Teleforum

This week, the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a Texas law requiring public schools to display a copy of the Ten Commandments in classrooms does not violate the First Amendment's Establishment or Free Exercise Clauses. The court explained that Stone v. Graham, which relied upon the now-defunct Lemon test to invalidate a similar Kentucky law decades ago, is no longer controlling. In the place of Lemon and its progeny, the en banc court explained, courts must ask whether a challenged law resembles a founding-era religious establishment. The court also held the challengers here failed to show the law substantially burdened their free exercise. Join us for a litigation update breaking down this ruling and what it may hold for Establishment and Free Exercise cases in the future. Featuring: Prof. Stephanie Barclay, Professor of Law and Faculty Director for the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, Georgetown University Law Center Prof. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law (Moderator) Joe Davis, Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

The First Amendment’s church autonomy doctrine sets a structural constitutional barrier keeping the State from interfering in certain matters of a church. While the doctrine’s roots go deeper than even the nation’s Founding, how exactly it protects churches has recently and sharply divided courts. Some courts say it provides broad protections for matters falling within its scope—barring not only liability for removing a wayward minister, but also entangling and distracting litigation into the merits of that minister’s claims. But other courts—over a chorus of dissenting colleagues—have narrowed church autonomy to barring liability only. This has many important implications, including whether there can be a right of appeal when trial courts deny church autonomy defenses and send cases to entangling merits adjudication. The Supreme Court has been asked to clarify the contours of this doctrine in a case stemming from a class action lawsuit against the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that challenges how the Catholic Church has described and used Peter's Pence, an offering that has been given to the Pope for over 1,000 years. Join us as a panel of experts explore the future of the church autonomy doctrine and what may unfold if the Supreme Court takes up the pending case concerning Peter's Pence. Featuring:Branton Nestor, Associate Attorney, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPProf. Lael Weinberger, Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University(Moderator) Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law and Faculty Director, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School

Originalism has quickly become the leading approach to interpreting the U.S. Constitution, drawing from the work of Justice Antonin Scalia and others over the past three decades. But what place does originalism have in the states? State constitutions often contain unique provisions that have no federal analogue. Take Alaska's unique constitutional provision empowering grand juries to investigate matters of public welfare and safety and to issue reports. This power falls outside the traditional role grand juries play and raises interesting questions. Recent scholarship published by the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy explores the text, history, and tradition behind this provision, offering a window into how originalism might operate differently at the state level. What lessons can be drawn about the similarities between originalist interpretation of state constitutions and the federal constitution? Does originalism look different from state to state and between state and federal governments? How might judges and scholars take up the originalist mantle and shed light on other underexplored state constitutional provisions? Join our panel of experts as they explore how originalism is playing out in the states. Featuring:Dr. Nicholas Cole, Senior Research Fellow, Pembroke College, University of Oxford; Director, the Quill ProjectHon. Stephen Cox, Attorney General, AlaskaProf. Richard Garnett, Paul J. Schierl Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolSavannah Shoffner, J.D. Candidate, Notre Dame Law School(Moderator) Hon. John D. Couriel, Justice, Florida Supreme Court(Introducer) Sean-Michael Pigeon, Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy

With the growth of the administrative state over the last half-century, an equal expansion has occurred in the number of actions committable by individual citizens that can be prosecuted as crimes. At President Trump’s direction, the U.S. Department of Justice has initiated a new round of reforms aimed at ending “over-criminalization” of the Nation’s complex web of regulatory laws and standards. Most recently, DOJ announced that it was exercising enforcement discretion to dismiss several Biden-era prosecutions of individuals charged with violating the Clean Air Act who were alleged to have tampered with emissions-related diagnostic systems on cars and trucks. Supporters of the Biden-era policies and critics of this new policy argue that such emissions control deliver considerable benefits to the owner in the form of better fuel efficiency, and to society, in the form of cleaner air, and that this is a step backwards in environmental enforcement. This panel will discuss DOJ’s traditional approaches to criminal enforcement of administrative laws and regulations and offer viewpoints on recent reforms and changes to criminal enforcement in the current administration. Discussion will focus, in particular, on the DOJ’s decision to end criminal prosecutions of individuals for vehicle tampering cases under the Clean Air Act.Featuring:Granta Nakayama, Partner, King & Spalding LLPJustin Savage, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP(Moderator) John Irving, Partner, Secil Law

America has historically led the way in intangible property rights. We were the first country to recognize copyright and patents in our constitution and became the first to recognize trade secrets as protectable assets in 1868. Property rules assume that the rights-holder has superior knowledge about how to use the property— when to share, when to exclude, and when to sell—and would do so without causing significant problems for others. Some see IP as a barrier to the free dissemination of ideas, art and inventions. Others argue that IP rights ensure control and appropriate returns for creators while unleashing an economic and creative engine that delivers trillions of dollars in value, high-quality jobs, life-saving medicines, and breathtaking works of beauty and ingenuity that wouldn’t otherwise exist.As modern debates swirl around everything from whether using copyrighted works to train generative AI should count as ‘fair use’, to whether medical diagnostic methods, business models and other abstract ideas should be patentable as they are overseas, to whether we should adopt European-style rules that treat privacy and data as a quasi-proprietary right or extend “rights of publicity” in the era of AI, this gathering of astute legal minds will return to first principles to explore a deceptively simple-sounding question: when should we recognize something as a property right? Join us for a deep dive into history, philosophy, and economics to understand some of the legal and policy dilemmas of our time, and whether and when expanding property rights is the answer.Featuring:Alden F. Abbott, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University; Former General Counsel at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)Prof. Jane Bambauer, Professor of Law and Journalism, University of FloridaJeffrey E. Depp, Senior Counsel for Law and Policy, Committee for Justice(Moderator) Satya Marar, Postgraduate Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University

