FedSoc Forums

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 LLPProf. 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

In Wolford v. Lopez, the Supreme Court held that Hawaii’s law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. In a 6-3 decision, the majority reasoned that the restrictions fell within the plain text of the Second Amendment and that Hawaii’s proffered historical analogues did not support the constitutionality of its new default rule.Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision, the separate opinions, and what Wolford may mean for Second Amendment litigation.Featuring:Amy E. Swearer, Senior Legal Fellow, Advancing American FreedomJohn Ohlendorf, Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC

In Watson v. Republican National Committee, the Supreme Court held 5-4 that federal election-day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots that are postmarked by election day but received up to five business days later. Although those statutes set the day for the “election,” the majority read "election" to mean the expression of the electorate’s choice, which occurs when voting is complete, not when ballots are received.Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision, the separate opinions, and what Watson may mean for absentee voting, state election rules, and future election-law litigation.Featuring:Chad Ennis, Vice President, Honest Elections ProjectEdward D. Greim, Partner, Graves Garrett Greim LLC

In Mullin v. Doe, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the Trump administration, reversing lower-court orders that had halted the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Syrian and Haitian nationals. The Court held that the TPS statute bars judicial review of non-constitutional challenges to DHS’s TPS termination decisions. It also concluded that the Haitian plaintiffs’ equal-protection claim was unlikely to succeed, reasoning that the administration’s across-the-board opposition to TPS as previously implemented supplied a strong race-neutral explanation for the termination.Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision, the separate opinions, and the case's potential impact.Featuring:Eric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney GeneralJames Rogers, Senior Counsel, America First Legal Foundation

In Pung v. Isabella County, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected claims under the Takings Clause and Excessive Fines Clause that the Constitution required compensation based on the property’s fair-market value, holding instead that surplus auction proceeds are the proper measure when the tax sale is fairly conducted. The decision preserves traditional tax-sale systems while leaving room for future challenges to unfair foreclosure procedures.Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision and its impact.Featuring:Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityDeborah J. La Fetra, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

As America celebrates the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, Proclaiming Liberty by Timothy Sandefur revisits the revolutionary year of 1776 through the minds of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, two men whose words and ideas gave birth to modern liberty. Sandefur’s engaging narrative brings to life the “American mind” as those extraordinary Founders sought to express it—their arguments, ideals, and enduring beliefs in natural rights and self-government.Sweeping from the English Civil War and the writings of Locke and Montesquieu to the colonial battles over the Stamp and Townshend Acts and the battlefields of Massachusetts and Virginia, Sandefur’s narrative shows how the Declaration distilled centuries of debate about freedom, law, and human nature into one of history’s most enduring statements on justice. Blending biography, political thought, and legal history—from Sir Edward Coke and Edmund Burke to Tacitus and Frederick Douglass—Proclaiming Liberty traces the Declaration’s legacy through the abolitionist movement, the Civil War, and the modern age, documenting how its principles have continued to challenge tyranny, refute relativism, and inspire movements for justice.Join us for this discussion between Prof. Lee Strang and Timothy Sandefur as they reflect on the Declaration's intellectual pedigree and enduring relevance for all who love freedom.Featuring:Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Goldwater InstituteProf. Lee J. Strang, Executive Director, Salmon P. Chase Center for Civics, Culture, and Society, The Ohio State University

In United States v. Hemani, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of an indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). In a narrow, as-applied holding, the Court held that the government’s prosecution of a marijuana user for knowingly possessing a gun in his home while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance was inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Applying Bruen and Rahimi, the Court rejected the government’s analogy to historical “habitual drunkard” laws, concluding that those laws targeted different kinds of people, served different purposes, and operated in different ways.Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision, the separate opinions, and what Hemani may mean for history-and-tradition analysis and Second Amendment litigation.Featuring:Prof. F. Lee Francis, Associate Professor, Widener Law CommonwealthWilliam Bergstrom, Partner, Cooper & Kirk

In International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court has been asked to review a Washington law that delays notification and reunification of a runaway child with his or her parents if that child claims to be receiving or requests gender-affirming treatment. The lower courts found that a group of parents (including one with a child who had run away before) lacked standing to challenge this law. The parents' petition to the Supreme Court will go before the Justices at an upcoming conference. Join us for a litigation update about this case and its broader implications for standing doctrine particularly in the context of parental rights and gender transition. Featuring: --R. Shawn Gunnarson, Shareholder, Kirton McConkie --Prof. Derek Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School --(Moderator) Prof. Teresa Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of Law

In Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe, the Supreme Court held that courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international norms under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and that aiding-and-abetting liability exists under neither the ATS nor the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991. The decision limits the use of U.S. courts to pursue transnational human-rights claims absent clear congressional authorization.In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación CIMEX, S.A. (Cuba), the Court held that the Helms-Burton Act removes sovereign immunity for Cuban agencies and instrumentalities sued for trafficking in property confiscated by the Cuban government. Plaintiffs suing those entities under the Act, therefore, do not need to separately satisfy one of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s enumerated exceptions.Join us for a discussion of these decisions, their implications, and what they reveal about the Court’s approach to statutory interpretation and separation of powers. Featuring: Prof. Julian Ku, Faculty Director of International Programs and Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Hofstra University Molly Nixon, Senior Fellow in Executive Power, Cato Institute

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.From the Articles of Confederation's earliest days, the states disagreed about how to handle the budding nation’s westernmost territories. At the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, the Framers partially addressed these issues by providing the Property Clause in Article IV, Section 3. This granted Congress the “Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States[.]” Since then, the United States has acquired and retained hundreds of millions of acres of land, leaving large swaths of it unappropriated and in the hands of unelected federal administrators. Though the Supreme Court has interpreted Article I’s Necessary and Proper Clause to allow the federal government to hold property while furthering its enumerated powers, experts disagree over whether federal agencies violate the vertical separation of power by holding land within a state’s borders and exerting vast delegated powers over it. Join our panel of the foremost scholars and litigators of public lands as they explore the text, history, and purpose of the Property Clause, and whether the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article IV, Section 3 has wreaked havoc on the Constitution’s otherwise narrow allowance for federal control of public lands.Featuring:Ethan Blevins, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal FoundationTony Francois, Partner, Briscoe Prows Kao Ivester & Bazel LLPProf. Richard Samuelson, Associate Professor of Government, Hillsdale College, Washington, D.C. Campus(Moderator) Hon. Ryan T. Holte, Judge, United States Court of Federal Claims; Distinguished Jurist-in-Residence Professor of Law, The University of Akron School of 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.Innovation is at the heart of the American economy, fueled by a patent system that represented a deliberate radical break from the British model. Under English practice, the Crown granted patents as royal favors, monopolies awarded at the sovereign's pleasure, with no requirement of genuine novelty or utility. The Framers rejected this. They believed that intellectual property rights should both reward ingenuity and advance society. By drawing Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 almost verbatim from the South Carolina Constitution, they tied the grant of patents to the mandate to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts."This system democratized invention, where anyone could apply for a patent, and set the stage for centuries of American innovative dominance. The U.S. model has largely been adopted globally.As we approach the Semiquincentennial, join our panel to explore the inventive spirit unleashed after the Founding. How did the Constitution break with British common law? Why did the Framers embed IP rights in the Constitution itself rather than the Bill of Rights? What does it mean that the provision passed without recorded controversy? And how healthy are those rights today?Featuring:Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. David S. Olson, Associate Professor, Boston College Law SchoolProf. Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law(Moderator) Hon. John D. Love, Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas

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.State constitutions were not afterthoughts to the Founding—they were the proving grounds that shaped and informed the United States Constitution. As America celebrates its 250th anniversary, this webinar will explore how these early charters both inspired our national framework and continue to operate as vital, independent safeguards of individual liberty. Discover why state constitutions remain essential pillars of federalism—protecting freedom not just in theory, but in practice.Featuring:Hon. Nels S.D. Peterson, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of GeorgiaTimothy Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Goldwater InstituteHon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit(Moderator) Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

