FedSoc Forums

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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