FedSoc Forums

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

In Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, the Supreme Court is set to determine whether an internet service provider can be held liable—and deemed to have acted willfully—for copyright infringement based solely on its knowledge of user misconduct and its failure to terminate those users’ access. Sony Music and a group of music publishers sued Cox, alleging that its subscribers illegally downloaded copyrighted works through Cox’s network. The Supreme Court will review a 4th Circuit ruling holding that an internet service provider could be liable for vast copyright damages because it took insufficient steps to disconnect IP addresses accused of downloading copyrighted material. Oral argument is set for December 1. 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: Devlin Hartline, Senior Fellow, Forum for Intellectual Property, Hudson Institute (Moderator) Prof. Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law

Join us for a timely webinar examining the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Revision to Rules of Practice Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,” which proposes significant changes to how inter partes review (IPR) petitions are instituted. This session will present arguments from both sides while covering how the proposed rules aim to curb serial and duplicative challenges, shift institution discretion, and bolster patent­holder certainty, while also covering concerns about limiting access to review and adverse impacts on operating companies. With the official public comment deadline extended to December 2, 2025, this webinar aims to provide informative insight before the comment window closes. Don’t miss this chance to hear competing views on one of the most consequential patent-policy debates of the year. Featuring: Hon. Andrei Iancu, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLPDavid Jones, Executive Director, High Tech Inventors AllianceJoseph Matal, Principal, Clear IP, LLCBrian O'Shaughnessy, Partner, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP(Moderator) Robert Rando, Partner, Patrick Doerr

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