After two decades of flat demand, US electricity demand is experiencing rapid growth. Demand is expected to increase 25% by 2030 and 78% by 2050, pushing up electricity prices as suppliers scramble to fund and construct massive amounts of new infrastructure. Average residential bills increased by nearly 30% from 2021 to 2025 and are expected to continue going up, adding to the inflation concerns of consumers. At the same time, public officials are issuing increasingly urgent warnings about growing risks to the reliability of the U.S. electric power system. Our nation’s technological progress, prosperity, and well-being depend on ever-expanding supplies of reliable and affordable electric power to meet rapidly growing demand from proliferating data centers and the expansion of other power-hungry enterprises. The causes that have inflated the price of electricity and threatened the reliability of electric service must be identified correctly and dealt with effectively. How have certain policy developments, including the deregulation movement, the expansion of federal regulation, and the push for decarbonization, affected the price of electricity and the reliability of electric service? Going forward, what changes in federal and state regulation would produce the greatest positive impact on the price of electricity and the reliability of electric service?Join us for a discussion of electric regulation covering these and other important questions featuring experts with decades of relevant experience. Featuring:Mark Curtis Christie, Founding Director of the Center for Energy Law and Policy, William & Mary Law School; Former Chairman, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Former Chairman, Virginia State Corporation CommissionBernard L. McNamee, Former Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission(Moderator) J. Kennerly Davis, Former Deputy Attorney General for Virginia

In Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA v. Amarin Pharma, the Supreme Court unanimously held that, to plausibly allege induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), a complaint must identify words or conduct that affirmatively encourage infringement. Writing for the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson explained that a generic manufacturer's label and public statements must do more than merely leave open the possibility that doctors might prescribe or pharmacists might dispense the drug for a patented indication.Join us for a webinar breaking down the ruling and its implications for patent litigation.Featuring:Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityWesley Weeks, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP

Following the October 2023 terrorist attacks in Israel, reports of antisemitism have risen across America. In 2025, the U.S. Department of Education opened civil-rights investigations into dozens of colleges over their alleged failure to protect Jewish students.Debates over antisemitism, free speech, and the boundaries of political coalitions have become increasingly visible. Some have called on conservatives and libertarians to take a forceful stand against antisemitism and draw clearer lines against figures who refuse to do so. Others have grown skeptical of how antisemitism is defined and argue that supporters of Israel are squelching legitimate dissent.Are more proactive measures needed to combat antisemitism in America? When does coalition-building become moral evasion, and when does gatekeeping risk policing legitimate dissent? Join us for a timely and lively discussion of antisemitism, free speech, and the proper limits of the right’s “big tent.”Featuring:Dr. Jesse Merriam, Associate Professor of Government; Pre-Law Advisor, Patrick Henry CollegeJosh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston(Moderator) Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder, Chairman, and CEO of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

In FCC v. AT&T, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a jury trial is required before the FCC may collect penalties from regulated parties for apparent violations of communication laws and regulations. The Supreme Court found that the FCC's administrative process does not offend the Seventh Amendment jury right – over the dissent of Justice Clarence Thomas. Join us for a webinar breaking down the ruling and its implications for other challenges to administrative enforcement regimes. Featuring: Thomas Berry, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato InstituteJosh Robbins, Attorney, Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation

The SEC’s “Gag Rule” long conditioned settlement of enforcement actions on the defendant's agreeing never to publicly deny the agency's allegations, even where the defendant admitted no wrongdoing. In Powell v. SEC, now before the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari, Petitioners argue that this condition violates the First Amendment; the Ninth Circuit had upheld the rule as a permissible voluntary waiver. The case has already produced major developments. Last month, the SEC rescinded the Gag Rule, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has now rescinded its own comparable no-deny settlement policy. The SEC now contends that its rescission of the rule renders Powell moot. Join us for a litigation update on Powell and a broader discussion of what these reversals mean for agency enforcement, settlement negotiations, mootness, and government efforts to control the public narrative. Featuring: --Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance --Hon. Gregory G. Garre, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP --(Moderator) Jill Jacobson, Litigation Associate, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

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.Education today looks radically different than it did at the Founding, but that may be changing. As America celebrates its 250th anniversary, this webinar will explore the government’s role in education during the Founding era, the subsequent 19th- and early 20th-century developments that upended the Founding-era tradition, and the body of Supreme Court precedent that continues to emerge from that upheaval. Is a return to tradition in the making?Featuring:Michael Bindas, Senior Attorney, Institute for JusticeProf. Nicole Stelle Garnett, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law and Associate Dean for External Engagement, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Mark Storslee, Associate Professor and C. Boyden Gray Distinguished Scholar, University of North Carolina School of Law(Moderator) Shaka Mitchell, Senior Fellow, American Federation for Children

