Teleforum

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has traditionally regulated interstate and international communications and, as part of that, maintained 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—were challenged in court by Consumers’ Research. On June 27, 2025, the Court ruled in favor of the FCC, rejecting the argument that the universal-service contribution scheme violates the nondelegation doctrine.Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case, its decision, and what this means for the nondelegation doctrine going forward.Featuring:Sean Lev, Partner, HWG LLPModerator: Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute --To register, click the link above.

Whether AI training and generation is a fair use under copyright law puts two important American business sectors in opposition, and each looks to the various branches of the federal government for answers. Fundamentally, essentially all training of AI models involves copying of copyrighted materials, and many outputs from AI systems also may be substantially similar to copyrighted material and thus infringing if they are not fair uses.On May 9, 2025, the U.S. Copyright Office released a pre-publication version of the third and final part of its report on Copyright and AI, focused on Generative AI Training. The report concludes that some is fair use but some is not, and urges that existing efforts to engage in licensing of copyrighted content continue. Meanwhile, over forty cases on the issue are ongoing in the United States alone, with cases ongoing in another eight nations as well. The District Court in Delaware has ruled that at least one such case was not a fair use, and further rulings are expected soon from around the country. Meanwhile the White House has indicated an interest in AI policy and may have its own prerogatives.Leading experts will discuss the issue and answer questions on this fast-moving and important issue.Featuring:Meredith Rose, Senior Policy Counsel, Public KnowledgeRegan Smith, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, News/Media AllianceModerator: Zvi Rosen, Assistant Professor, Southern Illinois University School of Law

Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton concerned Texas Law H.B. 1181, and what precedent should apply in considering its impact on free speech. Passed in 2023, the law requires commercial entities, including social media platforms, "that knowingly and intentionally publish or distribute material on an Internet website... more than one-third of which is sexual material harmful to minors" to age-gate their content, and to verify the age of their users, ensuring they are 18 years of age or older.Soon after the law passed, plaintiffs sued, claiming the law violated their right to free speech. Drawing on a line of cases including Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004), they argued that since the law impacted constitutionally protected speech, strict scrutiny should be applied and the TX law failed that test. The Fifth Circuit denied that argument, instead applying a rational basis test, drawing from the precedent of Ginsburg v. New York (1968).The Supreme Court granted certiorari to answer the question of whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review, instead of strict scrutiny, to a law burdening adults’ access to protected speech, and heard oral argument on January 15, 2025.On June 27, 2025, a 6-3 Court issued its decision, holding that the correct answer was to apply intermediate scrutiny, and that the Texas law survived intermediate scrutiny because it only incidentally burdened adults' protected speech.Join us for a Courthouse steps decision program where we will break down and analyze the decision, opinions, and what the potential impacts may be.Featuring:Darpana Sheth Nunziata, General Counsel, Center for Individual Rights

In Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, the Court considered whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court heard oral argument on April 1, 2025 and on June 20, 2025 a 9-0 Court ruled the PSJVTA did not violate the Fifth amendment because the statute "reasonably ties the assertion of jurisdiction over the Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches."Chief Justice Roberts authored the opinion for the Court, and Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence in which Justice Gorsuch joined as to Part II.Join us for a Courthouse Steps decision program where we will break down and analyze this decision and discuss the potential effects of this case.Featuring:Erielle Davidson, Associate, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC(Moderator) Shiza Francis, Associate, Shutts and Bowen LLP

In June of 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Kelo v. City of New London that the local government did not violate the Fifth Amendment's Public Use Clause when it condemned private residential lots and transferred them to commercial developers to promote local economic development as part of a comprehensive municipal development plan. Kelo was certainly a landmark decision and, twenty years later, its impact is still felt and merits further consideration. Join our panel as it discusses Kelo’s legacy, the nature of “public use,” and the judiciary’s current and future relationship with eminent domain.Featuring:Prof. Peter Byrne, John Hampton Baumgartner, Jr. Professor of Real Property Law; Faculty Director, Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Program; Faculty Director, Georgetown Climate Resource Center, Georgetown Law CenterWesley W. Horton, Of Counsel, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLPTim Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Goldwater InstituteProf. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityModerator: Prof. Eric Claeys, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University--To register, click the link above.

