FedSoc Forums

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.Urias-Orellana v. Bondi (December 1) - Immigration; Issue(s): Whether a federal court of appeals must defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals' judgment that a given set of undisputed facts does not demonstrate mistreatment severe enough to constitute "persecution" under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entm't (December 1) - Copyright Infringement; Issue(s): (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit erred in holding that a service provider can be held liable for "materially contributing" to copyright infringement merely because it knew that people were using certain accounts to infringe and did not terminate access, without proof that the service provider affirmatively fostered infringement or otherwise intended to promote it; and (2) whether the 4th Circuit erred in holding that mere knowledge of another"s direct infringement suffices to find willfulness under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin (December 2) - First Amendment; Issue(s): Whether, when the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, a federal court in a first-filed action is deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court.Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi (December 3) - Civil Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether this court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey bars claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking purely prospective relief where the plaintiff has been punished before under the law challenged as unconstitutional; and (2) whether Heck v. Humphrey bars Section 1983 claims by plaintiffs even where they never had access to federal habeas relief.Trump v. Slaughter (Independent Agencies) (December 8) - Presidential Removal Powers; Administrative Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States should be overruled. (2) Whether a federal court may prevent a person’s removal from public office, either through relief at equity or at law.National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission (December 9) - Election Law; Issue(s): Whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with "party coordinated communications" as defined in 11 C.F.R. " 109.37.Hamm v. Smith (December 10) - Capital Punishment; Issue(s): Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim.FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. (December 10) - Financial Services; Securities; Issue(s): Whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act creates an implied private right of action. Featuring:David W. Casazza, Associate Attorney, Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher LLPBoyd Garriott, Associate, Wiley Rein LLPCaleb Kruckenberg, Litigation Director, Center for Individual RightsProf. Michael T. Morley, Sheila M. McDevitt Professor of Law & Faculty Director of the Election Law Center, Florida State University College of LawJoel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLPProf. Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law(Moderator) Jill Jacobson, Litigation Associate, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

A recent executive order entitled “Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations” and two congressional proposals: the Count the Crimes to Cut Act and the Mens Rea Reform Act (also known as the default-mens-rea proposal), all have highlighted long-standing discussions on federal overcriminalization. These initiatives were spotlighted during the May 7, 2025 hearing of the House Judiciary Committee. Join us for a panel discussion that will consider whether these reforms can meaningfully address the problem of a sprawling federal criminal code—one that may, in some areas, lack clarity and undermine individual liberty by exposing the public to ill-defined or overly broad criminal liability.Featuring: John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage FoundationShana O’Toole, Founder & President, Due Process InstituteProf. Kenneth W. Simons, Chancellor’s Professor of Law, UC Irvine School of Law(Moderator) Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime

Anna Lange, an employee with the Houston County Sheriff’s Office, sought “male-to-female sex change surgery.” The county’s employer-provided health insurance policy covered some treatments for gender dysphoria, but it excluded drugs, services, and supplies for a “sex-change” (among other categories). Lange sued, claiming the policy discriminated based on sex and transgender status in violation of Title VII. The district court, affirmed by an Eleventh Circuit panel, held that the policy facially violated Title VII under Bostock v. Clayton County. On rehearing en banc, the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that the county’s policy, which drew a line between which treatments it covers, “is not facial discrimination based on protected status.”Lange v. Houston County, decided on September 9, 2025, is one of the first circuit court decisions to apply the Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which held that Tennessee’s law prohibiting healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to transition a minor's gender did not discriminate based on sex or transgender status in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Join Christopher Mills and Rachel Morrison for a discussion of Lange, its application of Skrmetti and Bostock, and its implications for Title VII and insurance coverage.Featuring:Christopher E. Mills, Principal, Spero Law LLC(Moderator) Rachel N. Morrison, Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center

