FedSoc Forums

CLE credit for this event will be available at On-Demand CLE. Anticipated availability date: March 15th.This webinar brings together current and former General Counsels from the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of War (Defense), and the Department of the Navy. Drawing on their experience, practice, and diverse career paths, the panel will explore the practice of law within the Department of War and the individual services; the opportunities, challenges, and rewards of this dynamic field of law and policy; the skills and competencies critical to success both within government service and beyond; and how this unique area of practice broadens Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs) as attorneys and equips them for successful transitions to civilian practice.This program serves as the inaugural webinar of the Armed Services Legal Network. To learn more about this new initiative of the Federalist Society, click here. If you are currently a JAG or a veteran practicing law and are interested in participating in the Network, please contact us at Networks@fedsoc.org.CLE InfoFeaturing:Hon. James Baehr, General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs; Lieutenant Colonel, USMC Reserve; Former Military JudgeHon. Paul C. Ney, Former General Counsel of the Department of Defense and currently Partner, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLPHon. Robert J. Sander, Former General Counsel of the Department of the Navy, Former Acting General Counsel of the Army, and currently Founding Partner, The Sander Group, PLLC(Moderator) Toby Curto, Colonel, U.S. Army

The Federal Judicial Center describes itself as “the research and education agency of the judicial branch of the United States Government.” Yet it has recently come under scrutiny for its release of a new Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, which critics argue departs from the judiciary’s traditional role as a neutral arbiter. In particular, the Manual’s inclusion of a “climate science” section which advances an ideological narrative rather than provide neutral guidance.Is the Center’s Report putting a thumb on the scale by taking sides on contested climate science questions and, through official manuals and guidance materials, attempting to shape how judges are instructed to evaluate disputed questions before cases are even heard? And is the Report compatible with the judge’s duty to say what the law is, not what it should be? Featuring:Michael Fragoso, Partner, Torridon Law PLCC; former Chief Counsel to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnellCarrie Campbell Severino, President, Judicial Crisis Network (JCN)Michael R. Williams, Solicitor General, West Virginia

School choice has come more to the fore of public awareness in the past several years. This recent increase in attention may be evidenced by the inclusion of the Federal Tax Credit Scholarship Program in 2025's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which, among other things, created a federally funded tax credit scholarship program for elementary and secondary education.This panel will discuss the current state of educational choice and school choice programs across the nation, and the potential impact of the Federal Tax Credit Scholarship Program.Featuring: Jim Blew, Co-Founder, Defense of Freedom InstituteLeslie Hiner, Vice President of Legal Policy, EdChoiceShaka Mitchell, Senior Fellow, the American Federation for Children(Moderator) Gene Schaerr, Schaerr Jaffe LLP

Todd Zywicki, law professor who analyzes consumer data and policy, and Paul Watkins, regulatory lawyer with CFPB experience, discuss who controls financial data. They explore Section 1033, data access methods like APIs versus screen scraping, fees and bank leverage, definitions of authorized third parties, and whether regulation or market negotiation will protect consumer choice.

Ellingburg v. United States concerned whether forced restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA), was a civil remedy or a criminal penalty. The MVRA requires defendants who are convicted of some types of federal crimes to pay monetary restitution to the victims. Holsey Ellingburg committed a robbery in 1995. Then, during the course of his trial, the MVRA was passed. When sentenced, he was given both a prison sentence and ordered to pay mandatory restitution under the MVRA. Ellingburg eventually challenged the forced restitution, arguing that the application of the MVRA to him violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Eighth Circuit ruled against Ellingburg, holding that MVRA restitution is a civil remedy. Ellingburg petitioned the Supreme Court for review, which held the MVRA is "plainly criminal punishment" and thus its application to Ellingburg violated the Ex Post Facto clause.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze the decision and what its impacts may be.Featuring:Matthew P. Cavedon, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute(Moderator) Sarah Field, Chief Counsel, Legal Policy, Koch Capabilities, LLC

Last year was a tumultuous one for labor law. Not only was the National Labor Relations Board stalled by the firing of then-Member Gwynne Wilcox, but the Board itself came under fire in lawsuits challenging its current structure. Perceiving a gap, lawmakers in California and New York stepped in, authorizing local agencies to take up much of the Board’s work. Those laws, however, have each been blocked by federal district courts. In separate decisions, these courts found federal law preempted the state laws, despite the Board’s tribulations.Were those decisions right? Will they hold? And if they do, what do they mean for the future of federal–state relations? Join our panel as they look forward to the next chapter of American labor law.Featuring:Prof. Benjamin I. Sachs, Kestnbaum Professor of Labor and Industry, Harvard Law SchoolAaron B. Solem, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Foundation(Moderator) Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair, Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.