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 fuel producers (among others) who argued that California did not meet the requirements to justify these state-specific standards. The D.C. Circuit dismissed the fuel producers' statutory claim based on a determination that they did not prove that their injuries would be redressed by a decision in their favor.This Supreme Court case presented the question 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. On June 20, the Court ruled 7-2 in favor of standing. Join this FedSoc Forum to hear more about the case and this decision, authored by Justice Kavanaugh.Featuring:Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLPModerator: Jeff Beelaert, Partner, Givens Pursley LLP--To register, click the link above.

Administrative law is in flux, nowhere more so than at the National Labor Relations Board. The Board has long made labor law (or “policy”) by issuing decisions and applying its own precedent. But in a recent oral argument at the Seventh Circuit, one member of the panel suggested that he didn’t want to hear about “Board law.” The judges, he said, could read the statute for themselves. That statement was controversial and thought-provoking. After last term’s blockbuster decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, courts are no longer supposed to defer to administrative agencies on legal questions. So does that mean Board law is dead? Or is the issue more complicated? Join our panelists as we dissect the issue.Featuring:Prof. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law Director, Center for Labor and Employment Law Co-Director, Institute of Judicial Administration, NYU School of LawAlexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair of the Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.(Moderator) Karen Harned, President, Harned Strategies LLC

Mahmoud v. Taylor concerns the question of 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.On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that parents challenging the Board’s introduction of the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt-outs, are entitled to a preliminary injunction. Join us for a breakdown of this decision and its implications.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 recent years, a flurry of lawsuits has been launched nationwide against religious organizations, raising fraud and other claims related to tithing and church donations. These challenges generally argue that church leaders falsely claimed they would only put donations to one use, but instead put them to another. These cases, which have been heard in the 9th, 10th, and D.C. Circuits, as well as multi-district litigation in federal court in Utah, raise church autonomy issues, such as the extent to which religious leaders can determine how to use donations made to the organization. Additionally, at least one of these cases raises the procedural question of whether church autonomy should be treated more like immunity from suit, and allow for interlocutory appeals on church autonomy matters. On this FedSoc forum, Daniel Blomberg and Dr. James C. Phillips will run through several of these cases, discussing these and related issues.Featuring:Daniel Blomberg, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty(Moderator) Dr. James C. Phillips, Associate Professor & Director, Constitutional Government Initiative, Wheatley Institute, Brigham Young University

in July of 2018, Governor Henry McMaster of South Carolina issued an executive order to end 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 asked whether this provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider. On June 26, 2025, the Court ruled 6–3 in favor of South Carolina, affirming the state's right to exclude abortion providers from its Medicaid program. Tune in to this Courthouse Steps podcast as we break down the case and its recent decision. Featuring: John J. Bursch, Senior Counsel and VP, Appellate Advocacy, Alliance Defending Freedom Kyle Douglas Hawkins, Partner, Lehotsky Keller Moderator: Ryan L. Bangert, Senior Vice President, Strategic Initiatives & Special Counsel to the President, Alliance Defending Freedom

On June 18, 2025, the Supreme Court released its decisions for 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). Decided 7-2 and 8-0, respectively, the outcome of these cases hinged 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.In Calumet, the Court ruled 7-2 that the “EPA’s denials of small refinery exemption petitions are locally or regionally applicable actions that fall within the “nationwide scope or effect” exception, requiring venue in the D.C. Circuit.” Similarly, in Oklahoma, the Court ruled 8-0 that “EPA’s disapprovals of the Oklahoma and Utah state implementation plans are locally or regionally applicable actions reviewable in a regional court of appeals.” Tune in as Jimmy Conde and Garrett Kral offer a breakdown of these decisions.Featuring:James Conde, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLCModerator: Garrett Kral, Administrative and Environmental Law Attorney--To register, click the link above.

