Teleforum

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order effectively ending birthright citizenship for children born to mothers who are unlawfully present or temporary lawful residents in the United States and whose fathers are not lawful permanent residents at the time of the child’s birth. One day later, four states and three individuals challenged this order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, which three days later granted a universal temporary restraining order enjoining the government from implementing this order. Two weeks later, this became a nationwide injunction. Other similar nationwide injunctions have since been issued from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The government has appealed all of these, and the question of whether the Supreme Court should stay the district courts' preliminary injunctions (except as to the individual plaintiffs and identified members of the organizational plaintiffs or states) was argued on May 15. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case, its argument before the Supreme Court, and the broader issues at play.Featuring:Michael R. Williams, Solicitor General, West VirginiaModerator: Elbert Lin, Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP--To register, click the link above.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order effectively ending birthright citizenship for children born to mothers who are unlawfully present or temporary lawful residents in the United States and whose fathers are not lawful permanent residents at the time of the child’s birth. One day later, four states and three individuals challenged this order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, which three days later granted a universal temporary restraining order enjoining the government from implementing this order. Two weeks later, this became a nationwide injunction. Other similar nationwide injunctions have since been issued from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The government has appealed all of these, and the question of whether the Supreme Court should stay the district courts' preliminary injunctions (except as to the individual plaintiffs and identified members of the organizational plaintiffs or states) is now set to be argued on May 15. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case and the broader issues at play, including its implications for the separation of powers.Featuring:Michael R. Williams, Solicitor General, West VirginiaModerator: Elbert Lin, Partner and Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

Elizabeth Odette is the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division in the Office of the Minnesota Attorney General and the Antitrust Task Force Chair for the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG). Tune in to this conversation to hear about her work, the antitrust enforcement priorities of NAAG, reflections on the current direction of state antitrust enforcement, and more.Featuring:Elizabeth Odette, Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, Office of the Minnesota Attorney General; and Antitrust Task Force Chair, National Association of Attorneys GeneralModerator: John Wiegand, Antitrust Attorney, Federal Trade Commission--To register, click the link above.

Currently, the FDIC and NCUA—apart from a limited number of state credit unions—maintain a government-enforced duopoly on deposit insurance. This webinar will explore whether the existing framework should be preserved or reformed, including the potential expansion of private deposit insurance beyond the few states that currently permit it for state credit unions to all banks and credit unions.Featuring: Dennis R. Adams, Principal, Dennis R. Adams Consulting; former CEO, American Share InsuranceMargaret E. Tahyar, Partner, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLPModerator: Bryan Schneider, Partner, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Stablecoins are important emerging financial products, and this webinar will explore their benefits, opportunities, and use cases. Additionally, it will identify risks, challenges, and concerns associated with stablecoins. The webinar will provide an overview of the State of Wyoming’s stablecoin program, known as Wyoming Stable Tokens. Furthermore, it will delve into private sector stable coins, their practical applications, and provides valuable insights from panelists in the stablecoins space.Featuring: Anthony Apollo, Executive Director, Wyoming Stable Token CommissionProf. Dan Awrey, Beth and Marc Goldberg Professor of Law, Cornell Law SchoolJerome Roche, Head of Legal for Blockchain, Crypto and Digital Currencies, Paypal Inc.Sarah Wilson, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, CircleModerator: Prof. Gary Kalbaugh, Deputy General Counsel & Director, ING Holdings Corps; Special Professor of Law, Maurice A. Dean School of Law

On April 17, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that Google violated antitrust law through the monopolization of digital advertisement. Google’s “exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google's publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web,” said the Court. This is the second case in which the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division has scored a win against Google, the first having come in August 2024 and relating to Google’s monopoly of “general search.” Google has vowed that they will appeal both cases. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss the case and its possible future effects.Featuring:Prof. Rebecca Haw Allensworth, David Daniels Allen Distinguished Chair of Law, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolBilal Sayyed, Senior Competition Counsel, TechFreedomJoel Thayer, President, Digital Progress InstituteModerator: Asheesh Agarwal, Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce--To register, click the link above.

Feliciano v. Department of Transportation the Court was presented with the question of whether a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency. The Federal Circuit had initially held that Nick Feliciano, an air traffic controller with the FAA and reserve officer in the coast guard was not entitled to differential pay for parts of his time when he had been called to active duty during the early and mid-2010s. The Supreme Court heard oral argument on December 9, 2024, and on April 30, 2025 a 5-4 court reversed the decision below. Justice Gorsuch penned the majority opinion, and Justice Thomas wrote the dissent, which was joined by Justices Alito, Kagan, and Jackson. Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program where we break down and analyze the decision and the opinions, and discuss the potential ramifications of this case. Featuring: Prof. Gregory Dolin, Associate Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law (Moderator) Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates, and Former OFCCP Director