America has historically led the way in intangible property rights. We were the first country to recognize copyright and patents in our constitution and became the first to recognize trade secrets as protectable assets in 1868. Property rules assume that the rights-holder has superior knowledge about how to use the property— when to share, when to exclude, and when to sell—and would do so without causing significant problems for others. Some see IP as a barrier to the free dissemination of ideas, art and inventions. Others argue that IP rights ensure control and appropriate returns for creators while unleashing an economic and creative engine that delivers trillions of dollars in value, high-quality jobs, life-saving medicines, and breathtaking works of beauty and ingenuity that wouldn’t otherwise exist.As modern debates swirl around everything from whether using copyrighted works to train generative AI should count as ‘fair use’, to whether medical diagnostic methods, business models and other abstract ideas should be patentable as they are overseas, to whether we should adopt European-style rules that treat privacy and data as a quasi-proprietary right or extend “rights of publicity” in the era of AI, this gathering of astute legal minds will return to first principles to explore a deceptively simple-sounding question: when should we recognize something as a property right? Join us for a deep dive into history, philosophy, and economics to understand some of the legal and policy dilemmas of our time, and whether and when expanding property rights is the answer.Featuring:Alden F. Abbott, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University; Former General Counsel at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)Prof. Jane Bambauer, Professor of Law and Journalism, University of FloridaJeffrey E. Depp, Senior Counsel for Law and Policy, Committee for Justice(Moderator) Satya Marar, Postgraduate Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University

The Trump Administration has been exploring new ways to tighten requirements for direct-to-consumer advertisements for prescription drugs. In its recent budget proposal, the Food and Drug Administration is asking Congress for new powers to deem drugs misbranded if they lack "fair balance" or create a "misleading impression" about a drug's approved uses or efficacy. In recent months, FDA has sent letters to Novo Nordisk, Argenx, and Sobi concerning ads it termed false or misleading. While some argue that banning drug ads on TV and online will lower drug prices and address overprescription, critics point out these increased efforts may violate the First Amendment's protection of commercial speech. The Supreme Court held in 1976 that prescription drug advertisements are protected by the Constitution and it reaffirmed this principle again in 2011, underscoring that the government may not ban truthful, non-misleading ads. Is the FDA trying to regulate away ads that it can't outright ban? How do these efforts implicate patients and their access to healthcare information? Join a panel of experts as they explore the constitutional and policy questions raised by the FDA's crack down on direct-to-consumer drug ads. Featuring:Paul Avelar, Senior Attorney, Institute for JusticeJeff Stier, Policy Advisor, Heartland Institute(Moderator) Dan Troy, Managing Director, Berkeley Research Group

In First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, the New Jersey Attorney General, Matthew Platkin, issued a subpoena to a faith-based, pro-life, nonprofit, requiring that it turn over years of sensitive information, including the names and contact information of its donors. First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, which provides free medical services and is funded by private donations, refused to comply with the demand for donor information, alleging that the subpoena chilled its rights of association and speech.After federal courts dismissed the case as “unripe” and directed it to state court, the Third Circuit affirmed. On April 29, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding that First Choice had demonstrated a present injury sufficient to establish Article III standing based on its First Amendment claims.Join us to discuss the ruling and its implications for donor privacy and constitutional protections.Featuring: Prof. Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of LawCasey Mattox, Vice President for Legal Strategy, Stand Together

In Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana's congressional map, holding that the state had unconstitutionally relied on race in drawing district lines. The state's first map following the 2020 census contained one majority-black district, but the state redrew the map after a district court suggested that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act required the state to create two majority-black districts.The redrawn map was itself challenged, however, as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 6 - 3 decision ruling striking down the map. Louisiana had defended the map by arguing that it was required to consider race in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act, but the Court held that the VRA did not in fact require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district. Accordingly, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating the congressional map. Join us for a discussion of the decision and its implications going forward. Featuring:Bradley A. Benbrook, Founding Partner, Benbrook Law GroupProf. Michael R. Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School

In this Federalist Society America250 series, experts analyze modern legal and policy debates through the lens of the Founding generation. The Founders gave us the tools to answer many contemporary questions; join us as we explore those answers.During the constitutional convention, Alexander Hamilton raised the idea of a presidential pardon power, borrowing from the British monarchy’s prerogative of mercy. Hamilton’s proposal ultimately resulted in Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the president the authority to pardon individuals convicted of a federal crime.The first presidential pardon was exercised by George Washington in 1795, when he granted amnesty to individuals who participated in Pennsylvania’s Whiskey Rebellion. Since then, there have been more than 14,000 instances of presidential pardons. From Andrew Johnson’s pardon of Jefferson Davis to Gerald Ford’s preemptive pardon of Richard Nixon to more recent instances including Joe Biden’s preemptive pardon of Hunter Biden and Donald Trump’s January 6th pardons, presidents’ use – and sometimes purported abuse – of the power has been a controversial and fiercely debated executive authority throughout our nation’s history.Join our panel of experts as they explore the Founders’ views of the pardon power and place recent use in context with the founding generation. Featuring:Paul J. Larkin, Senior Legal Fellow, Advancing American FreedomAndrew McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National Review Institute; Contributing Editor, National ReviewJames Trusty, Member, Ifrah Law(Moderator) Jeffrey DeSousa, Florida Office of the Attorney General

What happens when confidential Supreme Court deliberations make their way into the press—most recently through a New York Times report based on leaked internal “shadow docket” materials? Join the Federalist Society for a timely briefing examining the Times’ reporting on internal Court memos and emergency docket decision-making, and what such leaks mean for judicial independence, institutional norms, and public trust in the Court. Featuring: Carrie Campbell Severino, President, JCN Prof. Stephanie Barclay, Professor of Law and Faculty Co-Director for the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, Georgetown University Law Center (Moderator) Annie Donaldson Talley, Partner, Luther Strange & Associates

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.Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission, (April 20) - Corporations & Securities; Issue(s): Whether the SEC may seek equitable disgorgement under 15 U.S.C. 78u(d)(5) and (d)(7) without showing investors suffered pecuniary harm.T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp., (April 20) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, Standing; Issue(s): Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents parties who lose in state courts from challenging injuries caused by state-court judgments, can be triggered by a state-court decision that remains subject to further review in state court.Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc.,(April 21) - Communications & Technology; Issue(s): Whether the Communications Act of 1934 provisions that govern the Federal Communications Commission’s assessment and enforcement of monetary forfeitures are consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Article III.Bondi v. Lau, (April 22) - Immigration Law; Issue(s): Whether, to remove a lawful permanent resident who committed an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) and was subsequently paroled into the United States, the government must prove that it possessed clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of the lawful permanent resident's last reentry into the United States.Chatrie v. United States, (April 27) - Criminal Law; Issue(s): Whether the execution of a geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.Monsanto Company v. Durnell, (April 27) - Energy & Environmental Law; Issue(s): Whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning.Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I, (April 28) - International Law & Human Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Alien Tort Statute allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting; and (2) whether the Torture Victim Protection Act allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting.Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., (April 29) - Patent Law / Intellectual Property Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether, when a generic drug label fully carves out a patented use, allegations that the generic drugmaker calls its product a “generic version” and cites public information about the branded drug (e.g., sales) are enough to plead induced infringement of the patented use; and (2) whether a complaint states a claim for induced infringement of a patented method if it does not allege any instruction or other statement by the defendant that encourages, or even mentions, the patented use.Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot, (April 29) - Immigration Law; Issue(s): Whether the Trump administration can end the Temporary Protected Status program for Syrian and Haitian nationals.

Foreign influence operations have become increasingly important in geopolitical competition and American national security. China is among the most active would-be influencers, with efforts to infiltrate decision-making in federal, state, and local governments, corporate America, Silicon Valley and Wall Street, within cultural and educational institutions, and most importantly, within the minds of Americans. A House Oversight Committee government-wide investigation showed that Chinese Communist Party influence operations even extended into federal agencies and the intelligence community — to the very people responsible for safeguarding American interests. Israel has been another key target in recent years. Especially after 10/7, there has been an explosion of bias and misinformation, with foreign influencers stoking antisemitism in the U.S., especially among younger generations. Join us for a discussion that will explore the key actors behind these operations, their sources of funding, and their underlying motivations as well as the broader implications for U.S. national security. Featuring: Margaret Harker, Litigator and Former DOJ Attorney Park MacDougald, Writer and Editor, Tablet Magazine (Moderator) Vince Vitkowsky, Fellow, National Security Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

The GENIUS Act of 2025 was a watershed moment in the legal framework for stablecoins, but now implementing regulations are due in July, and many key questions are far from settled. How will the regulation will be carried out, how will systemic risks be addressed, how big a role will banks play in stablecoins, what role will stablecoins assume in the broader payment system, how will yield-bearing arrangements using stablecoins be treated, who will bear the regulatory costs? On March 31, 2026, the Federalist Society's Financial Services Practice Group will convene a panel of leading practitioners, regulators, and policy thinkers to examine these questions and the implementation landscape ahead. Featuring:Hon. Michael S. Barr, Member, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve SystemHon. Summer Mersinger, Chief Executive Officer, Blockchain AssociationAlex Pollock, Senior Fellow, Mises InstituteGreg Xethalis, General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer, Multicoin Capital (Moderator) Gary Kalbaugh, Partner, Cahill Gordon & Reindel

Chiles v. Salazar addressed whether a Colorado law prohibiting “conversion therapy” violates the First Amendment. The case arose from a challenge to a Colorado law that limited what licensed therapists could say about gender and sexuality when counseling gay and transgender clients. Kaley Chiles, a professional counselor, argued that the law infringed her First Amendment right to free speech. On March 31, the Supreme Court issued an 8-1 decision in Chiles’s favor, holding that the law, as applied to her talk therapy, amounts to viewpoint-based regulation of speech. The Court also found that the lower courts failed to apply the rigorous level of scrutiny required by the First Amendment. Join us for a discussion on this decision and its implications for the future. Featuring: Paul Avelar, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice Prof. Stephanie Barclay, Professor of Law and Faculty Co-Director for the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, Georgetown University Law Center (Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal Strategy, Stand Together; Senior Advisor, Americans for Prosperity

In March 2025, the U.S. Department of Education began investigating dozens of colleges - including Harvard and Columbia - for possible violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act for their alleged failure to protect Jewish students from harassment and discrimination on campus. The administration threatened to withhold federal funding and many colleges struck deals to preserve their funding. Critics charged the administration with heavy-handed enforcement tactics that burdened academic freedom and free speech on campus. Join our panel of experts as they explore how these enforcement efforts have played out after one year and what we may expect in the future. Featuring: Prof. David D. Cole, Hon. George J. Mitchell Professor in Law and Public Policy, Georgetown Law SchoolErik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLPDr. Chris Schorr, Director of the Higher Education Reform Initiative, America First Policy InstituteIlya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute(Moderator) Andrew Grossman, Partner, BakerHostetler LLP

Nearly two centuries after President James Monroe announced a landmark foreign-policy principle in his 1823 address to Congress, the Monroe Doctrine continues to resonate and prompt debate in U.S. strategic thinking toward Latin America. Originally articulated to warn European powers against new colonial ventures in the Western Hemisphere and to assert a sphere of influence rooted in American security interests, the Doctrine helped define the United States’ role in the hemisphere throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Over time, it has been extended, reinterpreted, and invoked in a series of diplomatic and military contexts — from the Venezuelan boundary dispute under President Grover Cleveland to various interventions throughout Central America and the Caribbean. Recently, the Monroe Doctrine has reemerged at the center of discussion following U.S. operations in Venezuela earlier this year and more recently in Ecuador. Conversations debating whether these actions signal a return to an assertive interpretation of the Doctrine are taking place with questions about what implications this holds for the nature of U.S. power in the Americas. Featuring:Prof. John C. Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law and Class of 1941 Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. John C. Yoo, Emanuel Heller Professor of Law and Faculty Director, Public Law & Policy Program, University of California at Berkeley(Moderator) Prof. Jeremy Rabkin, Professor Emeritus of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

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.Watson v. Republican National Committee, (March 23) - Election Law; Issue(s): Whether the federal election-day statutes, 2 U.S.C. § 7, 2 U.S.C. § 1, and 3 U.S.C. § 1, preempt a state law that allows ballots that are cast by federal election day to be received by election officials after that day.Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc., (March 24) - Labor and Employment Law; Issue(s): Whether the doctrine of judicial estoppel can be invoked to bar a plaintiff who fails to disclose a civil claim in bankruptcy filings from pursuing that claim simply because there is a potential motive for nondisclosure, regardless of whether there is evidence that the plaintiff in fact acted in bad faith.Noem v. Al Otro Lado, (March 24) - Immigration Law; Issue(s): Whether an alien who is stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.–Mexico border “arrives in the United States” within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., which provides that an alien who “arrives in the United States” may apply for asylum and must be inspected by an immigration officer.Flower Foods, Inc. v. Brock, (March 25) - Labor and Employment Law; Issue(s): Whether workers who deliver locally goods that travel in interstate commerce — but who do not transport the goods across borders nor interact with vehicles that cross borders — are “transportation workers” “engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” for purposes of the exemption in Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act.Abouammo v. United States, (March 30) - Proper Venue, Criminal Law; Issue(s): Whether venue is proper in a district where no offense conduct took place, so long as the statute’s intent element “contemplates” effects that could occur there.Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, (March 30) - Jurisdiction; Issue(s): Whether a federal court that initially exercises jurisdiction and stays a case pending arbitration maintains jurisdiction over a post-arbitration Section 9 or 10 application where jurisdiction would otherwise be lacking.Pitchford v. Cain, (March 31) - Criminal Appellate Litigation; Issue(s): Whether, under the standards set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably determined that petitioner waived his right to rebut the prosecutor's asserted race-neutral reasons for exercising peremptory strikes against four black jurors.Trump v. Barbara, (April 1) - Birthright Citizenship, Fourteenth Amendment; Whether Executive Order No. 14,160 complies on its face with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment and with 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), which codifies that clause.Featuring:Lisa L. Dixon, Executive Director, Center for Election ConfidenceHon. Mike Hurst, Partner, Phelps Dunbar LLPZac Morgan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal FoundationEric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney General(Moderator) Oliver Dunford, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

Is the FACE Act being enforced as Congress originally intended or has its selected application raised serious concerns about fairness, constitutional limits, and the protection of pro-life Americans?The FACE Act has returned to the national spotlight following charges against former CNN anchor Don Lemon for interfering with the religious exercise of worshippers at a Minnesota church last month. Enacted in 1994, the law was intended to protect access to both reproductive health facilities and houses of worship by imposing criminal and civil penalties on those who intimidate, injure, or obstruct individuals seeking to enter them.In recent years, however, questions have been raised about whether the statute has been enforced evenhandedly. The law has been used repeatedly to prosecute pro-life activists, while many pro-life pregnancy resource centers and churches that have faced vandalism, threats, and even firebombings have seen comparatively limited federal response. These concerns have fueled growing calls in Congress to repeal or reform the statute.Join us for a timely discussion as a panel of experts examines the FACE Act’s statutory framework, its recent enforcement, and the constitutional and policy questions surrounding its future.Featuring:Matthew Cavedon, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato InstituteJeremy Dys, Senior Counsel, First LibertyErin Hawley, Supreme Court & Appellate Litigation Chair, Lex Politica; Of Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President, Legal Strategy, Stand Together; Vice President, Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity

In Suncor Energy, Inc., v. Commissioners of Boulder County, the Supreme Court will consider whether state courts may use tort law to impose what amounts to a nationwide climate regulatory regime—despite Congress’s central role in addressing interstate and international emissions.Colorado local governments sued several energy companies in state court, asserting nuisance, trespass, consumer protection, and conspiracy claims for harms allegedly caused by global greenhouse-gas emissions. Although framed as state-law tort actions, the lawsuits seek damages and remedies tied to worldwide energy production and cross-border emissions—issues that are inherently national and international in scope.The energy companies argue that these claims are displaced by federal law because they attempt to regulate interstate and international pollution, an area requiring uniform federal rules. Allowing 50 different state courts to impose varying standards for global emissions, they contend, would undermine constitutional structure, interfere with federal authority, and invite judicial policymaking on questions committed to Congress and the political branches.The Colorado Supreme Court rejected those arguments, permitting the case to proceed in state court. The U.S. Supreme Court has now granted review and added an important threshold question: whether it even has jurisdiction to hear the case at this interlocutory stage—raising additional concerns about the proper limits of judicial power under Article III.This webinar will examine whether state-law climate tort suits represent a legitimate exercise of state authority or an attempt to achieve sweeping national policy changes through strategic litigation rather than the democratic process. What does constitutional structure require when global environmental regulation collides with state common law? And what are the consequences for federalism if courts become venues for resolving inherently national policy disputes?Join us for a discussion of the constitutional stakes and what this case may mean for the future of climate litigation nationwide. Featuring:Jonathan Adler, Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law and William H. Cabell Research Professor, William & Mary Law School; Senior Fellow, Property and Environment Research CenterO.H. Skinner, Executive Director, Alliance For ConsumersMichael Williams, Solicitor General, West Virginia(Moderator) Annie Donaldson Talley, Partner, Luther Strange & Associates

On March 2, 2026, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in United States v. Hemani. This case explores whether a federal law that criminalizes possession of firearms by an individual who is an "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" violates the Second Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held this law unconstitutional as applied to most drug users, determining it could only be applied consistent with the Second Amendment to "those presently impaired." Hemani is the latest in a series of challenges the courts have confronted since the Supreme Court announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that laws burdening firearms possession must comport with our nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will recap and analyze the oral argument at the Supreme Court. Featuring:Prof. F. Lee Francis, Associate Professor, Widener Law CommonwealthMarc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime(Moderator) John Ohlendorf, Partner, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC

This week, investment fund manager The Vanguard Group committed to ending its ESG-driven investment initiatives, ceasing any efforts to influence portfolio companies’ business strategies toward carbon-emissions reductions, enhancing disclosure of its proxy voting activities, and producing records related to its participation in climate-related organizations. The multi-state suit, led by Texas, asserted that Vanguard and other investment managers engaged in a coordinated effort to drive up the price of coal and misrepresented the nature of their funds to investors. In this landmark settlement agreement, Vanguard has agreed to make the strongest passivity commitments in the industry and empower investors with proxy voting. What are the implications of this settlement for future federal and state action against coordinated ESG-driven market manipulation? Join us for a timely discussion as experts unpack the details of the Vanguard settlement. Featuring:Will Hild, Executive Director, Consumers' Research Brent Webster, First Assistant Attorney General of Texas (Moderator) Paul N. Watkins, Partner, Fusion Law

Modern life is increasingly dependent on the internet, but with dependence comes vulnerability. Popular websites enable fraud, disinformation, and harassment. Although anyone on the internet can be at risk, particular age demographics, including children and the elderly, are exposed to threats ranging from social media risks to online harassment to much worse. Federal efforts to legislate solutions have met with mixed success. State governments have begun to address these questions on their own terms, with some enacting age verification laws and others bringing lawsuits against internet companies. How then should we think about public safety in the present internet ecosystem, particularly for vulnerable populations like children and the elderly? Is legislation desirable or even possible? And what does the future hold? Join our panelists, all advocates on the front lines, as they discuss these issues. Featuring: India McKinney, Director of Federal Affairs, Electronic Frontier FoundationClare Morell, Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy CenterSpence Purnell, Resident Senior Fellow, Technology and Innovation, R Street InstituteBrandon J. Smith, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC(Moderator) Prof. Paul G. Cassell, Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law and University Distinguished Professor of Law, The University of Utah College of Law

Immigration policy has significant impacts on businesses, and the debate over wise immigration policy includes many economic and political considerations. This panel will discuss the most significant challenges that immigration policy poses for businesses, including the future of H-1B visas and I-9 enforcement.Featuring:Simon Hankinson, Senior Research Fellow, Border Security and Immigration Center, The Heritage FoundationJames Rogers, Senior Counsel, America First LegalPatrick Shen, Vice President, Immigration Policy, U.S. Chamber of CommerceChris L. Thomas, Partner, Holland & Hart(Moderator) Randel K. Johnson, Immigration Academic Fellow, Cornell Law School

What are the FTC’s 2026 priorities in the areas of consumer protection, privacy, and artificial intelligence? This panel will discuss FTC's enforcement, policymaking, and rulemaking priorities and how they may differ from those in the Biden Administration. The panel is happy to take questions from the audience in advance of the webinar. Please send any questions to matthew.sawtelle@fed-soc.org by February 12th.Featuring:Brian Berggren, Acting Associate Director, Division of Enforcement, Federal Trade CommissionSvetlana Gans, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLPTodd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School(Moderator) Asheesh Agarwal, Antitrust Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce

As debates over birthright citizenship intensify in legal and public spheres, this webinar will explore the constitutional, historical, and jurisprudential foundations of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Drawing on their recent scholarship in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, our panelists will examine how original meaning, common-law antecedents, and modern legal arguments intersect in today’s birthright citizenship controversy. Featuring: Prof. Keith Whittington, David Boies Professor of Law, Yale Law SchoolProf. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School(Moderator) Hon. Steven Menashi, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit(Introducer) Sean-Michael Pigeon, Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy

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.Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, (February 23) - International Law, LIBERTAD Act; Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff under Title III of the LIBERTAD Act must prove that the defendant trafficked in property confiscated by the Cuban government as to which the plaintiff owns a claim, or instead that the defendant trafficked in property that the plaintiff would have continued to own at the time of trafficking in a counterfactual world "as if there had been no expropriation.Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A. (February 23) - International Law, FISA; Issue(s): Whether the Helms-Burton Act abrogates foreign sovereign immunity in cases against Cuban instrumentalities, or whether parties proceeding under that act must also satisfy an exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel (February 24) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether district courts have the authority to excuse the 30-day procedural time limit for removal in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan (February 25) - Property Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment when the compensation is based on the artificially depressed auction sale price rather than the property’s fair market value; and (2) whether the forfeiture of real property worth far more than needed to satisfy a tax debt but sold for a fraction of its real value constitutes an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, particularly when the debt was never actually owed.United States v. Hemani (March 2) - 2nd Amendment, Criminal Law; Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent.Hunter v. United States (March 3) - Criminal Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether the only permissible exceptions to a general appeal waiver are for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum; and (2) whether an appeal waiver applies when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to appeal and the government does not object.Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC (March 4) - Labor and Employment Law; Issue(s): Whether a federal statute, 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c), preempts a state common-law claim against a broker for negligently selecting a motor carrier or driver.Featuring: Jay R. Carson, Senior Litigator, The Buckeye InstituteJeffrey S. Hobday, Assistant Attorney General, Opinions Unit, Ohio Attorney General’s OfficeMary E. Miller, Partner, Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLPZack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage FoundationJordan Von Bokern, Senior Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center(Moderator) Sam Gedge, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice

In the first medical malpractice verdict of its kind, a New York jury awarded $2 million to a detransitioner who sued the clinicians responsible for performing a double mastectomy when she was 16 years old. The case marks a historic legal development and signals the emergence of a new frontier in medical malpractice litigation. At its core are difficult and consequential questions about standards of care, informed consent, particularly for minors undergoing irreversible medical interventions, and the extent to which existing malpractice frameworks are equipped to address these medical practices.This webinar will examine the legal significance of this landmark verdict and situate it within a growing group of detransitioner claims nationwide. Panelists will explore how courts may analyze allegations of inadequate screening, deficient consent processes, and departures from accepted professional standards. The discussion will also consider how these cases may shape future malpractice doctrine and affect risk exposure for physicians and healthcare systems.Beyond individual liability, the program will address the role of hospitals and medical institutions in establishing and enforcing these controversial treatments. To what extent can healthcare systems be held responsible for systemic failures in oversight, documentation, or patient evaluation? Featuring: Erin Hawley, Senior Counsel and Vice President at Alliance Defending FreedomMark Trammell, General Counsel, Center for American Liberty(Moderator) Sarah Perry, Vice President and Legal Fellow, Defending Education(Special Introduction) Mary Margaret Olohan, Author of DeTrans: True Stories of Escaping The Gender Ideology Cult; White House Correspondent, The Daily Wire

The Council of the ABA's Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar has long been the only federally recognized accreditor for law schools. In that role, it is able to direct what law schools teach and determine what constitutes sufficient coursework for law students. Over the past several years, the ABA has faced several challenges to proposed directives for law schools, including a recent proposal to increase the requirement of clinical hours (which has since been withdrawn) and various policies that have been labeled DEI initiatives. Some have lauded those efforts, while others have expressed concern that they mistake the purpose of law schools. In light of skepticism about the ABA, some state bars, particularly Florida and Texas, have opted to no longer require students to have attended an ABA-accredited law school in order to sit for their bar exams. In light of these and other efforts, voices from across the political spectrum have debated not just the value of the particular ABA policy directives, but the appropriate role of the ABA as an accreditor. Our panel will dive into those arguments around the ABA. Featuring: Prof. Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Daniel B. Rodriguez, Harold Washington Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of LawDaniel R. Thies, Shareholder, Webber & Thies PC(Moderator) Prof. Michael S. McGinniss, Professor of Law and J. Philip Johnson Faculty Fellow, University of North Dakota School of Law

Last session saw no shortage of proposals in Congress for labor-law reform. In the Senate, lawmakers introduced proposals ranging from mandatory interest arbitration to bans on organizing undocumented workers. In the House, representatives proposed a range of union-democracy reforms, including a requirement for unions to poll their members before endorsing a candidate for president. And in between, scholars and practitioners offered their own ideas, including a proposal to transform the National Labor Relations Board into an article I court.The ideas are abundant, but are any of them viable? Which ones can thread the needle in Congress? And more importantly, how would they change the way employees, employers, and unions conduct their business? Join us as our expert panel breaks them down.Featuring:Thomas Beck, Senior Adviser, Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, CHRO AssociationF. Vincent Vernuccio, President, Institute for the American Worker(Moderator) Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair of the Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.

Join us for a webinar examining the Third Circuit’s ongoing review of a decision holding that publishing ASTM standards—which are funded by licenses to use the standards—is a noninfringing fair use under US copyright law. This session will present arguments from both sides, analyzing the tension between a private entity’s right to protect its investments in developing copyrighted technical standards, and the public’s right to access the laws which incorporate those standards. With the Third Circuit poised to issue a decision in ASTM v. UpCodes soon, this webinar aims to provide informative insight on the regulatory and intellectual property policies that will soon be implicated. Featuring: Prof. Emily Bremer, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law(Moderator) Hon. Stephen Vaden, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture

CLE credit for this event will be available at On-Demand CLE. Anticipated availability date: March 15th.This webinar brings together current and former General Counsels from the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of War (Defense), and the Department of the Navy. Drawing on their experience, practice, and diverse career paths, the panel will explore the practice of law within the Department of War and the individual services; the opportunities, challenges, and rewards of this dynamic field of law and policy; the skills and competencies critical to success both within government service and beyond; and how this unique area of practice broadens Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs) as attorneys and equips them for successful transitions to civilian practice.This program serves as the inaugural webinar of the Armed Services Legal Network. To learn more about this new initiative of the Federalist Society, click here. If you are currently a JAG or a veteran practicing law and are interested in participating in the Network, please contact us at Networks@fedsoc.org.CLE InfoFeaturing:Hon. James Baehr, General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs; Lieutenant Colonel, USMC Reserve; Former Military JudgeHon. Paul C. Ney, Former General Counsel of the Department of Defense and currently Partner, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLPHon. Robert J. Sander, Former General Counsel of the Department of the Navy, Former Acting General Counsel of the Army, and currently Founding Partner, The Sander Group, PLLC(Moderator) Toby Curto, Colonel, U.S. Army

The Federal Judicial Center describes itself as “the research and education agency of the judicial branch of the United States Government.” Yet it has recently come under scrutiny for its release of a new Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, which critics argue departs from the judiciary’s traditional role as a neutral arbiter. In particular, the Manual’s inclusion of a “climate science” section which advances an ideological narrative rather than provide neutral guidance.Is the Center’s Report putting a thumb on the scale by taking sides on contested climate science questions and, through official manuals and guidance materials, attempting to shape how judges are instructed to evaluate disputed questions before cases are even heard? And is the Report compatible with the judge’s duty to say what the law is, not what it should be? Featuring:Michael Fragoso, Partner, Torridon Law PLCC; former Chief Counsel to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnellCarrie Campbell Severino, President, Judicial Crisis Network (JCN)Michael R. Williams, Solicitor General, West Virginia

School choice has come more to the fore of public awareness in the past several years. This recent increase in attention may be evidenced by the inclusion of the Federal Tax Credit Scholarship Program in 2025's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which, among other things, created a federally funded tax credit scholarship program for elementary and secondary education.This panel will discuss the current state of educational choice and school choice programs across the nation, and the potential impact of the Federal Tax Credit Scholarship Program.Featuring: Jim Blew, Co-Founder, Defense of Freedom InstituteLeslie Hiner, Vice President of Legal Policy, EdChoiceShaka Mitchell, Senior Fellow, the American Federation for Children(Moderator) Gene Schaerr, Schaerr Jaffe LLP

Who controls your financial data and who decides how it can be used? As Americans increasingly rely on digital banking, apps, and financial technology tools, that question has moved to the forefront of a policy debate that may come to a head in the coming months.Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act is currently under review by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, prompting renewed debate over how consumers should access their own financial information and decide how it is shared. Translating that principle into practice, raises significant legal and policy questions about whether current regulatory and market structures truly empower consumers or instead concentrate control over data into the hands of banksThis webinar will examine open banking through a consumer-centered legal lens, focusing on how rules governing data access, privacy, and consent impact real-world choice. Panelists will discuss how bank-centric approaches may prioritize institutional preferences over consumer autonomy, potentially limiting Americans’ ability to use innovative financial tools that rely on secure, authorized data sharing.Throughout the program, panelists will evaluate the CFPB’s Section 1033 rulemaking and consider whether a consumer-directed approach to financial data can both defend consumer’s right to their own data and foster innovation.Featuring:Paul Watkins, Managing Partner, Fusion Law PLLCProf. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University(Moderator) Will Hild, Executive Director, Consumers Research

Ellingburg v. United States concerned whether forced restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA), was a civil remedy or a criminal penalty. The MVRA requires defendants who are convicted of some types of federal crimes to pay monetary restitution to the victims. Holsey Ellingburg committed a robbery in 1995. Then, during the course of his trial, the MVRA was passed. When sentenced, he was given both a prison sentence and ordered to pay mandatory restitution under the MVRA. Ellingburg eventually challenged the forced restitution, arguing that the application of the MVRA to him violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Eighth Circuit ruled against Ellingburg, holding that MVRA restitution is a civil remedy. Ellingburg petitioned the Supreme Court for review, which held the MVRA is "plainly criminal punishment" and thus its application to Ellingburg violated the Ex Post Facto clause.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze the decision and what its impacts may be.Featuring:Matthew P. Cavedon, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute(Moderator) Sarah Field, Chief Counsel, Legal Policy, Koch Capabilities, LLC

Last year was a tumultuous one for labor law. Not only was the National Labor Relations Board stalled by the firing of then-Member Gwynne Wilcox, but the Board itself came under fire in lawsuits challenging its current structure. Perceiving a gap, lawmakers in California and New York stepped in, authorizing local agencies to take up much of the Board’s work. Those laws, however, have each been blocked by federal district courts. In separate decisions, these courts found federal law preempted the state laws, despite the Board’s tribulations.Were those decisions right? Will they hold? And if they do, what do they mean for the future of federal–state relations? Join our panel as they look forward to the next chapter of American labor law.Featuring:Prof. Benjamin I. Sachs, Kestnbaum Professor of Labor and Industry, Harvard Law SchoolAaron B. Solem, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Foundation(Moderator) Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair, Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.