The panel will discuss the questions left open—or raised—by the Supreme Court’s decisions in FCC v. Consumers' Research and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, about the proper approach to statutory construction and the role that the nondelegation doctrine should play as a background principle in statutory analysis in cases where an agency has claimed broad authority to weigh competing public values when promulgating legislative rules. The discussion might address such subtopics as:Whether the Supreme Court’s rejection of an “extravagant” interpretation of FCC’s statutory authority in Consumers’ Research tells us anything about how courts should approach statutory cases where an agency is asserting an expansive view of its statutory authorities—given that the Court appeared to say that the dissent’s (supposedly “extravagant”) interpretation would present a nondelegation problem.What role nondelegation concerns should play under the avoidance canon in cases where an agency seeks to stretch nebulous or expressly open-ended delegations to achieve whatever policy objective the Executive Branch deems fit from one administration to the next.Whether these kinds of concerns can be dealt with by expanding clear statement rules—like that the Court has begun to develop with the major questions doctrine.Whether and to what extent legitimate nondelegation concerns arise in cases where Congress has expressly said that an issue is vested to agency discretion—as was contemplated in Loper Bright for certain kinds of rules for which the Court said the agency gets to decide.Featuring:Prof. Jonathan Adler, Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law and William H. Cabell Research Professor, William & Mary Law School; Senior Fellow, Property and Environment Research CenterProf. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota 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

Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections involved whether a candidate for federal office has standing to challenge an Illinois law that requires election officials to count mail-in ballots postmarked or certified as of election day and received within two weeks of the election.Following the 2024 election cycle, Congressman Michael Bost and two other political candidates sued the state board of elections, contending that counting ballots after election day violated federal law (principally 2 U. S. C. §7 and 3 U. S. C. §1, which set election day as the Tuesday following the first Monday in November). The district court dismissed the case, deciding the candidates lacked standing and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. Now the Supreme Court has reversed that ruling, holding in a decision by Chief Justice Roberts that Bost had standing to challenge the rules dealing with the counting of votes in his election.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze the decision and what its impacts may be.Featuring:Jason Torchinsky, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC(Moderator) Hans A. Von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Institute for the Rule of Law, Advancing American Freedom

Louisiana's congressional districts, which it redrew following the 2020 census, currently sit in a state of legal uncertainty.The map initially only had one majority-black district. However, following a 2022 case called Robinson v. Ardoin (later Laundry), which held that it violated section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, Louisiana re-drew the map to include two majority-black congressional districts.In January 2024, a different set of plaintiffs sued alleging the new map violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The case rose to SCOTUS and was heard as a part of the OT24 term. The issues before the Court included (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.On June 27, 2025, rather than issue a decision on the case, the Supreme Court issued an order restoring the case to the OT 25 calendar for reargument. This time, the Court has explicitly granted the question of "Whether Louisiana’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the 14th or 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution." Oral argument (round 2) is set for October 15, 2025.Join us for a post-oral argument Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze how this oral argument went before the Court.Featuring:Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School(Moderator) Brad A. Benbrook, Founding Partner, Benbrook Law Group

In Barrett v. United States, the Court was asked to consider the relationship between two provisions of the Armed Career Criminal Act and whether a single act that violated both provisions could yield two convictions. The Court held the answer was "no", with a majority of the Court holding that Congress did not "clearly authorize" two convictions stemming from a single act.Though at first glance a technical case related to a provision of the federal criminal code, Barrett raises interesting questions about the Double Jeopardy clause, statutory interpretation, and sentencing.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze the decision and what its impacts may be.Featuring: William S. McClintock, Partner, Special Matters and Government Investigations, King & Spalding LLP