Is rational basis review the appropriate approach consistent with constitutional text, history, and good public policy, or is it an abdication of judicial responsibility?Advocates for greater judicial engagement argue that courts have a constitutional obligation to apply meaningful judicial review to infringement of unenumerated “nonfundamental” rights. Judicial abdication of that responsibility, they argue, permits special interests to interfere with competition, innovation, and economic liberty.Defenders of rational basis review maintain that judges are ill-equipped to second-guess the policy judgments of elected lawmakers, and that absent a clear violation of a constitutional protection, such determinations are better left to that branch of government subject to democratic accountability.Ted Frank of Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute and Clark Neily of The Cato Institute will debate the merits of judicial engagement and rational basis review. Featuring: Ted Frank, Director, Center for Class Action Fairness, Hamiliton Lincoln Law InstituteClark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice, Cato InstituteModerator: Hon. Paul B. Matey, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Ver todos los episodios