In Born Equal: Remaking America’s Constitution, 1840–1920, Prof. Akhil Reed Amar traces the arc of American constitutional debate from the post-Founding era to the Progressive Era, focusing especially on America’s fundamental question raised originally by our Declaration of Independence: what does it mean to say that all men and women are “created equal”? To explore this question and the broader themes of his book, he will be interviewed by AEI senior fellow Adam White. Featuring: Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale Law School (Moderator) Adam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Director, Scalia Law’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), created under the America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011, has long been a source of debate. The Supreme Court has reviewed several of its procedures, and Congress has introduced PTAB reform bills in every session since 2017.A core PTAB function is deciding Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions that challenge patent validity. Under new PTO leadership, IPR institution rates have sharply declined, prompting complaints from companies like SAP America and Motorola, which claim they were unfairly harmed by the shift and that the PTO has not provided adequate legal justification. PTO Director John Squires has defended the new direction, announcing he will personally decide all preliminary IPR institutions—a task previously handled by three-judge panels. The PTO has also proposed rules requiring petitioners to waive future prior art challenges to qualify for IPR institution.This webinar will examine the SAP and Motorola petitions, Director Squires’s policy memo, and their implications for PTAB reform, the AIA framework, and the constitutional foundations of U.S. patent law.Featuring: Arthur Gollwitzer, Partner, Jackson Walker LLPJamie Simpson, Chief Policy Officer and Counsel, The Council for Innovation PromotionRobert Taylor, Founder and Owner, RPT Legal Strategies PC[Moderator] Philip Nelson, Partner, Knobbe Martens

While President Trump’s Executive Orders directed at individual law firms drew immediate attention, the administration’s broader enforcement of nondiscrimination employment law in the legal industry has gone comparatively unanalyzed. In March, Acting EEOC Chairman Andrea Lucas wrote letters to 20 large law firms requesting information on their employment practices (at least four of those firms subsequently settled with the Commission). In May, Americans for Equal Opportunity filed an EEOC charge challenging the legality of allegedly discriminatory programs administered by Sponsors for Educational Opportunity and its 44 law-firm partners. These processes are necessarily opaque, leaving the status of EEOC investigations (other than those publicly settled) unclear. As the EEOC appears to continue investigating these varying sets of programs and allegations, we pause to consider the merits of these matters.Featuring:Jonathan A. Segal, Partner, Duane Morris LLP; Managing Principal, Duane Morris InstituteAlison Somin, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation(Moderator) Dan Morenoff, Executive Director & Secretary, American Civil Rights Project; Adjunct Fellow, Manhattan Institute

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. Rico v. U.S. (November 3) - Fugitive-Tolling; Issue(s): Whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release. Hencely v. Fluor Corporation (November 4) - Federal Tort Claims Act;Issue(s): Whether Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. should be extended to allow federal interests emanating from the Federal Tort Claims Act’s combatant-activities exception to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders. The Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist (November 4) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a district court's final judgment as to completely diverse parties must be vacated when an appellate court later determines that it erred by dismissing a non-diverse party at the time of removal. Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited v. Burton (November 5) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (November 5) - Tariffs, IEEPA; Issue (s): Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the president to impose tariffs. The GEO Group v. Menocal (November 10) - Sovereign Immunity; Issue(s): Whether an order denying a government contractor’s claim of derivative sovereign immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine. Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety (November 10) - Civil Rights; Issue(s): Whether an individual may sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. Rutherford v. U.S. (November 12) - First Step Act; Issue(s): Whether a district court may consider disparities created by the First Step Act’s prospective changes in sentencing law when deciding if “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Fernandez v. U.S. (November 12) - Compassionate Release; Issue(s): Whether a combination of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that may warrant a discretionary sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) can include reasons that may also be alleged as grounds for vacatur of a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Featuring: Prof. Thomas C. Berg, James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of Law Zac Morgan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation Prof. Jacob Schuman, Associate Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law Prof. Erica Zunkel, Director of Clinical and Experiential Learning, Clinical Professor of Law, & Director of the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Clinic, University of Chicago Law School (Moderator) Logan Spena, Legal Counsel, Center for Free Speech, Alliance Defending Freedom