Join us for a timely webinar examining the latest updates to the United States Patent and Trademark Office's examination policy under Director John Squires, with a focused look at how these changes are reshaping patent prosecution. Our panel will break down key shifts in examination practice—including updates to patent eligibility—and applicant strategies emerging in response, offering practical insights for navigating this evolving landscape. Designed for practitioners, in-house counsel, and policy observers alike, this discussion will highlight what matters most for day-to-day prosecution. Featuring: Dr. Julie Burke, Founder, IP Quality Pro, LLC Noel Egnatios, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Legal Officer, DivX Eli Mazour, Of Counsel, Foley & Lardner LLP Clint Mehall, Partner, Davidson Kappel LLC (Moderator) John M. Rogitz, Managing Attorney, Rogitz & Associates

In this Federalist Society America250 series, experts analyze modern legal and policy debates through the lens of the Founding generation. The Founders gave us the tools to answer many contemporary questions; join us as we explore those answers.In 2022, the Supreme Court overruled the "Lemon Test" for interpreting the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, holding that the Clause must instead be interpreted by reference to "historical practices and understandings." To do this, the Court suggested it would look to certain historical "hallmarks of religious establishments the framers sought to prohibit when they adopted the First Amendment." This has kicked off a vigorous debate, in both caselaw and scholarship, about what constituted "an establishment of religion" at the time of the Founding, and how that history should inform interpretation of the Establishment Clause today. Join a gathering of the foremost scholars and litigators of the Establishment Clause to discuss the Clause's historical meaning both as a matter of originalist theory and in its application to current church-state controversies, such as displays of the Ten Commandments in public schools.Featuring:Joe Davis, Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious LibertyDouglas Laycock, Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Virginia; Alice McKean Young Regents Chair in Law Emeritus, University of TexasMichael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Stanford Law School(Moderator) Hon. Ryan D. Nelson, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

In Bear Warriors United v. Secretary, Florida Department of Environmental Protection the Eleventh Circuit is considering the question of whether the Endangered Species Act can hold states responsible for the harms of regulated private parties without running afoul of the Constitution's anti-commandeering doctrine.The Endangered Species Act prohibits anyone, including a state, from harming an endangered or threatened species. But threats to species are often driven by many small harms, which makes enforcement difficult. In Florida, manatee habitat is degraded by nitrogen released from septic tanks, none of which contributes substantially to the problem on their own. Bear Warriors United, an environmental group, sued Florida's Department of Environmental Protection alleging that it is liable for these harms as the regulator of septic tanks. A Florida district court agreed, ordering the state to prohibit new septic tanks in the watershed, to implement various conservation programs, and to maintain these policies unless and until a federal agency authorizes the state to change them.The anti-commandeering doctrine prohibits the federal government from "seeking to control or influence the manner in which States regulate private parties." But every court to have considered the question so far has held that enforcing the ESA against states for harms created by private permittees does not run afoul of the doctrine. Will the Eleventh Circuit be the first to go the other way?Join us as a panel of experts explore this conflict between anti-commandeering, preemption, and conservation. Featuring:Prof. William Snape, III, Director of the Program on Environmental and Energy Law, Assistant Dean of Adjunct Faculty Affairs, and Fellow in Environmental Law, American University Washington College of LawJonathan Wood, Vice President of Law and Policy, Property and Environment Research Center(Moderator) Prof. Jonathan Adler, Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law, William H. Cabell Research Professor, William & Mary Law School

This panel will explore the evolving use of the Congressional Review Act, with particular attention to its application in recent high-profile regulatory contexts. Panelists will examine Congress’s recent use of the Congressional Review Act to nullify California Clean Air Act waivers—an action that is both a significant environmental policy development and a potential turning point in congressional practice. Panelists will consider key institutional and procedural questions raised by the recent congressional activity, including what the use of Senate procedural tools reveals about internal chamber rules and potential implications for the filibuster and legislative practice more generally. The panel will also examine emerging legislative strategies in employing the Congressional Review Act, including innovative applications to a wider range of agency actions, and consider how courts may approach judicial review in this evolving landscape. Through these lenses, the discussion aims to provide a deeper understanding of the Congressional Review Act’s role at the intersection of administrative law, congressional procedure, and separation of powers. Featuring: Prof. Jonathan Adler, Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law, William H. Cabell Research Professor, William & Mary Law School Michael Buschbacher, Partner, Boyden Gray, PLLC Dean Alan B. Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service Law, Professional Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law School (Moderator) Laura Stanley, Associate Attorney, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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