Teleforum

Recent litigation has resurfaced longstanding debates over the scope of First Amendment protections for members of the armed forces. While service members retain constitutional rights, the unique demands of military service have long permitted restrictions on speech and conduct that would not be permissible in civilian life. This panel will examine the historical development of First Amendment protections in the military context and discuss how that history informs current legal disputes and policy debates.Featuring:Prof. Antony Kolenc, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law, Ave Maria School of LawChristopher J. Motz, Senior Counsel, First Liberty InstituteIain Pedden, Chief Defense Counsel, U.S. Marine Corps(Moderator) Thomas Wheatley, Special Counsel, Office of the Secretary of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense

Recent litigation has resurfaced longstanding debates over the scope of First Amendment protections for members of the armed forces. While service members retain constitutional rights, the unique demands of military service have long permitted restrictions on speech and conduct that would not be permissible in civilian life. This panel will examine the historical development of First Amendment protections in the military context and discuss how that history informs current legal disputes and policy debates.Featuring:Prof. Antony Kolenc, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law, Ave Maria School of LawChristopher J. Motz, Senior Counsel, First Liberty InstituteIain Pedden, Chief Defense Counsel, U.S. Marine Corps(Moderator) Thomas Wheatley, Special Counsel, Office of the Secretary of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense

On June 30, the Supreme Court held in Trump v. Barbara that nearly all children born on U.S. soil are citizens at birth. But questions remain about the decision’s reasoning and its legal and policy implications.The decision has not ended the debate. The administration and other proponents of a narrower understanding of birthright citizenship are now testing the decision’s boundaries. On August 6, the President issued two executive orders addressing birthright citizenship and birth tourism. The first order expressly identifies categories the administration contends “do not fall within the rule of birthright citizenship as announced by the Supreme Court.” Within days, the issue was back in federal court.Join the Federalist Society and the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy for a two-part online symposium featuring scholars and practitioners examining the decision, its impact, and what comes next. The programs will accompany a collection of short essays to be published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy's online publication, Per Curiam.Featuring:Gene Hamilton, President and Co-Founder, America First Legal FoundationHon. Steven J. Menashi, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit(Moderator) Tiago De Almeida Graff, Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy

Gordon S. Wood, who passed away in June, was one of the nation’s most influential historians of the American Revolution and the early Republic. For more than half a century, his scholarship has shaped how Americans—including legal scholars and the judiciary—understand the Revolution, the Founding, and the Constitution. In landmark works, including the Bancroft Prize-winning The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787 and the Pulitzer Prize-winning The Radicalism of the American Revolution, Wood explored how the colonies became a new nation and established a new constitutional order.On Constitution Day, join us for a conversation reflecting on Wood’s life, scholarship, and legacy. The panel will consider his account of the Revolution and the Constitution, his influence on constitutional scholarship and public understanding of the Founding, and what his work teaches about interpreting the past on its own terms amid continuing debates over America’s origins and ideals.Featuring:Richard Brookhiser, Senior Editor, National ReviewProf. Steven Calabresi, Clayton J. and Henry R. Barber Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law and Co-Chairman, Board of Directors, The Federalist SocietyProf. Jeffrey Rosen, Senior Fellow, FIRE; CEO Emeritus, National Constitution Center(Moderator) Hon. Lisa Branch, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

For nearly fifty years, the Presidential Records Act has governed the preservation, ownership, and eventual disclosure of presidential records. But in April, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the Act is unconstitutional and that “the President need not further comply with its dictates.” OLC argued that the statute exceeds Congress’s powers and intrudes on the Executive's independence.That conclusion has now moved from the realm of executive-branch legal interpretation to active litigation. In May, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates concluded that the Presidential Records Act is likely constitutional and preliminarily ordered numerous Executive Branch offices and officials—though not the President and Vice President themselves—to comply with it. The government has appealed that ruling to the D.C. Circuit.What constitutional authority, if any, does Congress have to regulate the creation, preservation, ownership, and disclosure of presidential records? Join us as our panel examines this question, the ongoing litigation, and the broader implications for congressional power, executive privilege, and the separation of powers. Featuring: Michael Edney, Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Christopher Fonzone, Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Reiss Center on Law and Security, NYU School of Law (Moderator) Zack Smith, Senior Legal Fellow, Courts and the Constitution, Legal Policy Center, The Heritage Foundation

The 1963 Supreme Court case United States v. Philadelphia National Bank established a "structural presumption": if a merger creates a single entity controlling 30% or more of a market, it is legally presumed to lessen competition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, U.S. antitrust law’s merger statute. U.S. federal and state antitrust enforcers challenging mergers have relied on this presumption for more than half a century. Certain state attorneys general have most recently utilized this presumption to argue that a combined Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery would control roughly 27% or more of key theatrical distribution and basic cable markets and hence be anti-competitive. Defenders of the presumption argue that it provides predictability to businesses and gives regulators an efficient way to identify and prevent harmful mergers. Critics charge that the presumption relies on an outdated economic theory and triggers a heavy burden shift for businesses based on thin or speculative evidence of potential harm. Join our panel of experts as they explore the future of the Philadelphia National Bank presumption and whether it will remain in place if the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery or other similar cases reach the Supreme Court.Featuring:Debbie Feinstein, Partner, Arnold & PorterHon. Douglas H. Ginsburg, Senior Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia CircuitProf. Herbert Hovenkamp, James G. Dinan University Professor, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law SchoolRahul Rao, Antitrust Partner, White & CaseProf. D. Daniel Sokol, Professor of Law and Business, USC Gould School of Law and Marshall School of Business(Moderator) Michael F. Murray, Partner, Litigation Department, Paul Hastings

In Louisiana v. Callais, a divided Supreme Court narrowed the circumstances in which states may use race as a factor in drawing election districts. The Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Alito, held that compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can justify the use of race in redistricting only when the circumstances give rise to a strong inference that the State intentionally denied minority voters an equal opportunity to elect their preferred candidates because of race. Justice Kagan penned a dissent, which argued that the majority opinion “renders Section 2 all but a dead letter.”Callais has already begun to shape litigation elsewhere. A pending federal complaint against the Denver Public School Board alleges that the board violated Section 2 and the Fifteenth Amendment by deliberately redrawing two of its seven districts to preserve Black and Hispanic electoral majorities, with board members explaining the effort in terms of ensuring that students are “represented by people who look like them.” Supporters of the board’s decision argue that shared racial background should be a meaningful consideration in political representation. Critics counter that this reasoning revives the same race-based logic the Constitution forbids, and that voters and candidates should be evaluated as individuals rather than as members of racial groups.Callais has also shaped important policy decisions. In June, the Office of Legal Counsel relied on Callais to conclude that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Title VII guidelines were unconstitutional because they contemplated liability based on disparate effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, and pressured employers to engage in race-based decision making.Join us for a webinar examining the downstream effects of the Callais decision and what it may mean for redistricting disputes like the Denver case and others like it.Featuring: Michael A. Carvin, Former Partner, Jones DayProf. Jeffrey M. Wice, Adjunct Professor of Law; Director, N.Y. Census and Redistricting Institute, New York Law School(Moderator) Hon. Linda Chavez, Chairman, Center for Equal Opportunity

When an AI system fabricates damaging claims about a real person, is the AI company liable for defamation? Just last week, in Keene v. Google, a federal court confronted this question for the first time, holding that allegedly false Google AI search summaries could be viewed as potentially defamatory factual assertions – and that “actual malice” on Google's part could be shown if Google's AI kept outputting the falsehoods after plaintiff had expressly alerted Google about this. In July, a Delaware state trial court likewise allowed conservative activist Robby Starbuck's defamation suit against Google to proceed.What do these early decisions mean for defamation law in the age of large language models? Join us as we discuss when AI-generated falsehoods may become actionable, how traditional libel doctrines apply to AI outputs, and what these cases could mean for AI developers, users, and the future of online information.Featuring:Prof. Lyrissa Lidsky, Raymond & Miriam Ehrlich Eminent Scholar Chair in US Constitutional Law, University of Florida Levin College of LawProf. Eugene Volokh, Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University; Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, UCLA School of Law(Moderator) Shlomo Klapper, CEO & Founder, Learned Hand

When an AI system fabricates damaging claims about a real person, is the AI company liable for defamation? Just last week, in Keene v. Google, a federal court confronted this question for the first time, holding that allegedly false Google AI search summaries could be viewed as potentially defamatory factual assertions – and that “actual malice” on Google’s part could be shown if Google’s AI kept outputting the falsehoods after plaintiff had expressly alerted Google about this. In July, a Delaware state trial court likewise allowed conservative activist Robby Starbuck’s defamation suit against Google to proceed.What do these early decisions mean for defamation law in the age of large language models? Join us as we discuss when AI-generated falsehoods may become actionable, how traditional libel doctrines apply to AI outputs, and what these cases could mean for AI developers, users, and the future of online information.Featuring:Prof. Lyrissa Lidsky, Raymond & Miriam Ehrlich Eminent Scholar Chair in US Constitutional Law, University of Florida Levin College of LawProf. Eugene Volokh, Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University; Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, UCLA School of Law(Moderator) Shlomo Klapper, CEO & Founder, Learned Hand

In September 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia preliminarily enjoined the EPA from sending four Clean Air Act waivers to Congress for potential repeal under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). These waivers have allowed California to enact its own vehicle emission standards. Judge Beryl Howell held the CRA's bar on judicial review does not reach an agency's threshold determination that its action is a "rule," and found California had standing to challenge the EPA's June 2026 press release announcing it was transmitting the rules to Congress. What may happen next in this case; and what does this litigation suggest about the limits on using the CRA as a deregulatory tool? Join us for a panel discussing the decision and the broader state of play on CRA issues under the current administration.Featuring:Michael Buschbacher, Managing Partner, Boyden Gray PLLCAndrew Ceonzo, Counsel to U.S. Senator Schmitt and the Senate Judiciary Committee(Moderator) Daniel M. Flores, Senior Counsel, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives

The annual Mike Lewis Memorial Forum honors the life and legacy of Mike Lewis, a former naval aviator and leading scholar of international law. Mike wrote and spoke extensively on the use of force and the law of armed conflict and served on the Executive Committee of the Federalist Society’s International & National Security Law Practice Group. Mike passed away from cancer in 2015 at age 50. He was admired across ideological lines for both his scholarship and his generosity of spirit.This year’s Forum will examine the law governing anticipatory self-defense and whether the traditional interpretation of international law adequately accounts for modern threats. This traditional view generally permits anticipatory self-defense only against an “imminent” threat. But that standard took shape in an era when threats moved at the speed of 19th-century naval vessels.How should that requirement apply in an era of missiles, cyberattacks, and other threats capable of materializing rapidly? Critics argue that a strict imminence requirement leaves states unable to respond to serious threats before they fully materialize, and that the resulting gap between doctrine and state practice erodes confidence in international law. Defenders of the traditional standard counter that loosening it risks inviting states to invoke self-defense as a pretext for aggression.The panel will consider whether international law should permit a broader range of anticipatory action against developing threats, what principles should govern such uses of force, and whether the U.N. Charter itself can be interpreted to accommodate them. More broadly, the discussion will explore how the law governing self-defense can respond to changing technologies and security challenges while continuing to constrain the use of force.Featuring:Dr. Brian Cox, Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier InstituteProf. John Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Senior Research Fellow, School of Civic Leadership, Civitas Institute, University of Texas at Austin; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute(Moderator) Vincent J. Vitkowsky, Fellow, National Security Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Jurisdictions increasingly require attorneys to complete CLE credits addressing bias, diversity, and inclusion in the legal profession. These requirements are often justified as tools to help lawyers reduce bias and ensure competent representation of clients from varied backgrounds. But these mandatory programs also raise significant and unsettled questions about how the profession may regulate bias in a manner consistent with federal law. When does a required course permissibly educate lawyers about bias, discriminatory conduct, barriers to access to justice, or cultural competency in legal practice? And when might mandatory training cross the line into compelled speech, viewpoint discrimination, or race- or sex-conscious practices that conflict with constitutional principles or civil-rights statutes?Join us for a CLE program examining the boundaries of these mandatory CLE requirements, including how such rules and programs can be structured to help lawyers recognize and mitigate bias in the legal profession while remaining consistent with constitutional and statutory limits.Featuring:Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law HoustonProf. William Jacobson, Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law SchoolDaniel Lennington, Deputy Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty(Moderator) Prof. Michael S. McGinniss, Professor of Law and J. Philip Johnson Faculty Fellow, University of North Dakota School of Law CLE This event has been approved for1.00 Total CLE HoursApproved specialty credit (DEI, Ethics, etc.) is included on the State Approval Status chart below.State Approval Status In order to receive CLE credit for this webinar, attendees must attend the Zoom Webinar and have access to the chat box. This event's accreditation is highly predicated upon interactivity and verification measures that are only available via the webinar.If you join via audio, calling in, SIP, or H.323, you will not be eligible to receive CLE Credit. CLE Materials Questions? Check out our CLE FAQ page.

Shortly after retaking office, President Trump signed executive orders reorienting the federal government’s approach to civil rights. Those orders directed agencies to identify and eliminate unlawful diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and other practices involving race- or sex-based discrimination, while emphasizing equal treatment, individual merit, and nondiscrimination. In April of last year, Executive Order 14281 (Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy) went further, announcing a policy to "eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible" — placing renewed focus on one of the oldest and most consequential debates in antidiscrimination law.Join us for a webinar that examines how the administration’s civil rights agenda is being implemented across the federal government.Featuring:Hon. Brittany Bull Panuccio, Commissioner, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionHon. Craig Trainor, Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban DevelopmentHon. Devon Westhill, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Agriculture(Moderator) Hon. Ken Marcus, Founder, Chairman, and CEO, The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

In this Federalist Society America 250 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.American lawyers have long been defined by a commitment to represent even the most unpopular clients—a tradition that traces back to the Founding. When John Adams defended the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre, he did so in the face of intense public hostility, underscoring a simple but enduring principle: the right to counsel does not turn on public approval. This webinar revisits that moment to examine the lawyer’s role in an adversarial system—not as an endorsement of a client’s conduct, but as a safeguard of the legal system itself.That principle has been under strain in recent decades. Lawyers representing controversial clients or causes have faced increasing public backlash and, in some cases, professional consequences. Similar pressures surfaced during the Red Scare, when attorneys representing alleged subversives were themselves subject to suspicion. As criticism shifts from clients to the lawyers who represent them, the question becomes harder to ignore: what happens to the legal system when representation itself is treated as suspect? Join our panel as they discuss what the Founding-era commitment to principled representation means for lawyers today.Featuring:William Creeley, Legal Director, The Foundation for Individual Rights in EducationErin E. Murphy, Partner, Clement & Murphy PLLC Prof. Richard Samuelson, Associate Professor of Government, Hillsdale College, Washington, D.C. Campus(Moderator) Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One CLEThis event has been approved for1.00 Total CLE HoursApproved specialty credit (DEI, Civility, Ethics, etc.) is included on the State Approval Status chart below.State Approval Status In order to receive CLE credit for this webinar, attendees must attend the Zoom Webinar and have access to the chat box. This event's accreditation is highly predicated upon interactivity and verification measures that are only available via the webinar.If you join via audio, calling in, SIP, or H.323, you will not be eligible to receive CLE Credit. CLE Materials Questions? Check out our CLE FAQ page.

In 2022, Florida enacted the Stop WOKE (Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees) Act, prohibiting indoctrination of race and gender ideology in a variety of educational and employment contexts. The law’s K-12 provisions remain in effect, but addressing a challenge to its higher education provisions, an Eleventh Circuit panel recently held “if the First Amendment offers any boundary of protection at all for public university classrooms, this statute crosses it.”What is “academic freedom?” Whose right is it? What role do taxpayers and the lawmakers working on their behalf have in funding and setting curricular decisions for state universities? How might other decisions prohibiting compelled use by faculty of preferred pronouns or preventing adverse employment actions against conservative faculty members inform the discussion? Join our panel of experts as they explore the intersection of academic freedom, free speech, and the First Amendment.Featuring:Joe Cohn, Research Scholar in Law and Executive Director, Center for Academic Freedom and Free Speech, Yale Law SchoolTyson Langhofer, Senior Counsel, Director of Center for Academic Freedom, Alliance Defending FreedomMay Mailman, Founder, MPL Strategies(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal Strategy, Stand Together