States have become more and more active in using their consumer protection statutes to initiate investigations and lawsuits against Chinese companies. These investigations and efforts have centered on concerns about so-called white labeling of consumer products to hide the country of origin and concerns about data privacy and security. This webinar will feature the Attorneys General of Nebraska and Alaska—two AGs who have taken a leading interest in this emerging area. They will discuss the growing role of state consumer protection laws in addressing foreign-backed corporate misconduct and what the future may hold for this important area of enforcement. Featuring: Hon. Mike Hilgers, Attorney General, Nebraska Hon. Stephen Cox, Attorney General, Alaska (Moderator) O.H. Skinner, III, Executive Director, Alliance For Consumers

In 2018, Tesla’s board of directors proposed, and its stockholders approved by a wide margin, a significant executive compensation plan for CEO Elon Musk. Under the plan, Musk stood to earn tens of billions of dollars if he achieved a series of highly ambitious performance milestones that would increase Tesla’s market value by hundreds of billions. Over time, Tesla’s value rose dramatically—by more than 1,000%—with shareholders retaining the vast majority of the created value and Musk receiving substantial compensation.A Tesla stockholder subsequently filed suit, alleging that the compensation plan was unfair to the company and that the board’s approval process was compromised by a lack of independence. The Delaware Court of Chancery agreed, finding that the board was not sufficiently independent of Musk, that the stockholder approval was ineffective, and that the plan was substantively unfair to Tesla. The court rescinded the plan and later awarded the plaintiff’s attorneys $345 million in fees.Tesla’s response included reapproving the plan through another stockholder vote, though the Court of Chancery deemed that ratification ineffective as well. The litigation has sparked broader discussion about Delaware corporate law, shareholder rights, and potential legislative reforms, and it has coincided with Tesla’s decision to reincorporate in Texas.Following oral arguments before the Delaware Supreme Court on October 15, 2025, former Chief Justice Myron T. Steele (of counsel, Potter Anderson) and Robert T. Miller, the Allison & Dorothy Rouse Chair in Law at George Mason University’s Scalia Law School, will discuss the case and its implications for corporate governance and executive compensation.Featuring:Hon. Myron T. Steele, Former Chief Justice, Delaware Supreme Court; Of Counsel, Potter Anderson(Moderator) Robert T. Miller, Allison & Dorothy Rouse Chair in Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Climate change has been described as a “super wicked” policy problem. Policymakers face profound difficulties in assessing the magnitude of the risks, the costs of potential solutions, and the challenges of collective action. Because climate change is global in scope, the source of emissions is often seen as less important than their overall volume. Yet despite extensive efforts by many countries, including the United States at various times, worldwide carbon emissions continue to rise.Frustration with this state of affairs has led some state and local authorities to pursue climate litigation in addition to legislative or regulatory action. These lawsuits allege that energy producers are responsible for substantial monetary harms; and taken together, they seek many billions or even trillions of dollars in damages. Many recent cases focus on claims that companies misrepresented the effects of fossil fuels on the environment in violation of state consumer protection laws.On October 8, 2025, join us for a panel discussion examining the legal and policy issues raised by these cases, including: • Preemption under the Clean Air Act and federal common law; • Challenges in demonstrating causation and attribution; • Possible implications for First Amendment protections; • Allocation of damages among dozens of energy companies, including state-owned firms that may be shielded by sovereign immunity. • The contributing role of both plaintiffs and other beneficiaries of fossil fuels; and • Whether litigation is likely to help advance efforts to address climate change.Featuring:David Bookbinder, Director of Law & Policy, Environmental Integrity ProjectProfessor Michael Gerrard, Andrew Sabin Professor of Professional Practice and Founder and Faculty Director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law SchoolProfessor Donald J. Kochan, Professor of Law and Executive Director of the Law & Economics Center, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityAdam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Director, Scalia Law’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State(Moderator) Michael Buschbacher, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC