FedSoc Forums

In 2020 and 2021, Idaho and West Virginia passed laws that required public schools and colleges to designate sports by biological sex and to forbid males from competing on women’s sports teams. Two male athletes who identified as females, one a middle school shot-put and discus thrower and the other a collegiate cross-country runner, challenged the laws in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Idaho and Southern District of West Virginia, alleging a right to compete in women’s sports and saying the state laws discriminate on the basis of sex and transgender status in violation of Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. In Little v. Hecox, the Idaho district court entered a preliminary injunction against the Idaho law for violating the Equal Protection Clause, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the West Virginia district court preliminarily enjoined the West Virginia law for violating Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause and then dissolved that injunction, upholding the law at summary judgment. The Fourth Circuit reversed and ordered the district court to enjoin the law for violating Title IX.The Supreme Court accepted certiorari on both of these cases and will consider whether states can designate women’s sports based on biological sex consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss these cases and the broader issues at play, including the scope of Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause as they relate to school sports and gender identity.Featuring:Jonathan Scruggs, Senior Counsel and the Director for the Center for Conscience Initiatives, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending Education

In Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, the U.S. Supreme Court took up the question of whether the operation of charter schools by religious entities was constitutionally permissible (or even required). The Court deadlocked 4-4, leaving in place a ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court that the religious charter school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, violated the Establishment Clause. This forum will take up the questions left unanswered in Drummond and what the next phase of the debate over religious charter schools will look like, including whether charter schools should be considered state actors and whether the Free Exercise Clause prevents a state from prohibiting religious operators from forming charter schools.Featuring:Rachel Laser, President and CEO, Americans United for Separation of Church and StateProf. John A. Meiser, Associate Clinical Professor and Director of the Lindsay and Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic, Notre Dame Law School(Moderator) Prof. Michael P. Moreland, University Professor of Law and Religion and Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law

Across the country, bar associations are increasingly at the center of legal and political controversy. Recent disciplinary proceedings—such as efforts by the DC Bar to disbar Acting OIRA Administrator Jeffrey Clark, ethics complaints against Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen and Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke—have raised urgent questions about the line between professional regulation and ideological weaponization of legal licensing.Are these proceedings neutral applications of ethical standards, or do they reflect growing pressure to use professional discipline as a political weapon? What procedural and constitutional safeguards exist to protect the federal government from state licensing authorities and to protect lawyers against viewpoint discrimination? Are these tools sufficient? How should courts, bar associations, and the legal academy understand their roles in preserving both public trust and ideological diversity within the profession? Featuring: James M. Burnham, Founder and Managing Partner, King Street Legal, PLLCMichael Francisco, Partner, First & Fourteenth PLLCGene P. Hamilton, President & Co-Founder, America First Legal FoundationProf. Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School(Moderator) Prof. Denise M. Harle, Clinical Professor and Director of the First Amendment Clinic, Florida State University College of Law

Qualified immunity shields all government officials from suit when the constitutional rights they violate are not “clearly established.” Yet the public conversation often centers on police officers. Supreme Court cases on the doctrine frequently involve split-second law enforcement decisions, and when Congress considered reform in the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020, its focus was again on police, excluding other officials.How should we think about qualified immunity in the policing context versus other government contexts, particularly when officials are not acting under urgent time pressure? Should there be a single, uniform standard, or should the doctrine be tailored to the circumstances faced by the defendant? And if tailoring is appropriate, should that responsibility rest with the political branches rather than the courts?Join us for a discussion on the origins, evolution, and future of qualified immunity—and bring your questions.Featuring:Elliott Averett, Attorney, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLPWilliam Most, Attorney, Most & Associates(Moderator) Anya Bidwell, Attorney, Institute for Justice

The ongoing case of Etienne v. Ferguson raises profound questions about the interplay between religious liberty and state authority, particularly regarding Catholic confession, which centuries-old religious doctrine deems as absolutely confidential. The case challenges Washington's Senate Bill 5375, titled "Concering the duty of clergy to report child abuse and neglect." Does a state mandatory reporter law violate the First Amendment’s religion clauses if it encompasses information learned during the sacrament? Or can the state justify overriding the seal of confession as a necessary and justifiable measure to protect children?This webinar will examine the passage of Washington’s Senate Bill 5375, the historical and theological significance of confession, the constitutional protections afforded by the free exercise and establishment clauses, and the concerns of some that religious practices could be commandeered in service to the state’s police power. The discussion will also address whether the law unconstitutionally targets Catholic clergy and whether the state’s interest in child protection can supersede the religious obligation of priests to maintain absolute confidentiality, under penalty of excommunication.Our guests will consider the delicate relationship between religious liberty and state power in this high-stakes case.Featuring:Matthew Martens, Partner, WilmerHale LLP(Moderator) Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute

Congress is currently debating the Antisemitism Awareness Act. This proposed legislation aims to provide a clear definition of antisemitism for use in enforcing existing civil rights laws. Supporters argue that the bill is a crucial tool for combating rising antisemitism by filling a gap in current legal definitions. Opponents, however, contend that the bill could stifle free speech and limit criticism of Israel. Join the Federalist Society for a timely discussion on the legal and constitutional implications of this legislation, exploring the complexities of defining hate speech while upholding the principles of free expression.Featuring: William Creeley, Legal Director, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)Prof. Eugene Kontorovich, Professor of Law and Director, Center for the Middle East and International Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law SchoolModerator: Aharon Friedman, Special Counsel, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP

The recent dismissal of the Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyrights by President Trump raises fundamental questions about the scope of the President’s removal authority and the constitutional status of these offices. Do these officials exercise executive power such that they must be removable at will? Or has Congress validly restricted removal in pursuit of independence?This panel will examine the legal and historical foundations of both positions, tracing the development of the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office, their placement within the legislative branch, and the President’s authority to remove them—if any. The discussion will examine whether these offices lie within the President’s removal authority or whether Congress has validly constrained that power.Our panel will consider the constitutional text, structural implications, and historical practice governing the removal of these unique officers. Featuring:Prof. Anne Joseph O'Connell, Adelbert H. Sweet Professor of Law, Stanford Law SchoolZvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of LawDevin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute[Moderator] Robert Rando, Partner, Patrick Doerr

Join the Federalist Society for a discussion on the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA), legislation aimed at clarifying and restoring patent eligibility in the United States. Specifically, the bill seeks to restore patent eligibility to inventions that have been deemed ineligible by recent court decisions.The panel brings together top voices in patent law: David Jones, Executive Director at High Tech Alliance; Joseph Matal, Principal at Clear IP; Jamie Simpson, Chief Policy Officer and Counsel at Council for Innovation Promotion; and Former Federal Circuit Judge Kathleen M. O'Malley. The conversation will be moderated by Earl Bright, President and General Counsel at ExploraMED Development.Join this webinar to explore how PERA seeks to reform the framework for determining what types of inventions are eligible for patent protection in the United States. Featuring: David Jones, Executive Director, High Tech Inventors AllianceJoseph Matal, Principal, Clear IP LLCHon. Kathleen M. O'Malley, Former Federal Circuit JudgeJamie Simpson, Chief Policy Officer and Counsel at Council for Innovation Promotion[Moderator] Earl Bright, President and General Counsel at ExploraMED Development

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has come under increasing criticism, with some accusing it of constantly reversing precedent, especially in cases involving labor policy issues. Professor Sam Estreicher of the NYU School of Law describes this supposed “policy oscillation” as having created unpredictability for employers, unions, and all stakeholders under the Act as to the state of the law under the NLRA. Many have also brought into question the independence of the NLRB, especially after the recent termination by the President of NLRB Member Gwynne Wilcox. The ensuing litigation regarding her termination will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.In hopes of remedying the alleged policy oscillation and partisan interference with the Board’s decision-making, Professor Estreicher, Professor David Sherwyn, and G. Roger King have proposed establishing an Article I labor court to replace the five-member National Labor Relations Board. This panel will discuss the current state of the National Labor Relations Board and the potential merits of replacing the Board with an Article I labor court.Featuring:Prof. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law; Director, Center for Labor, New York University School of LawRichard F. Griffin, Jr., Of Counsel, Bredhoff & Kaiser PLLC; Former General Counsel, National Labor Relations BoardProf. David Sherwyn, Professor of Law, Cornell University School of Hotel AdministrationGlenn Taubman, Staff Attorney, National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation(Moderator) G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association

In recent months, a number of new legal theories and tools have been proposed – some prominently used – in civil rights cases, many involving anti-Semitism in higher education. What legal mechanisms are available against universities, whether in governmental enforcement actions or private party lawsuits? Is Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 being used in new ways? What about other approaches, such as government contract rules, the Ku Klux Klan Act, RICO, or the use of the tax code and immigration law? The panel will consider a range of possibilities as well as constitutional and statutory limitations.Featuring:Dr. Mark Goldfeder, Esq., CEO and Director, National Jewish Advocacy CenterMarc Greendorfer, Co-Founder and President, Zachor Legal InstituteRobert Shibley, Special Counsel, Campus Advocacy, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)Marc Stern, Chief Legal Officer, American Jewish Committee(Moderator) Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law