Public schools across the country are increasingly the site of debates over the role of parents in their children’s education. The public school system in Loudoun County, Virginia has become one of the most visible examples, drawing national attention over disputes involving curriculum, student privacy, and gender identity policies.Join us for a panel discussion focusing on Loudoun County as a case study exploring the tension between parents and educators in public schools.Featuring:Tyson Langhofer, Senior Counsel, Director of Center for Academic Freedom, Alliance Defending FreedomIan Prior, Senior Advisor, America First Legal(Moderator) Roger Severino, Vice President of Domestic and Economic Policy, The Heritage Foundation

This summer, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Faster Labor Contracts Act, a bill that would transform how unions and employers negotiate their first agreements. It would impose quick deadlines for negotiations, after which it would send the parties to mediation and eventually binding arbitration, where a panel of arbitrators would hear evidence and write the agreement themselves. Supporters call the bill a needed corrective to slow, sometimes futile negotiations; opponents say it will destroy the country’s voluntary approach to collective bargaining. Yet despite the elevated rhetoric, the bill has attracted supporters from both sides of the political aisle.Why has the bill attracted such attention? And why do its supports and critics see it in such stark terms? Our panel of experts will break it down.Featuring:Thomas Beck, Member, Federal Service Impasses Panel, Federal Labor Relations AuthorityProf. Sharon Block, Professor of Practice and Executive Director, Center for Labor and a Just Economy, Harvard Law SchoolG. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, CHRO AssociationDaniel Kishi, Senior Policy Advisor, American Compass(Moderator) Alex MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair of the Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.

Assisted suicide is a contested issue in American law and medicine, raising questions over individual autonomy, patient rights, medical ethics, and government interests in protecting life. Federal law prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for services intended to cause or assist a death, but this prohibition does not apply to ordinary palliative care.With several states legalizing physician-assisted suicide and more considering doing the same, the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) requested information in a recent proposed rule on the overlap between “medical aid in dying” (MAID) and Medicare-funded hospice care. CMS sought information about how it can ensure compliance with federal law, promote program integrity, and safeguard against fraud in states where assisted suicide is legal.This raises broader questions, including about how policymakers distinguish between comfort care at the end of life and practices intended to hasten death. Join us for a panel examining the current legal and regulatory landscape surrounding assisted suicide in the United States.Featuring:Alexander Raikin, Visiting Fellow in Bioethics, Ethics and Public Policy CenterDr. Jeffrey A. Singer, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute(Moderator) Dan Troy, Managing Director, Berkeley Research Group

How far can states go in regulating conduct that has effects outside their borders?At the Founding, the states entered a constitutional union in part because the Articles of Confederation proved incapable of managing interstate conflicts and preventing individual states from imposing burdens on their neighbors. At the same time, many of the Framers grew concerned that unchecked state legislatures, driven by local interests and factional pressures, threatened both individual rights and the stability of the Union. The Constitution created a framework designed to preserve both state sovereignty and a functioning union. Today, some commentators argue that climate litigation presents a modern version of those same concerns.In a case currently pending before the Supreme Court, Suncor Energy v. Boulder County, Colorado local governments are seeking massive financial damages under state tort law for global climate-related harms.Supporters of the energy companies contend that climate regulation is an inherently national and international issue, and therefore cannot be governed through a patchwork of state tort regimes or localized litigation. On the other side, the local governments argue that these suits involve traditional exercises of state police power–including nuisance, fraud, and consumer-protection law. While proponents frame these suits as localized consumer-protection disputes, critics argue they represent a dangerous breakdown of our constitutional architecture.Notably, many of the amicus briefs filed in Suncor frame the dispute not merely as a question of statutory preemption, but as a broader debate over the structural Constitution itself—including the proper allocation of authority among Congress, courts, and the states. Is this case an example of the Constitution imposing structural limits to prevent individual states from effectively regulating the nation through litigation? Or does it embody the principle that states retain broad sovereign authority absent clear federal displacement? And what does the structural Constitution require of Congress, courts, and the states in resolving those conflicts?More broadly, what are the constitutional limits on states regulations that impact activities outside their borders and what is the source for those limits? Three years ago, the Supreme Court made clear in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross that such restrictions are not found in the Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine. Does the structural Constitution answer that question, or is the answer found in one or more particular provisions of the Constitution?Join us for a discussion examining these questions.Featuring:Prof. Michael Greve, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. Daniel Rodriguez, Harold Washington Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of LawO.H. Skinner, Executive Director, Alliance For ConsumersMichael Williams, Solicitor General, West Virginia(Moderator) Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

The National Labor Relations Board is responsible for developing national labor policy, but it has historically accomplished its mission through case-by-case decision making rather than through rulemaking. And while that approach has been criticized over the years, it remains the Board’s customary approach and official policy.But that may be changing. Vacancies at its highest levels have have left the Board unable to reverse its own decisions, and it has been bombarded by requests from businesses to do more rulemaking. A decision from the Sixth Circuit, Brown Forman v. NLRB, has called into question whether it even can develop policy through adjudication—or at least, not in the way it usually does. Will the Board give in to these pressures and write more rules? Should it? And if it does, what will that change mean for businesses and workers? Our expert panel will break it down.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 LawBrian E. Hayes, Shareholder, Ogletree DeakinsMarvin Kaplan, Principal, JacksonLewis(Moderator) Alex MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair of the Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.

