FedSoc Forums

From the Olympics to San Jose State, each month we hear of new controversies where biological men are competing in women’s sports. Most of those situations relate to college, international, or public school competitions. But how do policies that permit transgender athlete participation impact private religious schools, both now and in the future? How do such schools’ sincerely-held religious beliefs about these issues change what state actors can and can’t do? In Mid Vermont Christian School v. Saunders, the Vermont Principals Association (VPA), a state-sponsored sports league, removed Mid Vermont from its athletic association because the school forfeited a girls’ playoff basketball game against another team with a male athlete who identified as female. The Christian school declined to play the game because of its religious beliefs about sex, yet the VPA imposed this punishment while still allowing forfeits for secular reasons. Although the VPA has historically prohibited boys from playing on girls’ sports teams “to protect opportunities for girl athletes,” it recently adopted policies that allow males who identify as female to participate in girls’ sports and demanded Mid Vermont’s girls’ teams play against teams with male athletes or not play at all. Mid Vermont and some of its families sued in response. In June 2024, a federal district court applied rational-basis review and denied Mid Vermont’s motion for preliminary injunction. The case is currently pending at the Second Circuit, where the court will resolve whether, while the case proceeds below, Mid Vermont will be allowed to rejoin the state athletic association it competed in for close to 30 years. Join us for a discussion of this case, the religious liberty issues implicated, and the larger consequences state nondiscrimination laws may have on religious schools going forward.Featuring:David A. Cortman, Senior Counsel and Vice President of U.S. Litigation, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Eric W. Treene, Senior Counsel, Storzer and Associates; Adjunct Professor at the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law

On his first day in office, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled Protecting The Meaning And Value of American Citizenship which moves to end birthright citizenship practice which guarantees that U.S.-born children are citizens regardless of their parents’ status.The next day, attorneys general from 22 states sued to block the Executive Order by asserting that the President is attempting to eliminate "a well-established and longstanding Constitutional principle" by executive fiat.Join this expert panel for a discussion of this important and timely topic.Featuring:Amy E. Swearer, Senior Legal Policy Analyst, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage FoundationProf. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution(Moderator) Prof. Kurt T. Lash, E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of Law

The Supreme Court's decision in Collins v. Yellen represented a paradigm shift. Now, in cases involving claims that an agency official is unconstitutionally insulated from removal by the President, litigants can face an uphill climb to obtain meaningful relief. This state of affairs arguably has a serious impact on the incentive to bring these kinds of lawsuits going forward. This webinar will discuss the future of presidential removal power litigation in light of Collins, as well as related questions about the Court's understanding of the presidential removal power more generally and how private litigants can continue to bring these claims within the framework of Collins.Featuring:Prof. David Froomkin, Assistant Professor of Law, The University of Houston Law CenterEli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP(Moderator) Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, The University of Michigan Law School

In August 2024, a federal district court held that Google possesses monopolistic power over “general search” and “general search text advertising,” which Google illegally maintained through exclusive agreements. The DOJ has suggested a range of possible remedies, including possible divestitures, while Google counters that the suggested remedies are “wildly interventionist” and could harm American consumers. A remedies trial will take place this year.This FedSoc Forum will discuss the decision, the remedies trial, and its future implications for other large companies, particularly within the tech sphere.Featuring:Thomas DeMatteo, General Counsel, Senate Judiciary CommitteeGeoffrey A. Manne, President & Founder, International Center for Law and EconomicsAnant Raut, Public Advisor, National Institute of Standards and TechnologyModerator: Asheesh Agarwal, Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce--To register, click the link above.

As China deepens its presence in Latin America by owning nearly 40 ports—including a new mega port in Peru—and establishing intelligence posts in Cuba, U.S. policymakers face growing concerns over regional influence. Twenty-two Latin American countries have joined China's Belt and Road Initiative, amplifying Beijing's strategic foothold. Meanwhile, security threats persist closer to home, with cartel-driven predation undermining economic stability and enabling sophisticated cross-border operations, including the construction of tunnels linking Mexico to Texas and Arizona. External pressures and internal instability present unique challenges for Latin American nations committed to democracy and capitalism. The United States must determine how best to support leaders seeking partnership while advancing shared interests. This panel will explore the nuanced historical considerations surrounding issues like the Panama Canal, the rise of cartels as major economic forces, and the effectiveness of prosperity zone initiatives. As the new Trump Administration navigates these urgent regional dynamics, panelists will examine pressing U.S. interests and discuss strategies to strengthen alliances, counter malign influence, and promote regional stability. Featuring: Dr. Ryan C. Berg, Director, Americas Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies Joseph M. Humire, Executive Director, Center for Secure Free Society Moderator: Erick A. Brimen, CEO & Chairman of the Board, NeWay Capital and Próspera

The Supreme Court is set to hear argument this term in a case raising both the nondelegation and private nondelegation doctrines.On July 24, 2024, the en banc Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal Universal Service Fund (“USF”), which funds broadband service for rural areas and hospitals, schools, libraries, and low-income individuals, is an unconstitutional delegation of Congress’s legislative authority. In the Communications Act, Congress directed the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to collect contributions, or payments, from certain providers of telecommunications. The FCC employs the private Universal Service Administrative Company (“USAC”) to administer certain aspects of USF, including calculating the contribution factor based on the needs of each program established by the FCC pursuant to the Communications Act.The Sixth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals, as well as a panel of the Fifth Circuit, had previously upheld the constitutionality of the delegation of authority. And the FCC defended the Act against delegation challenges. It argued that the Communication Act provides an intelligible principle by which USF is to be administered and that USAC plays only a ministerial role.But the July en banc ruling by the Fifth Circuit held this regulatory revenue-raising program unconstitutional. It acknowledged “grave” concerns that the Act may have unconstitutionally delegated the taxing power to the FCC to impose a contribution amount, or tax, on America’s telecommunications carriers, and ultimately paid by consumers. Then it similarly concluded there were serious constitutional concerns about the FCC’s subdelegation to private parties, most notably USAC’s role in determining the contribution amount that will be charged to telecommunications carriers. The Court’s ultimate holding, however, was that the combination of these delegations violated the nondelegation doctrine.A petition for certiorari was granted on November 22, 2024. This roundtable will discuss this case and the broader legal issues it raises, including (1) is there a nondelegation doctrine?, (2) if there is, what should it look like?, and (3) how should the Supreme Court decide this case in light of the above discussion on the nondelegation doctrine.Featuring:Sean Lev, Partner, HWG LLPTrent McCotter, Partner, Boyden Grey PLLCProf. Nicholas Parrillo, William K. Townsend Professor of Law and Professor of History, Yale Law SchoolProf. Alexander Volokh, Associate Professor of Law, Emory LawProf. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law SchoolModerator: Adam Griffin, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation--To register, click the link above.

E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera concerns what standard of evidence the court should apply in cases of exceptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The District Court decided that E.M.D. was liable for some employee overtime because it did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that its sales representatives were outside salesmen. Therefore, they were not exempt from normal overtime rules. The Fourth Circut agreed, affirming the use of the clear-and-convincing evidence standard.On January 15th, 2025, the Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, reversed the Fourth Circut’s decision and remanded the case. In an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh, it held that the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies when an employer seeks to show that an employee is exempt from the minimum wage and overtime pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.Featuring:Michael J. O'Neill, Vice President of Legal Affairs, Landmark Legal Foundation

In Barnes v. Felix the Supreme Court is set to address a circuit split concerning the context courts should consider when evaluating an excessive force claim brought under the Fourth Amendment.Is the correct rubric the "moment of threat" doctrine (which was applied by the Fifth Circuit here and has been adopted by several other circuits including the Second, Fourth, and Eighth), which considers only whether there was imminent danger creating a reasonable fear for one's life in the immediate moment(s) preceding the use of force? Alternately, should a court consider the "totality of circumstances" (along the lines of the precedent of the First, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits) when assessing if it was a justified use of force?Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court.Featuring:Matthew P. Cavedon, Robert Pool Fellow in Law and Religion, Emory University School of Law

How should podcasters talk about crime in a way that informs the public while respecting the legal process and the rights of everyone involved? This question has taken on unprecedented importance now that anyone can become a citizen journalist by using nothing more expensive than a computer and cellphone. Join us for a conversation exploring the issue with two veteran true crime podcasters, moderated by a scholar of criminal law.Featuring:Alice Shih LaCour, Partner, Hilgers Graben PLLC; Co-Host, The Prosecutors PodcastDavid Oscar Markus, Partner, Markus/Moss LLP; Host, For the Defense Podcast(Moderator) Matthew P. Cavedon, Robert Pool Fellow in Law and Religion, Emory University School of Law

Last month, the last American troops left Niger, following withdrawal of U.S. troops in Chad last spring and from Somalia in 2021. Talks are underway for revived U.S. presence in Chad, as happened in Somalia in 2022, but there seems to be a larger trend toward disengagement. Does this foretell enhanced Chinese influence? A greater role for Russian intrigues? Or a larger role for terrorist networks? Join us for a discussion of the geostrategic stakes.Featuring: Cameron Hudson, Senior Fellow, Africa Program, CSISProf. Thomas Lee, Leitner Family Professor of International Law; Director of Graduate and International Studies, Fordham University School of LawDr. Michael Rubin, Senior Fellow, AEIModerator: Prof. Jeremy Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University