In the last several years, numerous minors who identify as transgender have undergone surgery and other medical procedures to mirror common physical features of the opposite sex.In March 2023, Tennessee enacted Senate Bill 1, which prohibits medical procedures for the purpose of either (1) enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex, or (2) treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity. Individuals, joined by the United States, brought suit against Tennessee. They alleged that a ban on “gender affirming care” violates the Equal Protection Clause and that the Due Process Clause’s “substantive” component gives parents a right to demand medical interventions for their children, even if a state has found them to be unproven and risky.On June 18th, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Tennessee’s law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review.Featuring:Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute

Among the points emphasized by the second Trump administration has been a major push for deregulation. President Trump has directed that there must be ten deregulatory actions for every one regulatory one, and put forward Presidential Memoranda and Executive Orders to that end. As some have noted, however, such deregulation can take significant time due to factors like the requirements for notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act.Interestingly, an April Presidential Memorandum seems to contemplate that potential hurdle for executive actions directing repeal of regulations contrary to ten specific recent Supreme Court decisions, including without notice and comment “where appropriate.”This panel will seek to discuss the potential impact of this presidential memorandum, when deregulation may happen, incurring a need for notice & comment, and what the Judicial Branch might ultimately determine about the Executive Branch’s efforts to enforce their precedents in this manner.Featuring:John Lewis, Deputy Legal Director, Governing for ImpactJonathan Wolfson, Chief Legal Officer and Policy Director, Cicero Institute(Moderator) Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates, and Former OFCCP Director

In Kousisis v. United States, the Supreme Court considered the question of whether a defendant who induces a victim to enter into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud--even if the defendant did not seek to cause the victim economic loss. It heard oral argument on December 9, 2024, and on May 22, 2025, issued a unanimous decision authored by Justice Barrett affirming the lower court's holding that the defendant could be convicted of federal fraud.Although the Court was unanimous, there are an array of opinions. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch authored an opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment, and Justice Sotomayor wrote to concur in judgment.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will discuss the decision and the potential ramifications of the case.Featuring:Brandon Moss, Partner, Wiley Rein

In Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Mexico brought suit against several U.S. gun manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson. It alleged, among other things, that they were in part liable for the killings perpetrated by Mexican cartels. Mexico argued that the gun manufacturers know the guns they sell are/may be illegally sold to the cartels and thus are the proximate causes of the resulting gun violence.The manufacturers argued that they were immune from such suits under the U.S. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which protects U.S. gun manufacturers from certain types of liability, though not universally, as it contains a predicate exception for manufacturers who knowingly violate applicable federal (and potentially international) law.The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 4, 2025. On June 5, 2025, the Court issued a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Kagan, ruling that the PLCAA did prevent the suit from moving forward. Justices Thomas and Jackson both filed concurrences.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will discuss the decision and the potential ramifications of the case.Featuring:Joel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP

The SEC has periodically examined the ecosystem governing public company shareholder communications and voting—the “proxy plumbing ecosystem”—and it is expected that the SEC will again review this area under soon-to-be SEC Chairman Paul Atkins’ leadership. This panel will focus on how the proxy ecosystem works, the organizations that control and maintain the “plumbing” and the roles each participant plays in assuring that shareholders can get their votes executed. Consider this a primer so that when the debate occurs you can follow it, and why some will vociferously seek to maintain the status quo while others will with equal force seek to disrupt it.Featuring:Lawrence Conover, Vice President, Special Advisor for Proxy & Corporate Actions, BroadridgeHon. Troy Paredes, Founder, Paredes Strategies LLCMatthew Thornton, Deputy General Counsel, Investment Company InstituteModerator: Joanne Medero, Former Managing Director, BlackRock Inc.--To register, click the link above.