The panel will discuss the questions left open—or raised—by the Supreme Court’s decisions in FCC v. Consumers' Research and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, about the proper approach to statutory construction and the role that the nondelegation doctrine should play as a background principle in statutory analysis in cases where an agency has claimed broad authority to weigh competing public values when promulgating legislative rules. The discussion might address such subtopics as:Whether the Supreme Court’s rejection of an “extravagant” interpretation of FCC’s statutory authority in Consumers’ Research tells us anything about how courts should approach statutory cases where an agency is asserting an expansive view of its statutory authorities—given that the Court appeared to say that the dissent’s (supposedly “extravagant”) interpretation would present a nondelegation problem.What role nondelegation concerns should play under the avoidance canon in cases where an agency seeks to stretch nebulous or expressly open-ended delegations to achieve whatever policy objective the Executive Branch deems fit from one administration to the next.Whether these kinds of concerns can be dealt with by expanding clear statement rules—like that the Court has begun to develop with the major questions doctrine.Whether and to what extent legitimate nondelegation concerns arise in cases where Congress has expressly said that an issue is vested to agency discretion—as was contemplated in Loper Bright for certain kinds of rules for which the Court said the agency gets to decide.Featuring:Prof. Jonathan Adler, Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law and William H. Cabell Research Professor, William & Mary Law School; Senior Fellow, Property and Environment Research CenterProf. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School(Moderator) Adam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Director, Scalia Law's C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State

Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections involved whether a candidate for federal office has standing to challenge an Illinois law that requires election officials to count mail-in ballots postmarked or certified as of election day and received within two weeks of the election.Following the 2024 election cycle, Congressman Michael Bost and two other political candidates sued the state board of elections, contending that counting ballots after election day violated federal law (principally 2 U. S. C. §7 and 3 U. S. C. §1, which set election day as the Tuesday following the first Monday in November). The district court dismissed the case, deciding the candidates lacked standing and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. Now the Supreme Court has reversed that ruling, holding in a decision by Chief Justice Roberts that Bost had standing to challenge the rules dealing with the counting of votes in his election.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze the decision and what its impacts may be.Featuring:Jason Torchinsky, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC(Moderator) Hans A. Von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Institute for the Rule of Law, Advancing American Freedom

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. The case rose to SCOTUS and was heard as a part of the OT24 term. The issues before the Court included (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.On June 27, 2025, rather than issue a decision on the case, the Supreme Court issued an order restoring the case to the OT 25 calendar for reargument. This time, the Court has explicitly granted the question of "Whether Louisiana’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the 14th or 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution." Oral argument (round 2) is set for October 15, 2025.Join us for a post-oral argument Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze how this oral argument went before the Court.Featuring:Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School(Moderator) Brad A. Benbrook, Founding Partner, Benbrook Law Group

In Barrett v. United States, the Court was asked to consider the relationship between two provisions of the Armed Career Criminal Act and whether a single act that violated both provisions could yield two convictions. The Court held the answer was "no", with a majority of the Court holding that Congress did not "clearly authorize" two convictions stemming from a single act.Though at first glance a technical case related to a provision of the federal criminal code, Barrett raises interesting questions about the Double Jeopardy clause, statutory interpretation, and sentencing.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze the decision and what its impacts may be.Featuring: William S. McClintock, Partner, Special Matters and Government Investigations, King & Spalding LLP

Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., both involve the question of whether states can designate women’s sports based on biological sex consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.In 2020 and 2021, Idaho and West Virginia passed laws that required public schools and colleges to designate sports by biological sex and to forbid males from competing on women’s sports teams. Two male athletes who identified as females, one a middle school shot-put and discus thrower and the other a collegiate cross-country runner, challenged the laws in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Idaho and Southern District of West Virginia, alleging a right to compete in women’s sports and saying the state laws discriminate on the basis of sex and transgender status in violation of Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. In Little v. Hecox, the Idaho district court entered a preliminary injunction against the Idaho law for violating the Equal Protection Clause, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the West Virginia district court preliminarily enjoined the West Virginia law for violating Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause and then dissolved that injunction, upholding the law at summary judgment. The Fourth Circuit reversed and ordered the district court to enjoin the law for violating Title IX.The Supreme Court granted certiorari, and oral argument is set for January 13, 2026. Join us for a post-oral argument Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze how both oral arguments went before the Court.Featuring:Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending Education(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation

Recent federal prosecutions have renewed attention on the administration and future of the federal death penalty. This panel brings together experienced capital litigators to examine the evolving legal, institutional, and practical landscape facing federal practitioners.Panelists will address issues including the use of commutations and clemency, charging and authorization protocols in capital cases, litigation strategies unique to federal death-eligible prosecutions, and the interaction between federal and state capital regimes. The discussion will situate current high-profile cases within broader doctrinal and policy trends, assessing how differing approaches across recent administrations have shaped prosecutorial discretion, defense strategy, and judicial oversight in capital litigation.The panel will also provide forward-looking perspectives on where federal death penalty practice may be headed, including implications for future administrations and for capital litigation nationwide.Featuring:Prof. David I. Bruck, Professor of Law, Emeritus, Washington and Lee University School of LawSteve Mellin, Retired Assistant United States AttorneyJohnny Sutton, Partner, Ashcroft(Moderator) James M. Trusty, Member, Ifrah Law

Two state laws could transform labor relations in the United States. In both California and Massachusetts, statutes now allow rideshare drivers to organize at the sectoral level: one union could represent all drivers in each state. Both represent a bold experiment—one that departs from the way labor relations has been regulated for more than a century. And each could produce the biggest spike in unionization in decades. But will they work? Will drivers actually organize? And if they do, will the result bump up against federal law? Our expert panel will break down the historical, legal, and policy implications of these bold new laws.Featuring:David Madland, Senior Fellow & Senior Adviser, American Worker Project, Center for American ProgressWilliam L. Messenger, Vice President & Legal Director, National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc.(Moderator) Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair, Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.