The Supreme Court's Second Amendment jurisprudence continues to evolve. This past Term, the Court issued significant decisions in Wolford v. Lopez and United States v. Hemani, further defining the contours of the right to keep and bear arms in the wake of its landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. At the same time, the Court has signaled that its work in this area is far from complete. The Justices have agreed to hear a closely watched challenge to state prohibitions on AR-15-style rifles and other commonly owned firearms, setting the stage for what could become one of the most consequential Second Amendment decisions since Bruen. The upcoming Term also raises broader questions about how the Court will continue to shape Second Amendment doctrine and whether a more comprehensive framework for evaluating firearm regulations is beginning to emerge.Join us for a discussion with legal experts as they reflect on the Court's recent decisions, assess the state of Second Amendment jurisprudence after Bruen, and preview the major firearms cases awaiting the Court in the upcoming Term.Featuring:Prof. Haley Proctor, Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School Michael Williams, General Counsel, American Suppressor Association(Moderator) Amy Swearer, Senior Legal Fellow, Advancing American Freedom

Congressional committees frequently use their subpoena power to compel witnesses to appear before them and testify. But appearing before Congress does not necessarily mean answering every question. When may a witness invoke the Fifth Amendment? Does a presidential pardon eliminate the privilege against self-incrimination, and if so, to what extent? And what options remain available to Congress when a witness declines to testify?These questions have taken on renewed significance following Dr. Anthony Fauci's invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege in recent congressional testimony and the debate over the legal effect of the pardon he received from President Biden.Join us as our panel examines the constitutional and statutory framework governing congressional testimony, including the privilege against self-incrimination, grants of immunity, presidential pardons, and contempt of Congress, as well as the practical considerations facing both investigators and witnesses.Featuring:John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Edwin Meese III Institute for the Rule of Law, Advancing American FreedomClark Neily, Senior Vice President for Legal Studies, Cato Institute(Moderator) G. Zachary Terwilliger, Partner, Vinson & Elkins, and former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia

This year marks the 100th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., the landmark decision that paved the way for ubiquitous zoning and land-use regulation by local governments across America. Under Euclid, where the Court infamously analogized an apartment building in the midst of single-family houses to “a pig in a parlor,” cities and towns could permissibly divide and regulate land by its use under their police power as they saw fit, so long as the zoning rules were reasonably related to protecting public health, safety, welfare, or morals. But even though the Court — just two years after Euclid in Nectow v. City of Cambridge — struck down a zoning ordinance because it failed to “bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare," local governments persisted in passing, and courts continued to routinely uphold, racially-discriminatory zoning laws under Euclid under the guise of protecting public welfare and economic well-being. Despite Euclid’s age and the dismantling of race-based zoning, Euclid remains the center of attention and debate, especially regarding whether zoning regulation unduly infringes upon private property rights, and therefore, demands higher and more thorough judicial scrutiny. Join our panel of experts for a lively discussion reflecting on Euclid’s effects on land use and housing over the past century and what the future may hold. Featuring: Robert Thomas, Director of Property Rights Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation Prof. Michael Allan Wolf, Richard E. Nelson Eminent Scholar Chair in Local Government Professor of Law, University of Florida Levin College of Law (Moderator) Isaiah McKinney, Judicial Law Clerk, U.S. District Court

In this Federalist Society America 250 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.In Federalist 23, Alexander Hamilton identified the common defense and the preservation of peace against external attacks as two of the principal purposes served by union. The Constitution that union adopted divides the power to declare war—vested in Congress—and the power to direct war—vested in the President as Commander in Chief. But what does it say about national security more broadly? The Founders were not without reservation about the risks of concentrating the means of defense, with James Madison warning the Constitutional Convention that a “standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.” It was also clear from the start, however, that functions like intelligence gathering belonged more naturally to the executive, whose institutional character supported the necessary secrecy and dispatch.This webinar will explore how the Founders understood national security power beyond the battlefield, how closely subsequent practice tracked their design, and whether today’s allocation of powers serves both the nation's security and its liberty.Featuring:Dr. Alberto Coll, Director, Global Engagement; Vincent de Paul Professor of Law, DePaul University College of LawProf. Matthew Waxman, Liviu Librescu Professor of Law, Columbia School of LawProf. John Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Senior Research Fellow, School of Civic Leadership, Civitas Institute, University of Texas at Austin; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute(Moderator) Molly Nixon, Senior Fellow in Executive Power, Cato Institute

Can states and local governments use consumer protection laws to regulate national climate policy? District of Columbia v. ExxonMobil is one of a growing number of climate lawsuits seeking to hold energy companies liable for alleged misrepresentations about the effects of fossil fuels. The case presents important questions about federalism, the boundaries of state consumer protection laws, and whether courts or the political branches should resolve disputes over climate policy. Join us for a discussion on the case and the broader legal implications. Featuring:Prof. Jason Johnston, Blaine T. Phillips Distinguished Professor in Environmental Law, University of Virginia Law SchoolBeatrice (Bebe) Strnad, Consumer Protection Bureau Chief, Nebraska Attorney General's Office(Moderator) Corinne Snow, Partner, Vinson & Elkins LLP

Can states and local governments use consumer protection laws to regulate national climate policy? District of Columbia v. ExxonMobil is one of a growing number of climate lawsuits seeking to hold energy companies liable for alleged misrepresentations about the effects of fossil fuels. The case presents important questions about federalism, the boundaries of state consumer protection laws, and whether courts or the political branches should resolve disputes over climate policy. Join us for a discussion on the case and the broader legal implications. Featuring:Prof. Jason Johnston, Blaine T. Phillips Distinguished Professor in Environmental Law, University of Virginia Law SchoolBeatrice (Bebe) Strnad, Consumer Protection Bureau Chief, Nebraska Attorney General's Office(Moderator) Corinne Snow, Partner, Vinson & Elkins LLP

Join us for a timely discussion on two developments shaping the future of digital assets in the United States. We will examine the CLARITY Act and its effort to establish clear rules for whether digital assets fall under SEC or CFTC oversight, as well as the ongoing dispute over Federal Reserve master accounts for crypto-focused banking institutions.Together, these issues highlight a central question: will digital asset firms gain both regulatory clarity and meaningful access to the nation’s financial infrastructure? The webinar will explore how the interaction between market-structure legislation and banking access could influence stablecoins, institutional adoption, and the broader integration of crypto into traditional finance.Opening Remarks:Hon. Cynthia Lummis, U.S. Senate, WyomingFeaturing:Paige Paridon, Executive Vice President and Co-Head of Regulatory Affairs, Bank Policy InstituteAlex Pollock, Senior Fellow, Mises InstituteCorey Then, Deputy General Counsel of Regulatory Strategy and Global Policy, CircleProf. David Zaring, Elizabeth F. Putzel Professor and Professor of Legal Studies & Business Ethics, The Wharton School, The University of Pennsylvania(Moderator) J.C. Boggs, Partner, King & Spalding

This term, several important questions of criminal law and procedure reached the Supreme Court, ranging from digital privacy and criminal venue to appeal waivers and capital sentencing.In Chatrie v. United States, the Court held that law enforcement conducts a Fourth Amendment search when it obtains a person’s cell-phone location history from a company through a geofence warrant.In Abouammo v. United States, the Court unanimously held that a defendant charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1519 with falsifying a document to obstruct a federal investigation must be tried in the district where the alleged falsification occurred, not in a different district where the investigation was based.In Hamm v. Smith, the Court dismissed as improvidently granted a capital case concerning whether and how courts may consider multiple IQ scores when evaluating a claim that a defendant is intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for execution under the Eighth Amendment.And in Hunter v. United States, the Court held that appeal waivers are generally enforceable but recognized a “miscarriage of justice” exception for egregious sentencing errors that would bring the judicial system into disrepute.Join us for a webinar breaking down these decisions, the separate opinions, and what they may mean for the criminal justice system.Featuring:Matthew Cavedon, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato InstituteKent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation(Moderator) Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime

Hon. Lindsey Graham (1955-2026) For more than two decades, Senator Lindsey Graham was a consequential voice on the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. He played a prominent role in some of the era’s most contentious judicial-confirmation battles, including the nominations of Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, and, as chairman during the 116th Congress, helped guide President Trump’s judicial nominees through the committee.Join us for a discussion reflecting on Senator Graham’s legacy, including his impact on the federal judiciary and the Senate’s advice-and-consent role.Introduction by Sheldon Gilbert, President and CEO, The Federalist SocietyFeaturing:Hon. Andrew N. Ferguson, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission, Former Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the JudiciaryMichael Fragoso, Partner, Torridon Law PLLC; Former Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Lee Holmes, Shareholder, D.C. Office Managing Shareholder; Former Staff Director and Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the JudiciaryKatherine Nikas, Senior Director, Microsoft; Former Staff Director and Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary(Moderator) Hon. Julius N. Richardson, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

In this Federalist Society America 250 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.The Founders regarded trial by jury as an indispensable check on government power, and the Fifth and Seventh Amendments enshrined that guarantee. In recent decades, however, the proliferation of administrative adjudication has steadily displaced the jury from disputes between citizens and the state. While the Supreme Court's decision in SEC v. Jarkesy was a significant step toward restoring the constitutional baseline, much work remains. Lower courts continue to rely on Atlas Roofing Co. v. OSHA to uphold agency adjudication of claims that, at the Founding, would have been tried before a jury. Cases like the recently decided FCC v. AT&T and next term's Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC illustrate just how far modern practice has drifted from constitutional design.Thomas Jefferson identified the jury "as the only anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." Yet today, Americans routinely face penalties imposed by federal agencies, not juries of their peers. Join us for a Federalist Society America 250 panel discussion looking back to the Founding Era to ask: What has become of the right to a jury trial in actions brought by the federal government?Featuring:Robert E. Johnson, Senior Attorney, Institute for JusticeProf. Renée Lerner, Donald Phillip Rothschild Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law SchoolProf. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School(Moderator) Hon. Jennifer Walker Elrod, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Parental rights have long occupied an important place in American law and political thought. While the Supreme Court today generally recognizes parental rights as fundamental, the constitutional foundations of those rights remain the subject of significant debate. Modern doctrine, reflected in cases such as Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Troxel v. Granville, and more recent disputes involving parental authority over children’s education and upbringing, largely rests on substantive due process—a doctrine that itself remains controversial.This webinar will explore parental rights from their roots in natural law and the political thought of the American Founding through their development in modern constitutional jurisprudence. What did the Founders understand the parent-child relationship to entail, and how did earlier natural-law traditions shape those views? How did parental rights come to be recognized as fundamental within American constitutional law? And looking forward, what is the strongest constitutional foundation for protecting parental rights? Should substantive due process remain the primary vehicle, or are there alternative constitutional grounds that may provide a more secure basis for these protections?Featuring:Michael P. Farris, General Counsel, NRBProf. Martin Guggenheim, Fiorello LaGuardia Professor of Clinical Law Emeritus, New York University School of LawProf. Melissa Moschella, Professor of the Practice, Philosophy, McGrath Institute for Church Life, University of Notre DameAnthony Sanders, Director, Center for Judicial Engagement, Institute for Justice(Moderator) Gene C. Schaerr, Partner, Schaerr Jaffe LLP CLEThis event has been approved for1.00 Total CLE HoursIn order to receive CLE credit for this webinar, attendees must attend the Zoom Webinar and have access to the chat box. This event's accreditation is highly predicated upon interactivity and verification measures that are only available via the webinar.If you join via audio, calling in, SIP, or H.323, you will not be eligible to receive CLE Credit.State Approval Status CLE Materials Questions? Check out our CLE FAQ page.

Military law encompasses a wide range of legal disciplines, including criminal law, national security, government contracts, administrative and regulatory law, and more.Join an experienced panel of current and former Judge Advocates for a practical discussion of the work JAGs perform, the application and accession process, and the long-term trajectory of military legal careers. The panel will compare opportunities across the Active Duty, Reserve, and National Guard components and offer practical guidance for building a successful career as a JAG.Featuring:Stephanie Fisher, Senior Appellate Counsel, U.S. NavyMark Majors, Deputy General Counsel, National Guard BureauProf. Michael A. Newton, Director, International Legal Studies Program, Vanderbilt Law School(Moderator) Jesse Burbank, Special Counsel, U.S. Department of Defense Related Reading by a Panelist: Charging War Crimes: Policy & Prognosis from a Military Perspective

In this Federalist Society America 250 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.The Founders drew their understanding of international law — known at the time as the law of nations — from 18th Century classical texts. Hamilton, Madison, Jay, Jefferson, and others all studied the edition of Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations, released on the eve of the American Revolution. Its precepts were analyzed in The Federalist Papers, debated in the Constitutional Convention, and resulted in a few basic principles. First, along with the Constitution and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, all Treaties made under the authority of the United States "shall be the supreme Law of the Land." Second, the Define and Punish Clause gives Congress the power to define and punish . . . Offenses against the Law of Nations.” The Founders viewed the right of self-defense as a fundamental, inherent natural right of nations. They recognized the right of preemptive use of force in anticipatory self defense. This right had an expansive interpretation, allowing actions against credible threats without awaiting an actual first strike. There was room for argument on how “imminent” the threat must be. Current international law on this issue consists of the UN Charter and contemporary understandings and interpretations of customary international law. This Forum will bring together two foremost scholars, each expert in both the Founders’ understanding and the current understanding of international law, for a conversation about the historic and contemporary interpretations of the propriety of our current war against Iran and related matters.Featuring:Prof. Martin S. Flaherty, Charles and Marie Robertson Visiting Professor, School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton UniversityProf. Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor Emeritus of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University(Moderator) Dr. Sohan Dasgupta, Assistant Secretary for Trade and Economic Security, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (former) | Political Head, Millennium Challenge Corporation (former) | Managing Director, Berkeley Research Group (BRG)

The government-speech doctrine generally permits the government to select and promote its own messages without being subject to First Amendment scrutiny. But does that principle have limits? What about when public funds, facilities, or employees are used to convey partisan messages or selectively promote particular viewpoints?Join us for a discussion on whether and to what extent the First Amendment constrains the government’s own speech. Featuring: Erik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP Prof. Eugene Volokh, Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University; Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, UCLA School of Law [Moderator] Hon. Susanna Dokupil, Justice, Texas First Court of Appeals

Controversy has swirled for years over litigation in which a plaintiff sues a friendly government defendant, and the case concludes with a favorable settlement. Critics argue that this practice creates a non-adversarial process that allows aligned litigants and agencies to shape policy and reward political allies outside the normal rulemaking and appropriations procedures. Defenders respond that these settlements generally resolve legitimate claims while conserving judicial resources and taxpayer dollars. The debate intensified during the Obama administration as the practice proliferated, particularly in environmental consent decrees.The controversy received renewed attention after the district court’s July 13 ruling in Trump v. IRS, concerning the settlement of President Trump's lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. The court concluded that the parties were never genuinely adverse and that there was therefore no Article III case or controversy. Its order went further, however. Reasoning that the suit was brought for an improper purpose, the court imposed sanctions on the plaintiffs and their counsel and directed that the order be transmitted to the bar authorities of senior DOJ officials.Join us for a discussion of Trump v. IRS, and the broader legal and policy concerns surrounding sue-and-settle litigation.Featuring:Anne Austin, Senior Advisor, Burke Law GroupZhonette M. Brown, General Counsel, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties AllianceAbhishek Kambli, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC(Moderator) John Shu, Attorney and Legal Commentator

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently vacated the Federal Communications Commission’s 2023 Digital Discrimination Order, finding the commission exceeded its statutory authority.The dispute centered on the FCC’s implementation of Section 60506 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which directs the commission to prevent “digital discrimination of access” in broadband deployment and service. In carrying out this statutory mandate, the FCC adopted a disparate-impact framework, under which broadband providers and other entities that impact broadband could face liability for policies or practices that disproportionately affect certain communities without regard to discriminatory intent. The Eighth Circuit concluded that Section 60506 does not authorize the FCC’s disparate-impact regime or regulation of entities other than broadband providers.Join us for a litigation update on the decision and its implications for broadband deployment, digital equity initiatives, FCC authority, and future efforts to address alleged discrimination in access to broadband service.Featuring:Dr. Christopher Ali, Pioneers Chair in Telecommunications, Penn State UniversityJennifer B. Dickey, Vice President and Deputy Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Daniel H. Kahn, Partner, Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP[Moderator] Matthew Furlow, Counsel, U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce

Unlike most nations, the United States eschews centralized control over its system of higher education in favor of a more decentralized “regulatory triad” of accreditation agencies, state licensing authorities, and certification by the U.S. Department of Education to participate in federal student aid programs. To qualify for federal student loans and grants, colleges and universities must be institutionally accredited by an Education Department-recognized accrediting agency. As gatekeepers of federal financial aid, accreditors have great sway over their institutions. President Trump issued an executive order on "Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education," and the Education Department recently commenced negotiated rulemaking on new accreditation regulations and intends to publish a final rule by November 1, 2026.But what is the purpose of accreditation, and how much power do accreditors hold? What is the connection to federal funding, and how are determinations of "academic quality" made? Do the current accreditation processes and recognized agencies meet their aims? What is the role of the Department’s National Advisory Committee for Institutional Quality and Integrity in this process? What can the public expect to see in the Department’s new accreditation regulations? To what extent, if at all, can the Department use its recognition authority over accreditors effectively to address such topics as campus free speech, academic freedom, DEI, and other controversial issues? Join us for a discussion on the nuts and bolts of accreditation and what the current process means for the state of higher education in America today.Featuring:Robert S. Eitel, Co-Founder and President, Defense of Freedom InstituteJonathan Helwink, Principal, Helwink Legal Group, PLLCAdam Kissel, Visiting Lecturer in Formal Organizations, Trinity College(Moderator) Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Senior Legal Fellow, Defending Education

In National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the Federal Election Campaign Act’s limits on political parties’ coordinated expenditures with their candidates violate the First Amendment. In overruling Colorado II, the majority emphasized that party-candidate coordination forms the “essence of our Nation’s party system of government.”Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision, the dissent, and what National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission may mean for campaign-finance law and political parties.Featuring:Brett Nolan, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech Mathura Sridharan, Solicitor General, Ohio

This spring, Virginia joined eighteen other states and DC in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an agreement among participating jurisdictions to award their presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote once they collectively hold 270 electoral votes. Virginia's thirteen electoral votes bring the compact to 222, leaving it 48 short of the threshold at which it would take effect. Is participation in the compact a legitimate exercise of state power under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, or does it require congressional consent under the Compact Clause or even a constitutional amendment under Article V? Join us for a discussion of Virginia’s entry, the constitutional arguments on both sides, and what the compact could mean for the future of the Electoral College.Featuring: Chad Ennis, Vice President, Honest Elections ProjectMichael Williams, Solicitor General, West Virginia[Moderator] Hon. Allen J. Dickerson, Partner, BakerHostetler; Former Chairman, Federal Election Commission

In Trump v. Slaughter, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) statutory for-cause removal protection violates the separation of powers, overruling Humphrey's Executor. The Court reasoned that subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Thus, because the FTC exercises executive power, its Commissioners must be removable by the President at will.Yet in Trump v. Cook, the Court, 5-4, denied the government’s request to stay an injunction blocking the removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. The Court held that a president’s asserted “for cause” statutory basis for removing a Federal Reserve governor is judicially reviewable and that Cook was entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond before removal. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts reasoned that the statute was enacted against the backdrop of the common law, and that any definition of “cause” in this context must reflect the Federal Reserve’s unique historical status and role.Join us for a webinar breaking down both decisions, the separate opinions, and what they may mean for presidential removal power, independent agencies, the Federal Reserve, and the future of the administrative state.Featuring:Erin M. Hawley, Supreme Court & Appellate Litigation Chair, Lex Politica; Of Counsel, Alliance Defending FreedomAdam White, Laurence H. Silberman Chair in Constitutional Governance and Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Co-Director, Antonin Scalia Law School’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State

Third-party litigation funding has grown into a major part of modern civil litigation. Supporters argue it expands access to justice and helps under-resourced plaintiffs challenge powerful defendants. Critics argue it can distort litigation incentives, empower foreign or opaque funders, and undermine attorney-client control of litigation. As state legislatures and Congress consider restrictions and disclosure requirements, how should policymakers balance transparency, donor privacy, access to courts, national security, and attorney ethics? Is third-party litigation funding a threat to the integrity of the civil justice system that conservatives should rein in, or a market mechanism that conservatives should protect as a counterweight to institutional lawfare? Can the foreign-adversary money problem be severed from the broader regulatory question? Join us for a discussion of these and other issues surrounding the financing of litigation. Featuring:Oramel H. Skinner, III, Executive Director, Alliance For ConsumersGene P. Hamilton, President, America First Legal FoundationPhil Goldberg, Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP[Moderator] Jim Wedeking, Counsel, Boyden Gray PLLC

In the consolidated cases Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., the Supreme Court held that neither Title IX nor the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states or schools from determining sports eligibility based on biological sex. Join us for a Courthouse Steps webinar breaking down the decision, the separate opinions, and what it may mean for Title IX, equal protection doctrine, school athletics, and future litigation over sex-based classifications.Featuring:Rachel N. Morrison, Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy CenterSarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Senior Legal Fellow, Defending Education

In Trump v. Barbara, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause guarantees birthright citizenship to children born in the United States, even if their parents are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country, as they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision and the separate opinions.Featuring:Prof. Kurt T. Lash, E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of LawEric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney GeneralProf. Ilan Wurman, Professor, University of Minnesota Law School

In Trump v. Barbara, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause guarantees birthright citizenship to children born in the United States, even if their parents are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country, as they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision and the separate opinions. Featuring: Prof. Kurt T. Lash, E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of Law Eric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney General Prof. Ilan Wurman, Professor, University of Minnesota Law School