On October 20, 2023, the Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond sued the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board for signing a contract with St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, claiming that St. Isidore cannot participate in the charter school program because it is a religious school. The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed, holding that the contract violated the Establishment Clause.The United States Supreme Court is hearing this case to address 1) if the teaching decisions of a private school are considered state action when the school contracts with the state to provide free education and 2) if a state is prohibited from excluding a religious school from its charter school program because of the Free Exercise Clause or if it can justify the exclusion under the Establishment Clause. Arguments are scheduled for April 30.Featuring:Philip A. Sechler, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Prof. Michael P. Moreland, University Professor of Law and Religion and Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law

Discussions about the United States acquiring Greenland have re-emerged in public discourse, particularly during the second Trump administration, highlighting the enduring strategic importance of the island. This webinar will provide crucial context to the current debate by exploring historical attempts at acquisition, analyzing the underlying strategic and economic interests driving this consideration, and examining the complex legal and sovereignty issues involved, including questions of international law and potential constitutional implications for the United States. Join us for this timely discussion to gain a deeper understanding of the historical, strategic, and legal dimensions of this fascinating topic.Featuring: Dr. Romain Chuffart, President and Managing Director, The Arctic InstituteAlexander Gray, Senior Fellow in National Security Affairs, American Foreign Policy CounselModerator: Nitin Nainani, Judicial Law Clerk, The Southern District of Florida

Join the Federalist Society for a debate on the role of tariffs during the Trump administration and their lasting impact on trade policy. This panel will explore the economic and legal implications of the administration’s tariff strategy, its effects on American businesses and consumers, and the broader consequences for international trade relations. Experts will discuss whether these policies strengthened U.S. industries or imposed unnecessary burdens, the historical context of tariffs in American economic policy, and what lessons can be drawn for future administrations. Attendees will gain insight into the constitutional and policy considerations surrounding executive trade authority and the broader debate over protectionism versus free trade.Featuring:Mark DiPlacido, Policy Adviser, American CompassProf. Gordon Hanson, Peter Wertheim Professor in Urban Policy, Harvard Kennedy SchoolModerator: Eric J. Kadel, Jr., Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP

In 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency withdrew California’s previously-granted waiver to implement its Advanced Clean Car Program. This program had been in effect since 2013 and required that car companies reduce carbon dioxide emissions and produce fleets that are at least 15% electric vehicles. The waiver was withdrawn due to a lack of “compelling and extraordinary conditions” and because California could not show a direct connection between greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.In 2022, however, the EPA reinstated the waiver. This prompted legal challenges from several states and fuel companies who argued that California did not meet the requirements to justify these state-specific standards. The D.C. Circuit dismissed most of their claims, finding that these parties did not prove that their injuries would be redressed by a decision in their favor. This case now asks whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by pointing to the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties. Join this FedSoc Forum to hear more about the case, the argument, and its possible outcomes.Featuring:Mark Pinkert, Partner, Holtzman VogelModerator: Mohammad Jazil, Partner, Holtzman Vogel--To register, click the link above.

In January, President Trump renamed the "Gulf of Mexico" the "Gulf of America." The Associated Press refused to follow that lead, keeping "Gulf of Mexico" in its style guide. The White House responded by denying AP reporters access to some White House press events. The AP sued, and Judge McFadden of the District of Columbia recently issued an opinion siding with the AP. What are the First Amendment principles at play? Might this headline-grabbing fight have broader implications for the First Amendment or the separation of powers?Join us for a litigation update on this case. Featuring: Tyson Langhofer, Senior Counsel and Director of the Center for Academic Freedom at Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Casey Mattox, VP of Legal Strategy at Stand Together

Since Inauguration Day, President Trump and his Cabinet have taken a range of important executive actions directly impacting environmental law and regulations with a laser focus on achieving domestic energy dominance – a centerpiece of the Trump agenda. This panel will review these executive actions along with other upcoming major regulatory reform activities, and their possible future impacts on the environmental law regime. This webinar will be the first of four webinars previewing the Thirteenth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on the topic of Theories of Presidential Power. Featuring: Eric Grant, Partner, Hicks Thomas LLP Matthew Leopold, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth Prof. Andrew Mergen, Emmett Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor of Law in Environmental Law, Harvard Law School Sambhav Sankar, Senior Vice President of Programs, Earthjustice Moderator: Jeffrey Wood, Partner, Baker Botts -- To register, click the link above.

In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court will decide whether parents have the right to be notified and opt their children out of classroom lessons on gender and sexuality that violate their religious beliefs.In 2022, the Montgomery County, Maryland, School Board introduced storybooks for pre-K through fifth-grade classrooms covering topics like gender transitions and pride parades. Maryland law and the Board’s own policies provide parents the right to receive notice and opt their kids out of books that violate their religious beliefs. However, when parents attempted to exercise this right, the School Board eliminated notice and opt-outs altogether. In response, a diverse coalition of religious parents, including Muslims, Christians, and Jews, sued the School Board in federal court. The parents argue that storybooks are age-inappropriate, spiritually and emotionally damaging for their kids, and inconsistent with their beliefs.Last year, the Fourth Circuit upheld the School Board’s policy, ruling that the removal of notice and opt-outs does not impose a legally cognizable burden on parents’ religious exercise. The parents appealed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari in January 2025, and arguments are scheduled for April 22nd.The question before the court is: Do public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt-out?Featuring:Eric Baxter, Vice President and Senior Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty(Moderator) Prof. Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of Law

In Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc. the Supreme Court will consider "Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary’s supervision."In Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc., several Christian-owned businesses, along with six individuals in Texas, brought suit alleging that the Affordable Care Act's preventative services coverage requirement was illegal and unconstitutional. They contend it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as the ACA required them to fund preventative services that conflicted with their religious beliefs, and that it violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, given the controlling effect of a non-appointed advisory body over which preventative treatments were required. Given those issues, the case sits at an interesting intersection of health law, religious liberty law, and administrative procedure, and the Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument on April 21, 2025.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyse how oral argument went before the Court.Featuring:Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Goldwater Institute

What does the new administration mean for cryptocurrency regulation and the balance of authority between the SEC and the states? Traditionally, Republican-led SECs and financial regulators have favored federal preemption of state authority. Under the Biden Administration, however, many red states invoked their consumer protection powers to challenge federal agency actions and defend federalism. This panel will explore ongoing state litigation against the SEC over the definition of a security and examine how the evolving federal-state dynamic could shape cryptocurrency regulation.Featuring: Justin Clark, Civil Chief, Kentucky Office of the Attorney GeneralPaul N. Watkins, Managing Partner, Fusion Law PLLCEric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney GeneralModerator: Katie Biber, Chief Legal Office, Paradigm

Russia’s war against Ukraine has been marked by deliberate attacks on civilians, healthcare workers, and critical infrastructure. From targeting rescue personnel with follow-up strikes to direct attacks on hospitals and maternity wards, Russia’s actions raise serious questions under the Law of Armed Conflict. Additionally, its ongoing kinetic and cyber attacks on energy infrastructure further challenge established legal norms.This Federalist Society webinar will examine how these actions violate the Law of Armed Conflict, focusing on specific incidents and responsible actors. Panelists will also explore potential legal remedies and the prospects for war crimes prosecutions.Mike Lewis served as a naval aviator before becoming a renowned law professor, respected by scholars and practitioners alike. A great friend of the Federalist Society, he spoke at numerous lawyer and student chapter events and was a dedicated member of the Executive Committee of the International & National Security Law Practice Group. Each year, the Practice Group honors his legacy with a webinar.Featuring: Prof. Michael A. Newton, Director, International Legal Studies Program, Vanderbilt Law SchoolModerator: Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

The United Nations was founded to promote peace, security, and international cooperation, but critics argue that it has become an inefficient bureaucracy that often works against U.S. interests. In particular, UN agencies and organizations – in which each UN Member State can choose whether or not to participate – have sometimes taken positions in conflict with what some U.S. policy makers regard as important principles and priorities. The Trump Administration recently announced that the United States will no longer participate in the U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC), will end all financial support for the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), and may withdraw from the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).Supporters, on the other hand, contend that the U.N. and its affiliated organizations remain a vital forum for diplomacy and that the United States should lead efforts to reform them rather than abandon them.Should the United States push for structural changes within the U.N. and its affiliated entities, or would withdrawal better serve American sovereignty and foreign policy goals? What are the legal and geopolitical implications of either path? Join the Federalist Society for a discussion with experts on international law, foreign policy, and constitutional governance as we explore whether the United States should help reform or quit the United Nations. Featuring: Hon. Grover Joseph Rees, III, Former General Counsel of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization, Former United States Ambassador to East TimoPeter Yeo, Senior Vice President, UN Foundation; President, Better World CampaignModerator: John McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law

When federal law enforcement raids the wrong home, do innocent homeowners have any legal recourse? The answer is more complicated than one might expect. Over the years, the Supreme Court has limited the ability to bring constitutional claims against federal officers, citing the absence of a congressionally authorized cause of action. However, Congress has provided a remedy for certain torts committed by federal law enforcement through the law-enforcement proviso of the Federal Tort Claims Act—legislation enacted in response to notorious federal raids in the 1970s. Yet even this statutory remedy may fall short today.In Martin v. United States, the Supreme Court will determine whether the law-enforcement proviso can overcome sovereign immunity and whether an innocent family, whose home was mistakenly raided by an FBI SWAT team, has a path to relief. Join us for an in-depth discussion on the implications of this case and the broader question of accountability for federal law enforcement.Featuring: Patrick Jaicomo, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice

Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian green card holder, was detained by ICE on March 8 and faces deportation for his involvement in the protests and disruptions at Columbia University related to the war between Hamas and Israel. The U.S. government cites an immigration law provision allowing his deportation because of “serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” Critics have argued that the government's action is retaliation for his speech. How does the Constitution apply in the case of non-citizens legally present in the U.S.? What is the role of the courts here? Join us on April 1 at 11 AM EST for a conversation between Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute and Conor Fitzpatrick, Supervising Senior Attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). Their conversation will be moderated by Casey Mattox, Vice President of Legal Strategy at Stand Together. Featuring: Conor Fitzpatrick, Supervising Senior Attorney, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan InstituteModerator: Casey Mattox, Vice President of Legal Strategy at Stand Together.

Prosecution laches is an infrequently used equitable doctrine that bars enforcement of a patent when the patentee has unreasonably delayed prosecution in a way that prejudices others. It is most commonly used by accused infringers as a defense in patent litigation, although the USPTO can also use it as a basis for refusing allowance. Regardless, it is most often used against the backdrop of multiple continuation applications.Continuation applications are applications which all follow from (i.e., claim priority to) a single earlier application. Creating “families” of patent applications in this way is a very common practice and allows the patent owner to claim different embodiments of the original invention in response to changes in marketplace and/or technological evolution. In Sonos Inc. v. Google LLC, currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit, the district court, following a jury verdict in favor of the patentee, found Sonos’ patents unenforceable due to prosecution laches, despite Sonos diligently prosecuting continuation applications for 13 years, serially filing a continuation with each allowance. If upheld, the ruling will represent a notable change to patent practice with far-reaching effects for U.S. innovators of all stripes including, independent innovators, corporate innovators, and universities.This FedSoc forum will use the Sonos v. Google and other laches cases as needed to explore the conflict between prosecution laches and current continuation practice and much more.Featuring:Joseph Matal, Principal, Clear IP, LLCPaul Michel, Former Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitGene Quinn, President & CEO, IPWatchdog, Inc.Moderator: Jeffrey Depp, Policy Consultant, Center for Strategic and International Studies--To register, click the link above.

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Kennedy v. Braidwood Management (April 21) - Appointments Clause; Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary’s supervision.Parrish v. United States (April 21) - Federal Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the ordinary appeal period under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a)-(b) expires must file a second, duplicative notice after the appeal period is reopened under subsection (c) of the statute and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4.Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch (April 22) - Taxes; Issue(s): Whether a proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 for a pre-deprivation determination about a levy proposed by the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes becomes moot when there is no longer a live dispute over the proposed levy that gave rise to the proceeding.Mahmoud v. Taylor (April 22) - Religious Liberties, Education Law, Parental Rights; Issue(s): Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. EPA (April 23) - Standing, Redressibility; Issue(s): (1) Whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties.Soto v. United States (April 28) - Financial Procedure; Issue(s): Given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s holding that a claim for compensation under 10 U.S.C. § 1413a is a claim “involving … retired pay” under 31 U.S.C. § 3702(a)(1)(A), does 10 U.S.C. § 1413a provide a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act?A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279 (April 28) - ADA; Issue(s): Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education.Martin v. U.S. (April 29) - Supremacy Clause, Torts; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Constitution’s supremacy clause bars claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act when the negligent or wrongful acts of federal employees have some nexus with furthering federal policy and can reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law; and 2) whether the discretionary-function exception is categorically inapplicable to claims arising under the law enforcement proviso to the intentional torts exception.Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis (April 29) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond (April 30) Establishment Clause, Education Law, Federalism and Separation of Powers; Issue(s): (1) Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students; and (2) whether a state violates the First Amendment's free exercise clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state’s charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or instead a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the First Amendment's establishment clause requires. Featuring: Thomas A. Berry, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato InstituteProf. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolSarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending EducationTim Rosenberger, Fellow, Manhattan InstituteProf. Gregory Sisk, Pio Cardinal Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law, Professor and Co-director of the Terrence J. Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law, and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of LawFrancesca Ugolini, Former Chief, DOJ Tax Division, Appellate Section(Moderator) Elle Rogers, General Counsel, United States Senator Jim Banks

Prompted by the reintroduction of federal Litigation Transparency Act legislation, this panel will address a variety of issues raised by litigation funding with a special focus on patent litigation. Panelists will provide an overview of the Act and consider likely reactions from various constituencies, giving possible policy arguments for and against litigation funding disclosure. The panel will also consider constitutional and practical dimensions of funding disclosure, and the possible ethical issues raised by litigation funding. Featuring: Dean Kristen Osenga, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law Courtney Quish, Managing Director, Intellectual Property Finance Group at Fortress Investment Group Jonathan Stroud, General Counsel, Unified Patents Paul Taylor, Visiting Fellow, National Security Institute at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School Moderator: Kacie Donovan, Associate, Greenberg Traurig -- To register, click the link above.

The Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) reads, “The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The government may not dismiss the prosecution during trial without the defendant's consent.” This rule has recently been used by the Justice Department in cases like the Mayor Eric Adams case and January 6th cases. In both instances, judges have questioned the reasons for the dismissal and revealed unsolved conflict between permissive and restrictive views of the judge's role, both to explore executive decisions of the prosecution and whether to dismiss indictments with or without prejudice to their later renewal. This panel will discuss the rule and its recent uses, along with questions regarding the government’s motivation to dismiss such cases and just how far judicial review can and ought to go when approving the dismissals.Featuring:Prof. Paul Cassell, Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law and University Distinguished Professor of Law, The University of Utah College of LawAndrew McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National ReviewWilliam Shipley, Attorney, Law Offices of William L. Shipley & AssociatesModerator: Hon. John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding--To resgister, click the link above.

Bondi v. VanDerStok concerned whether the ATF's 2022 update to its regulations under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), which articulated that federal law requirements that apply to the manufacture and sale of standard firearms also apply to "ghost guns" --readily convertible weapons parts or receiver kits-- exceeds the mandate of the same. The ATF argued it simply clarified what had already been true in response to the notable rise in the use of ghost guns. The challengers, including two individual gun owners and a gun advocacy organization, alleged the updated regulations exceeded the statutory authority granted to the ATF and brought a facial challenge. The Court heard oral argument on October 8, 2024.On March 26, 2025, a 7-2 Court ruled the ATF's rule is not facially inconsistent with the GCA.Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program where we will break down and analyze this decision and what its potential effects might be.Featuring:Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage Foundation --Note: this program has been rescheduled from its original time on 04/10/25, and will now be hosted on 04/11/25 at 12pm ET.

A new project sponsored by a coalition of organizations seeks to track the various ways that federal and state programs discriminate against religious participants in a range of funding programs despite a series of Supreme Court cases holding such discriminatory treatment unconstitutional. The Religious Discrimination Tracker is a project of the EPIC Coalition (a multi-faith coalition that focuses on education), the Teach Coalition, the Notre Dame Religious Liberty Clinic, and the Notre Dame Educational Law Project. The site seeks to identify ways to ensure equal access to funding by religious participants, particularly in education. In this webinar, Professor Nicole Stelle Garnett (Notre Dame Law) will discuss this new project and expand on her argument in a November 2024 Wall Street Journal op-ed that a range of federal programs "reflect[] an outdated understanding of the First Amendment that assumes the Constitution requires the exclusion of religious expression from public life and programs."Featuring:Prof. Nicole Stelle Garnett, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law and Associate Dean for External Engagement, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Michael A. Helfand, Brenden Mann Foundation Chair in Law and Religion and Co-Director of the Nootbaar Institute for Law, Pepperdine Caruso School of Law(Moderator) Prof. Michael P. Moreland, University Professor of Law and Religion and Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law

High-profile politically adjacent actions (including prosecutions, pardons, & dismissals) from both the current and past administrations have inspired increasing concern over the potential weaponization of the U.S. Department of Justice. This concern has led to recent executive actions in this area --President Trump issued an Executive Order on the first day back in office on "Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government," and AG Bondi has created a task force aimed at "Restoring the Integrity and Credibility" of the DOJ. These actions prompt the question: has the DOJ actually been weaponized, and if so, in what ways? What is the role of the DOJ in the criminal justice process, and what responsibility does it have as a part of the executive branch to represent the will of the president? Have the actions of both the past administrations in bringing cases against political opponents, seeking to dismiss charges from potential allies, and shielding friends and family from potential prosecution been a mis-use of the Department of Justice, or appropriate uses of executive discretion? This panel will discuss these questions and more. Featuring: Brendan Ballou, Former Special Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division John F. Lauro, Principal, Lauro & Singer (Moderator) Stephen J. Demanovich, Special Counsel, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP -- This event is the second of four webinars centering on the theme Theories of Presidential Power, previewing the Thirteenth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference, which will be held on May 7, 2025. Please note: this event has been rescheduled from its original time on 04/16 and will now be hosted 04/21 at 11am ET.

Under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the FDA must approve new tobacco products. Wages and White Lion Investments (dba Trion Distribution) and Vapetasia manufacture and sell flavored nicotine-containing liquids for use in refillable e-cigarette systems. They applied for FDA approval in 2020; about ten months later, the FDA announced new requirements for approval and, based on those requirements, denied the applications citing the deficiency. The manufacturers challenged the denial and the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, found the FDA's actions were arbitrary and capricious. SCOTUS heard oral argument on Monday, December 2, 2024. On April 2, 2025, the Court issued a decision vacating the Fifth Circuit in a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Alito. Justice Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion. Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision panel discussion, where a group of experts will discuss this important case and its potential effects not just for regulated parties but in the broader administrative law space. Featuring: Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School Prof. Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School (Moderator) Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP

President Trump’s February 18 “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies” Executive Order directs independent regulatory agencies to submit for review all proposed and final significant regulatory actions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President. This joint webinar, sponsored by the Administrative Law and the Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Groups, will discuss the real-world implications of this order for independent agencies, including the Federal Communications Committee and the Federal Trade Commission.Featuring:J. Howard Beales, III, Professor Emeritus of Strategic Management and Public Policy, School of Business, The George Washington UniversityHon. Susan E. Dudley, Founder, GW Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, The George Washington UniversityThomas M. Johnson, Jr. Partner, Wiley Rein LLPProf. Adam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Co-Director, Antonin Scalia Law School’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative StateModerator: Svetlana Gans, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher--To register, click the link above.

On March 25th, 2025, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument to resolve two circuit splits arising under the Clean Air Act (CAA) provision regarding judicial venue: EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C. (23-1229), and Oklahoma v. EPA (23-1067). The outcome of these cases will hinge on the Court’s interpretation of the CAA’s unique venue provision, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). The CAA states that challenges to “nationally applicable” actions may be filed only in the D.C. Circuit. 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). Conversely, challenges to CAA actions that are “locally or regionally applicable” may generally be filed only in the appropriate circuit court for the region. Id. But there is an exception: actions that are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect” must be filed in the D.C. Circuit “if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.” Id.What is the meaning and scope of this exception? How far may EPA go in picking where to litigate its final actions? And what does this mean for denials of State Implementation Plans (SIPs), small oil refineries seeking Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) exemptions, and other EPA actions affecting the regulated community? Tune in as Jimmy Conde and Garrett Kral offer their initial impressions following oral argument.Featuring:James Conde, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLCModerator: Garrett Kral, Administrative and Environmental Law Attorney To register, click the link above.

How California’s state and local governments act in the wake of the devastating wildfires will be a harbinger of whether America can deal with its housing issues. California’s housing crisis was dire before the Southern California wildfires were sparked. As Jim Burling has recounted in his new book, Nowhere to Live, half of the nation’s homeless population lives in California. And between 2020 and 2023, California’s homeless population increased by 5.8 percent.Some argue that this housing crisis has only been exacerbated by errant government policies like exclusionary zoning and restrictive permitting conditions because these stifle the production of affordable housing. Others contend, however, that these restrictions are necessary not only to promote the orderly development of California’s land, but also to help prevent and avoid destruction done by wildfires and other natural disasters.Now, after so much property has been razed to the ground, how are California’s state and local governments addressing the needs of displaced landowners? What effect will Gov. Newsom’s emergency orders suspending the California Coastal Act’s requirements have on rebuilding? Will the California Coastal Commission comply with the Governor’s directives and how will it respond to rebuilding efforts? What implications will California’s response to the fires have on housing going forward?Join a panel of expert scholars, Jennifer Hernandez, Ilya Somin, and Nolan Gray, who will address these questions and much more.Speakers:Nolan Gray, Senior Director of Legislation and Research, California YIMBY Jennifer Hernandez, Partner, Holland & KnightProf. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityModerator: Stephen Davis, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is authorized by Congress to regulate interstate and international communications and, as part of that, to maintain a universal service fund that requires telecommunications carriers to contribute quarterly based on their revenues. In order to calculate these contribution amounts, the FCC contracts the help of the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC).The constitutionality of these delegations of power—to the FCC by Congress and to USAC by the FCC—are now being challenged in court by Consumers’ Research. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case’s oral argument, delivered on March 26, 2025.Featuring:Prof. Chad Squitieri, Assistant Professor of Law, Catholic University of AmericaModerator: Adam Griffin, Separation of Powers Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation--To register, click the link above.

In July of 2018, Governor Henry McMaster of South Carolina issued an executive order to terminate the inclusion of Planned Parenthood in the Medicaid program. The Department of Health and Human Services then informed Planned Parenthood that they were no longer qualified to provide services to Medicaid beneficiaries, which prompted lawsuits both from Planned Parenthood and beneficiaries seeking to enforce their right to “free-choice-of-provider,” included in a 1967 Medicaid provision. This case, argued on April 2, asks whether this provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider. Join this Courthouse Steps webinar as we discuss this case and the oral arguments presented in court.Featuring:Eric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney GeneralModerator: Ryan Bangert, Senior Vice President, Strategic Initiatives & Special Counsel to the President, Alliance Defending Freedom--To register, click the link above.

How much control can public schools exercise over the speech of their students and staff on divisive issues such as anti-racism and using preferred pronouns? Two en banc cases out of the Sixth Circuit and Eighth Circuit are poised to answer that question soon. In Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District, the Eighth Circuit will decide whether a school district’s “equity training” violated the First Amendment by requiring employees to give the school’s preferred answer to questions about ideologically charged issues such as anti-racism and white privilege. The panel held that the plaintiffs lack standing because the district never punished or threatened to punish anyone for remaining silent or expressing dissenting views. The Eighth Circuit granted rehearing en banc and heard argument on January 15, 2025. In Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, the Sixth Circuit will decide whether a school district’s anti-harassment policies violate the First Amendment when it prohibits students from using biological pronouns to refer to someone who prefers otherwise. Answering that question requires the court to tackle thorny issues about the evidence required to justify a speech regulation under Tinker and whether Tinker allows schools to engage in viewpoint discrimination. The panel rejected the plaintiffs’ claims on the merits, and the Sixth Circuit reheard the case en banc on March 19, 2025.Featuring:Brett Nolan, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech(Moderator) Edward D. Greim, Partner, Graves Garrett Greim LLC

