond the scope of Commerce Clause powers. Case example: People for the Ethical Treatment of Property Owners v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service, et. al.; Cause No. 13-cv-00278-DB; In the United States District Court for the District of Utah – Central Division