In 2020, several collegiate athletes filed suit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) arguing that by both denying athletes compensation and preventing them from pursuing third-party deals using their names, images, or likenesses (NIL) for profit, the NCAA was violating antitrust laws. After several years of discussion, there has still not been an official settlement reached, though one including back pay, revenue sharing, and a change in NIL rights has been proposed. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case, its possible outcomes, and its implications for collegiate sports and the issue of sports antitrust writ large.Featuring:Prof. Jodi Balsam, Professor of Clinical Law, Brooklyn Law SchoolErik Clark, Ohio Deputy Attorney General for Major Litigation, Ohio Attorney General's OfficeRakesh Kilaru, Partner, Wilkinson Stekloff LLPModerator: Kaitlyn Barry, Associate, Baker McKenzie--To register, click the link above.

The ubiquitous deployment of both wireless and wireline technology is critical to 5G and other next generation services. However, lengthy permitting processes, as well as burdensome NEPA and NHPA requirements, continue to slow infrastructure builds. As the Trump Administration continues to prioritize streamlining rules and regulations, as well as promoting access to reliable, affordable broadband internet, all eyes are on the FCC, NTIA, and the Hill to see what may come next. This webinar features Paul Beaudry, Vice President of Regulatory and Government Affairs for Cogeco, Tony Clark, Executive Director of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and former Commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and Caroline Van Wie, Vice President of Federal Regulatory at AT&T. Danielle Thumann, Senior Counsel to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, will moderate and participate in the discussion.

In April, Dr. Livia Tossici-Bolt was criminally convicted in a British court for offering consensual conversation in an abortion facility “buffer zone” in Bournemouth, England. The court found that she violated a Public Spaces Protection Order that prohibits “engaging in an act of approval or disapproval with regard to abortion services,” despite holding a sign that simply read: “Here to talk if you want." The U.S. State Department issued a statement of concern about her case and the decline of freedom of expression in the United Kingdom. Dr. Tossici-Bolt's conviction is the latest in a string of cases targeting thought and peaceful speech. In October 2024, the same court convicted Adam Smith-Connor for silent prayer in a "buffer zone.” U.S. Vice President JD Vance highlighted his case at the Munich Security Conference.Featuring: Paul Coleman, Executive Director, ADF InternationalModerator: Prof. Maimon Schwarzschild, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law

Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchison served as the U.S. Ambassador to NATO from 2017-2021. From 1993-2013, she represented Texas in the U.S. Senate. Join us for a conversation about her life and career.Featuring: Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO; Former U.S. Senator, TexasModerator: Nitin Nainani, Judicial Law Clerk, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Reforming the regulation of digital assets is a pressing issue across Congress, the Administration, the SEC, and the CFTC, profoundly impacting the expanding digital assets industry. Join the Federalist Society for a timely webinar delving into the complexities of digital assets market structure reform. Patrick Daugherty, who leads a prominent digital assets practice and teaches the subject at leading law schools, will moderate a distinguished panel of experts. The discussion will feature Miles Jennings, Head of Policy & General Counsel at a16z Crypto; Lee Schneider, General Counsel of Ava Labs; Justin Wales, Head of Legal for the Americas at Crypto.com; and Steve Lofchie, a Wall Street lawyer and author of the authoritative Lofchie’s Guide to Broker-Dealer Regulation.

The idea of Artificial Intelligence has long presented potential challenges in the legal realm, and as AI tools become more broadly available and widely used, those potential hurdles are becoming ever more salient for lawyers in their day-to-day operations. Questions abound, from what potential risks of bias and error may exist in using an AI tool, to the challenges related to professional responsibility as traditionally understood, to the risks large language learning models pose to client confidentiality. Some contend that AI is a must-use, as it opens the door to faster, more efficient legal research that could equip lawyers to serve their clients more effectively. Others reject the use of AI, arguing that the risks of use and the work required to check the output it gives exceed its potential benefit.Join us for a FedSoc Forum exploring the ethical and legal implications of artificial intelligence in the practice of law. Featuring: Laurin H. Mills, Member, Werther & Mills, LLCPhilip A. Sechler, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending FreedomProf. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, UCLA School of Law; Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University(Moderator) Hon. Brantley Starr, District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

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. On June 5th, 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling, holding it was a violation of the First Amendment to withhold a tax exemption on the grounds that they were not “operated primarily for religious purposes” because the organization did not proselytize or limit services to only fellow Catholics. Join us for an expert analysis of the decision and its implications.Featuring:Eric Rassbach, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberties(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

Marlean Ames, a straight woman, was denied promotion and later demoted in her role at the Ohio Department of Youth Services by her lesbian supervisor. The position she sought and her former position were then given to a lesbian woman and a gay man, respectively. This prompted Ames to file suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that she was unlawfully discriminated against based on her sexual orientation because she is heterosexual. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court in holding that, because Ames was part of the majority group, she had the additional requirement of demonstrating the "background circumstances" that the employer discriminates against majority group members.On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously vacated and remanded, holding that “the Sixth Circuit’s ‘background circumstances’ rule—which requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim—cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court’s precedents.” Join us for an expert analysis of this decision and its implications.Featuring:Nicholas Barry, Senior Counsel, America First Legal Foundation(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation

Encinitas Unified School District required two fifth-grade boys and their assigned kindergarten buddies to read and watch My Shadow is Pink and do an activity, pressuring the kindergartners to choose a color to represent their own shadows. The plaintiffs allege this was designed to make the students question their gender identity. Represented by First Liberty Institute and the National Center for Law and Policy, the families filed a complaint in the Southern District of California and sought a motion for preliminary injunction. On May 12, 2025, Judge M. James Lorenz granted that motion in part, requiring the school district to provide advance notice and opt-outs when gender identity material is taught in mentoring programs. The judge’s opinion focused on compelled speech, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of that claim.Free speech expert Professor Eugene Volokh and counsel Kayla Toney, who represents the families, will break down the opinion and discuss its ramifications for First Amendment jurisprudence.Featuring:Kayla Ann Toney, Counsel, First Liberty Institute(Moderator) Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law

It is widely known that schools have instituted equity-focused policies, teacher training, and curriculum. Critics wonder whether this focus on equity is illegal and unconstitutional.Deemar v. District 65 (Evanston/Skokie) involves Dr. Stacy Deemar, a drama teacher in Evanston/Skokie School District 65 in Illinois. She has challenged the District’s allegedly racially charged environment and practice of segregating students and staff. In January 2021, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) determined that the District violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. But soon after President Biden took office, OCR withdrew that finding without explanation. Dr. Deemar filed a federal lawsuit and, in April 2025, submitted a new complaint to OCR.Featuring:Kimberly Hermann, Executive Director, Southeastern Legal Foundation

For the first time in years, the U.S. Supreme Court is addressing questions of religious liberty and is doing so with three significant cases: Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, Mahmoud v. Taylor, and Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, which have the potential to shape religious liberty in the United States for years to come.Join Mark Rienzi and Bill Saunders as they discuss these cases, their potential outcomes, and their future impact on religious liberty.Featuring:Prof. Mark L. Rienzi, President, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, Catholic University; Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School(Moderator) Prof. William L. Saunders, Director of the Program in Human Rights, Catholic University of America

With Republicans holding control in Washington, a significant debate has emerged within conservative circles regarding the role of the federal government in primary and secondary education. Should conservatives leverage their electoral mandate to influence the curricula of K-12 schools, or is good governance better served by a more restrained approach? What is the purview of the federal government when it comes to education, and what is better left at the state and local level? What changes, if any, should the government try to implement, and what would be the best methods available?Join us for an expert discussion on these and related issues.Featuring:Robert S. Eitel, Co-Founder and President, Defense of Freedom InstituteRoger Severino, Vice President of Domestic Policy and The Joseph C. and Elizabeth A. Anderlik Fellow, The Heritage Foundation(Moderator) Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending Education ***This program was originally scheduled for May 1st, but has been rescheduled to May 20th at 12pm ET***

This case concerned the question of whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority. When the Surface Transportation Board granted a petition from the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition to construct and operate an 80-mile Utah railway, they conducted an environmental review in which they considered direct impacts of the highway on nearby land, water, and air. But they did not consider certain environmental “downline impacts” or possible effects on historic sites along the Union Pacific line in Eagle County. The county challenged their review as inadequate, while the Board argues that these effects were either too minimal for serious analysis, or outside the scope of their authority.This case was decided 8-0 on May 29. The Court ruled in favor of the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, concluding that the federal environmental review process does not have to consider “downline” impacts. Join us in discussing the case and its decision with Mario Loyola and Austin Lipari, who wrote amicus briefs in support of petitioners.Featuring:Prof. Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow for Law, Economics, and Technology, The Heritage Foundation; Professor, Florida International UniversityModerator: Austin Lipari, Counsel, Boyden Gray PLLC--To register, click the link above.

In Barnes v. Felix the Supreme Court addressed what context courts need to consider when evaluating an excessive force claim brought under the Fourth Amendment.Some circuits, including the Fifth Circuit (which decided Barnes before it reached the Supreme Court), as well as the Second, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits, had adopted the “moment of threat” doctrine. This approach focuses solely on whether there was an imminent danger that created a reasonable fear for one’s life in the immediate moments preceding the use of force. In contrast, other circuits, including the First, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits, held that courts must consider the “totality of the circumstances” when assessing whether the use of force was justified.The Court heard oral argument on January 22, 2025, and on May 15 issued a unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Kagan, vacating the Fifth Circuit and remanding. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze this decision and what it may mean for excessive force claims moving forward.Featuring:Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime

President Trump has issued several executive orders addressing alleged national security threats and discriminatory practices by some of the most prominent law firms in the country. Some of these firms and attorneys have challenged the EOs and actions taken by the administration in response to them, many of them settling with the administration. What does the Constitution have to say about these actions? How will these actions affect law firms in the near future?Join us for a discussion panel where we will examine these and other key questions.Featuring: Michael Francisco, Partner, First & Fourteenth PLLCProf. Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law SchoolErin E. Murphy, Partner, Clement & Murphy PLLC(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President, Legal Strategy, Stand Together

On May 7, 2025, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the Federal Trade Commission’s lawsuit challenging Microsoft's $69 billion purchase of “Call of Duty” maker Activision Blizzard, affirming the lower judge's order finding that the FTC was not entitled to a preliminary injunction blocking the deal, which closed in 2023. Hear from former agency officials and amici filers for the Business Roundtable, Communications Workers of America, and TechFreedom as they discuss the various views presented in the briefing and the ramifications of this decision on future merger enforcement at the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice.Featuring:Allen P. Grunes, Shareholder, Brownstein Hyatt Farber SchreckHon. Maureen Ohlhausen, Partner, Antitrust and Competition, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & RosatiRahul Rao, Antitrust Partner, White & CaseBilal Sayyed, Senior Competition Counsel, TechFreedom Moderator: Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies--To register, click the link above.

Eric Claeys’ new publication, Natural Property Rights, presents a novel theory of property based on individual, pre-political rights. The book argues that a just system of property protects people's rights to use resources and also orders those rights consistent with natural law and the public welfare. Drawing on influential property theorists such as Grotius, Locke, Blackstone, and early American statesmen and judges, as well as recent work in normative and analytical philosophy, the book shows how natural rights guide political and legal reasoning about property law. It examines how natural rights justify the most familiar institutions in property, including public property, ownership, the system of estates and future interests, leases, servitudes, mortgages, police regulation, and eminent domain. Thought-provoking and comprehensive, the book challenges leading contemporary justifications for property and shows how property both secures individual freedom and serves the common good.Join this Talks with Authors program to discuss all this and more!Featuring:Prof. Eric Claeys, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityJ. Kennerly Davis, Senior Attorney, Former Deputy Attorney General for Virginia--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) 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.