On March 31, 2025, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission.Wisconsin’s unemployment insurance program provides financial assistance to those who have lost their job through no fault of their own. Under state law, certain nonprofit organizations can opt out of the program, including those operated primarily for religious purposes. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Superior—a religious ministry that serves people with disabilities, the elderly, and the impoverished—requested an exemption from the state’s program so that it could enroll in the Wisconsin Bishops’ Church Unemployment Pay Program (CUPP), which provides the same level of unemployment benefits.Last year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Catholic Charities could not receive an exemption because its charitable work was not “typical” religious activity. The court said that Catholic Charities could only qualify for an exemption if, for example, it limited its hiring to Catholics and tried to convert those it served. Catholic Charities appealed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari in December 2024.Does a state violate the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state’s criteria for religious behavior?Featuring: Eric Rassbach, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberties(Moderator) Hon. Ryan D. Nelson, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Louisiana's congressional districts, which it redrew following the 2020 census, currently sit in a state of legal uncertainty.The map initially only had one majority-black district. However, following a 2022 case called Robinson v. Ardoin (later Laundry), which held that it violated section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, Louisiana re-drew the map to include two majority-black congressional districts.In January 2024, a different set of plaintiffs sued alleging the new map violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. A 2-1 panel agreed the new map violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and enjoined the new map. Given the timing, the case briefly went up to the Supreme Court which granted an emergency application for stay, citing Purcell v. Gonzalez. That allowed the 2022 map to be used for the 2024 elections.Now the case is before the Supreme Court again, this time with a range of issues for the court to address including: (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature’s enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.Join us for a post-oral argument Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring:Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School

Delligatti v. United States concerned whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.Known by some as the "non-violent murder case" Delligatti ties into a larger conversation on the way "violent"/"use-of-force" crimes are defined categorically rather than on a solely case-by-case basis.Oral argument was heard by the Supreme Court in early November 2024, and on March 21, 2025, a 7-2 Court affirmed the ruling of the Second Circuit below against Delligatti.Join us for a discussion of this decision and its possible ramifications.Featuring:Matthew P. Cavedon, Robert Pool Fellow in Law and Religion, Emory University School of Law

The First Amendment’s Religion Clauses guarantee religious entities the freedom to make certain internal governance decisions without State interference. Supreme Court cases like Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral (1952), Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich (1976), Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC (2012), and Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (2020) have affirmed that this constitutional protection bars civil courts from intruding into some religious matters involving faith, doctrine, and church governance. However, lower courts differ in some respects on how to understand and apply the “church autonomy doctrine.” The panel will explore the roots of the church autonomy doctrine, its recent applications, and its implications and trajectory.Featuring:Prof. Thomas C. Berg, James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of LawProf. Leslie C. Griffin, William S. Boyd Professor of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of LawAlex J. Luchenitser, Associate Vice President & Associate Legal Director, Americans United for Separation of Church and StateBranton J. Nestor, Associate, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP(Moderator) Amanda Salz, Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

After the U.S. Supreme Court in Morrison v. Olson (1988) and U.S. v. Lopez (1995) held two federal statutes were unconstitutional as those statutes were beyond the power of Congress to enact, some claimed it was the dawn of a new federalism revolution. However, such challenges to federal power did not seem to continue.Now, a new case McNutt v. DOJ, once again directly challenges whether a federal statute is beyond Congress’s power to enact. This time, the challenge is to the federal ban on at-home distilling. This case raises substantial issues concerning the scope of Congress’s power and how much decision-making authority the Constitution left for states to decide.This FedSoc Forum will provide an update on what has occurred so far and discuss the important issues raised by this case.Featuring:Thomas Berry, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato InstituteMichael Pepson, Regulatory Counsel, Americans for Prosperity FoundationEric J. Segall, Ashe Family Chair Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of LawModerator: Theodore Cooperstein, Appellate Counsel, Theodore Cooperstein PLLC--To register, click the link above.

On his first day back in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14154 (Unleashing American Energy). Among numerous other objectives, this broad Executive Order directs the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to “expedite and simplify the permitting process” by providing guidance on the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and rescinding CEQ’s NEPA regulations.Less than four weeks later, CEQ issued a Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies on how to conform their NEPA practices to the President’s Executive Order and other factors. Less than a week after that, CEQ published an interim final rule removing its NEPA regulations. Among the potential intended impacts of these actions is more expeditious federal government reviews of environmental permits. Even before these Executive Actions, courts had expressed concern over CEQ’s NEPA regulations. In November 2024, the D.C. Circuit held the CEQ regulations to be ultra vires. Marin Audubon v. FAA, 121 F.4th 902 (D.C. Cir. 2024)). In February 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota followed suit. Iowa v CEQ, No. 1:24-cv-00089-DMT-CRH, 2025 WL 598928 (D.N.D. Feb. 3, 2025).Join attorneys Mario Loyola and Ted Boling as they discuss these important developments in environmental law.Featuring:Ted Boling, Partner, Perkins Coie LLPMario Loyola, Senior Research Fellow, Environmental Policy and Regulation, Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment, The Heritage Foundation(Moderator) Garrett Kral, Administrative and Environmental Law Attorney

The Communications Act of 1934 requires that licensees operate consistent with the “public interest convenience and necessity.” Broadcast licenses, held by broadcast TV and radio stations as trustees of the public’s airwaves, must use the broadcast medium to serve the public interest and their local communities. In recent years, concerns have been raised about how broadcasters are fulfilling these obligations, particularly regarding the nature of their news programming. Complaints have been filed at the FCC against all of the major broadcast networks raising concerns about the quality and reliability of their coverage. Our panel will examine these issues, the role of government in policing broadcasters and the First Amendment protections afforded to broadcasters’ speech. Featuring: Bob Corn-Revere, Chief Counsel, FIREDavid Gibber, Executive Vice President/Chief Legal Officer, Sinclair Broadcast GroupDaniel Suhr, President, Center for American RightsModerator: Patricia J. Paoletta, Partner, HWG LLP

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Louisiana v. Callais (March 24) - Election law, Civil Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature’s enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.Riley v. Bondi (March 24) - Immigration; Issue(s): (1) Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)'s 30-day deadline is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims-processing rule that can be waived or forfeited; and (2) whether a person can obtain review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in a withholding-only proceeding by filing a petition within 30 days of that decision.Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining (March 25) - Jurisdiction, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether venue for challenges by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standard program lies exclusively in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency’s denial actions are “nationally applicable” or, alternatively, are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect.”Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency (March 25) - Jurisdiction, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether a final action by the Environmental Protection Agency taken pursuant to its Clean Air Act authority with respect to a single state or region may be challenged only in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency published the action in the same Federal Register notice as actions affecting other states or regions and claimed to use a consistent analysis for all states.Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research (March 26) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): (1) Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to determine, within the limits set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 254, the amount that providers must contribute to the Universal Service Fund; (2) whether the FCC violated the nondelegation doctrine by using the financial projections of the private company appointed as the fund's administrator in computing universal service contribution rates; (3) whether the combination of Congress’s conferral of authority on the FCC and the FCC’s delegation of administrative responsibilities to the administrator violates the nondelegation doctrine; and (4) whether this case is moot in light of the challengers' failure to seek preliminary relief before the 5th Circuit.Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission (March 31) - First Amendment, Religion; Issue(s): Whether a state violates the First Amendment’s religion clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state’s criteria for religious behavior.Rivers v. Guerrero (March 31) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) applies only to habeas filings made after a prisoner has exhausted appellate review of his first petition, to all second-in-time habeas filings after final judgment, or to some second-in-time filings — depending on a prisoner’s success on appeal or ability to satisfy a seven-factor test.Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization (April 1) - Due Process, Fifth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (April 2) - Medicare; Issue(s): Whether the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider. Featuring:Allison Daniel, Attorney, Pacific Legal FoundationErielle Davidson, Associate, Holtzman VogelJennifer B. Dickey, Deputy Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, U.S. Chamber of CommerceElizabeth A. Kiernan, Associate Attorney, Gibson, Dunn & CrutcherMorgan Ratner, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP(Moderator) Sarah Welch, Issues & Appeals Associate, Jones Day

In February 2025, the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion in United States v. Peterson, ruling that suppressors were not "firearms" and thus not subject to Second Amendment protection.George Peterson was the proprietor of PDW Solutions, LLC, a firearm business that he operated in part out of his home. In summer of 2022, as part of an ongoing Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) investigation, a search warrant was executed at his home. Among the items discovered was an unregistered suppressor. Peterson was indicted for possession of the unregistered suppressor under the National Firearms Act (NFA). He filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the NFA's registration framework violated the Second Amendment and that the search by the ATF violated the Fourth Amendment so the evidence obtained thereby should be suppressed.The district court in the Eastern District of Louisiana denied both motions. Peterson appealed and the Fifth Circuit heard argument on December 4, 2024. On February 6, 2025, it issued a decision affirming the lower courts denial.Join us as we discuss this interesting case and its potential impact in the realm of firearms regulation.Featuring:Michael Williams, General Counsel, American Suppressor Association(Moderator) Robert K. McBride, Partner, Taft Stettinius & Hollister

Devas v. Antrix considers whether foreign governments are protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause in the context of international arbitrations. The Ninth Circuit held that Antrix, an Indian government-owned corporation, lacked sufficient “minimum contacts” to meet the Due Process Clause and therefore dismissed attempts by petitioner Devas to enforce an arbitration award from India. Devas, supported by the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and leading scholars of international arbitration, is asking the Court to reverse arguing that U.S. courts need not consider due process protections for foreign states, and are authorized under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to enforce such awards even without a nexus to the United States.While there are strong originalist and textualist arguments in favor of granting foreign states constitutional due process protections, the Court’s decision to grant such protections could undercut U.S. treaty obligations to enforce foreign arbitral awards and the broader international system for commercial arbitration. It could also affect other litigation against foreign states in U.S. courts, including lawsuits seeking to recover for state-sponsored terrorist attacks. This panel will debate these questions and offer explanations of the ruling’s possible impacts.