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.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 LawZac Morgan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal FoundationProf. Jacob Schuman, Associate Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of LawProf. 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

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

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

When Congress amended the Civil Rights Act in 1976, it directed federal courts to use judicial discretion to award “reasonable attorney’s fees” to a prevailing party. Yet when state actors are found in violation of the nation’s civil rights laws, what is “reasonable” often means that civil rights attorneys take a reduced fee award. Because of this, states are emboldened to enact and enforce more unconstitutional laws and the pattern repeats.Mere days following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the New York Assembly enacted new legislation allowing secular businesses to permit customers to carry concealed weapons on their property, but refusing to afford sensitive locations, like churches, the same choice. His Tabernacle Church in Elmira, New York filed suit under the Civil Rights Act claiming the new law violated its First and Second Amendment rights. It prevailed both in district court and at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.When the matter returned to the district court, the State of New York claimed the church’s attorneys were entitled to just 16% of the fees requested in their application. Judge John R. Sinatra, Jr. of the Western District of New York rejected New York’s arguments, awarding 100% of the requested fees, concluding that the Civil Rights Act “encourages lawyers taking meritorious cases like this one” but to engage in “[p]erennial ‘haircuts’” in fee awards would “discourage well qualified counsel.”Join the Federalist Society for a discussion on the importance of courts awarding appropriate attorney’s fees in civil rights litigation.Featuring:Erin E. Murphy, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLC(Moderator) Jeremy G. Dys, Senior Counsel, First Liberty

In recent months, Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced a ban on “Sharia law and Sharia compounds” in the state, citing longstanding principles that U.S. and Texas law take precedence over conflicting foreign law. This position is reflected in the 2017 American Laws for American Courts statute and in an Attorney General opinion affirming that contracts violating Texas public policy cannot be enforced.These commitments were tested in a North Texas family law case, where an Islamic prenuptial agreement called for disputes to be resolved under religious law. The Texas Supreme Court ultimately stayed the arbitration order and ordered review of the original arbitration agreement for "validity and enforceability."Other recent developments - including video accounts of a Houston imam calling for boycotts of certain businesses and reports of a proposed Muslim-exclusive residential community (“EPIC”) - have prompted legislative responses such as HB 4211, which requires property transfer disclosures and ensures disputes are adjudicated under Texas and U.S. law.How should courts weigh religious arbitration against constitutional and statutory protections? What legal tools exist to address disputes that implicate cultural or religious norms? How can Americans both respect religious diversity and uphold constitutional imperatives?Featuring:Qanta A. Ahmed, MD, Senior Fellow, Independent Women's Forumhttps://www.qantaahmed.com/bio/Professor Eugene Volokh, Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University(Moderator) Karen J. Lugo, Founder, Libertas-West Project

Valerie Kloosterman, a devout Christian and third-generation healthcare professional, served her community as a Physician Assistant for 17 years. In 2021, University of Michigan Health introduced mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion training that required participants to affirm statements Kloosterman believed conflicted with her religious convictions and medical judgment. After she requested a religious accommodation, hospital officials denied her request, criticized her beliefs, and ultimately terminated her employment.Kloosterman filed suit in federal court, asserting Title VII and constitutional claims. While the court allowed her core claims to move forward, it later granted the hospital’s motion to compel arbitration. Kloosterman appealed, and in August 2025, the Sixth Circuit sided with her, ruling that the hospital had defaulted on its arbitration rights after litigating for over a year. The court rejected what it called a “heads I win, tails you lose” strategy of reserving arbitration until after seeing how the case would unfold in court.Join Kevin Wynosky and Kayla Toney as they unpack the Sixth Circuit’s opinion and discuss its broader implications for employment law and religious accommodations.Featuring:Kevin Wynosky, Associate Counsel, Clement & Murphy(Moderator) Kayla Toney, Counsel, First Liberty 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. Villarreal v. Texas (October 6) - Sixth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether a trial court abridges a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess. Berk v. Choy (October 6) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a state law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit may be applied in federal court. Barrett v. U.S. (October 7) - Fifth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment permits two sentences for an act that violates 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j). Chiles v. Salazar (October 7) - First Amendment; Issue(s): Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections (October 8) - Election Law; Issue(s): Whether petitioners, as federal candidates, have pleaded sufficient factual allegations to show Article III standing to challenge state time, place, and manner regulations concerning their federal elections. U.S. Postal Service v. Konan (October 8) - Federal Tort Claims Act; Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff's claim that she and her tenants did not receive mail because U.S. Postal Service employees intentionally did not deliver it to a designated address arises out of "the loss" or "miscarriage" of letters or postal matter under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Bowe v. U.S. (October 14) - Habeas Corpus; Issue(s): (1) Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; and (2) whether Subsection 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under Section 2255. Ellingburg v. U.S. (October 14) - Criminal Law; Issue(s): Issue(s): Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act is penal for purposes of the Constitution's ex post facto clause. Case v. Montana (October 15) - Fourth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause. Louisiana v. Callais (October 15) - Election Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature's enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable. Featuring: Jana Bosch, Deputy Solicitor General, Ohio Matthew Cavedon, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute Amanda Gray Dixon, Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Prof. Michael T. Morley, Assistant Professor, Florida State University College of Law Richard B. Raile, Partner, Baker Hostetler LLP (Moderator) Erielle Azerrad, Of Counsel, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC