FedSoc Forums

In Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, Defending Education brought a suit challenging Olentangy Local School District policies related to student speech. These policies, among other things, barred students from using pronouns that match a person's biological sex if that individual identified with different pronouns. Defending Education challenged the policies, contending they both impermissibly prohibited speech, by not allowing students who believed sex is immutable & therefore personal pronouns cannot be chosen to express that belief as they wished, and compelled speech by forcing students to use pronouns for others that express a perspective with which the students did not agree. The case was filed in the southern district of Ohio, which ruled in favor of the school district, and the Sixth Circuit initially affirmed that decision. The case was then reheard en banc by a 17-judge panel, and on November 6, 2025, the court reversed the judgment 10-7, holding that the policies did violate the First Amendment rights of the affected students. Join us for a litigation update on this important case. Featuring:Mathew Hoffmann, Legal Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Krista Baughman, Founder and Managing Attorney, Baughman Law PC

In National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) the Court is set to consider “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.”.The case kicked off in 2022 when two Republican party committees brought suit against the FEC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. They contended the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) imposed unconstitutional restrictions on their capacity to coordinate campaign advertising with candidates, and that FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) which had upheld the restrictions as constitutional, had been made unsound by developments in law, facts, and precedent in the intervening time.As required by FECA for constitutional challenges, the district court certified the legal question to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc which upheld FECA. The Supreme Court granted cert. and Oral Argument is set to be heard on December 9, 2025.Join us for an expert breakdown of oral arguments.Featuring:Brett Nolan, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech

On June 27, 2025, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire challenging President Trump's Executive Order No. 14,160, which denies birthright citizenship to children born after February 19th, 2025 to parents who are either illegally present in or temporary residents of the United States. On July 10th, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction barring the execution of the order, and, in September, the Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari before judgment. The Court granted cert and will hear oral arguments in early 2026.The case hinges on the question of whether children born to illegal or temporary residents of the United States are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and thus entitled to citizenship under the 14th amendment. Join us for this timely discussion on a case with immense implications for immigration enforcement, our understanding of the 14th amendment, and the meaning of birthright citizenship.Featuring:Trent McCotter, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLCProf. Michael Ramsey, Warren Distinguished Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of LawProf. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School(Moderator) Prof. Randy Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center

The Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in Learning Resources v. Trump, a case examining the scope of presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and its use to impose tariffs. This program will break down the argument, highlight how the Justices probed IEEPA’s limits, and discuss what the Court’s decision may mean for executive power, trade policy, and the future deployment of emergency economic tools. Featuring:Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law, William & Mary Law SchoolAdam 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

On April 1, 2025, the Texas Association of Money Services Businesses filed suit in the Western District of Texas challenging a Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) order that lowered the cash-transaction reporting threshold from $10,000 to $200 for money-services businesses in certain Texas border ZIP codes, arguing the rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act and constitutional protections.Should the government be allowed to surveil your financial transactions? Where is the line drawn between protecting privacy and conducting legal investigations? What happens when regulators set standards that can't be met? Join us for a webinar examining Texas Association of Money Services Businesses v. Bondi. On this FedSoc forum, Robert Johnson and Nicholas Anthony will discuss the status of the case, its implications for the future, and the wider landscape of financial surveillance.Featuring:Nicholas Anthony, Policy Analyst, Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, Cato Institute(Moderator) Robert Johnson, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice

Humphrey's Executor v. United States, decided in 1935, upheld the Federal Trade Commission Act, declaring that a president can remove an FTC commissioner only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In March 2025, FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter was notified of her removal by President Trump, who stated in a letter that for her to remain an FTC commissioner was “inconsistent with [the] Administration’s priorities.” Slaughter won in district court, which ordered her reinstatement. After the D.C. Court of Appeals denied the government’s request for a stay, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and stayed the lower court’s ruling. Join us for a discussion of oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter and the questions it presents about separation of powers, for-cause removal, and the future of Humphrey's Executor. Featuring:Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP(Moderator) Bilal Sayyed, Counsel, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Gabriel Olivier is an evangelical Christian who often shares his faith in public. In May 2021, when sharing his faith near an amphitheater in a public park in Brandon, Mississippi, the city’s chief of police confronted Olivier with a recently amended city ordinance requiring “protests” to occur in a designated area. Olivier repositioned himself but soon returned when the designated area proved remote and isolating. The city charged Olivier for violating the ordinance, and he pled nolo contendere and agreed to pay a fine. Olivier then challenged the ordinance under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, seeking an injunction prohibiting future enforcement of the law against his expressive activity. The district court barred Olivier’s request for injunctive relief, applying the preclusion doctrine from Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). As a result, Olivier cannot challenge the ordinance, even though he alleges that it continues to restrict his speech and risks future penalties. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, splitting from the Ninth and Tenth Circuits and deepening a circuit split on whether Heck applies to noncustodial plaintiffs who cannot access habeas relief. The Fifth Circuit denied rehearing en banc by one vote, over dissents arguing Olivier’s plea should not bar future constitutional protection. In July, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.Join us for an expert breakdown of oral arguments.Featuring:Nathan Kellum, Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute(Moderator) Steven Burnett, Clinical Instructional Fellow, Religious Freedom Clinic, Harvard Law School

In First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin, 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.First Choice filed an action in federal court, but the district court twice dismissed the case, finding it "unripe" and requiring that the constitutional issues first be adjudicated in state court. The Third Circuit affirmed this decision.The Supreme Court will consider 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. This case addresses broader issues, including the power of state officials and the role of federal courts in protecting First Amendment rights from chilling effects caused by state action.Join us for an expert breakdown of oral arguments.Featuring:Christopher E. Mills, Principal, Spero Law LLC(Moderator) Christopher Bates, Shareholder, Kirton McConkie

Damon Landor, a state prisoner and practicing Rastafarian, refused to cut his hair as an expression of his faith. After prison officials forcibly restrained and shaved him, Landor sued under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which prohibits governments from imposing unnecessary “substantial burdens” on inmates’ religious exercise. The district court, and later the Fifth Circuit, rejected his claim, holding that monetary damages were not an available form of “appropriate relief” under the statute.The Supreme Court has granted certiorari to decide whether RLUIPA allows prisoners to seek damages against government officials in their personal capacities for violations of religious rights. Oral argument is set for November 10, 2025.Featuring:Meredith Holland Kessler, Managing Attorney, Lindsay and Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic and Term Teaching Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School(Moderator) Joshua C. McDaniel, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law & Director, Religious Freedom Clinic, Harvard Law School

What does the district court’s recent decision in FTC v. Meta portend for the future of the technology sector, free expression, and modern antitrust enforcement? After years of litigation, Judge James Boasberg concluded that the FTC had not established that Meta possesses monopoly power in the relevant social-media market, foreclosing the agency’s bid to unwind Meta’s long-standing acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.The ruling has prompted vigorous commentary, including renewed debate over the proper role of courts in reviewing ambitious agency theories of market power and competitive harm.Join our panel, featuring former FTC officials and veterans of the Trump Administration, for a timely discussion of the opinion, the critiques, and what this moment may signal for the trajectory of federal competition policy.Featuring: Jennifer Huddleston, Senior Fellow, Technology Policy, Cato InstituteBilal Sayyed, Counsel, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLPDaniel Suhr, President, Center for American Rights(Moderator) Asheesh Agarwal, Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce