FedSoc Forums

Qualified immunity shields all government officials from suit when the constitutional rights they violate are not “clearly established.” Yet the public conversation often centers on police officers. Supreme Court cases on the doctrine frequently involve split-second law enforcement decisions, and when Congress considered reform in the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020, its focus was again on police, excluding other officials.How should we think about qualified immunity in the policing context versus other government contexts, particularly when officials are not acting under urgent time pressure? Should there be a single, uniform standard, or should the doctrine be tailored to the circumstances faced by the defendant? And if tailoring is appropriate, should that responsibility rest with the political branches rather than the courts?Join us for a discussion on the origins, evolution, and future of qualified immunity—and bring your questions.Featuring:Elliott Averett, Attorney, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLPWilliam Most, Attorney, Most & Associates(Moderator) Anya Bidwell, Attorney, Institute for Justice

The ongoing case of Etienne v. Ferguson raises profound questions about the interplay between religious liberty and state authority, particularly regarding Catholic confession, which centuries-old religious doctrine deems as absolutely confidential. The case challenges Washington's Senate Bill 5375, titled "Concering the duty of clergy to report child abuse and neglect." Does a state mandatory reporter law violate the First Amendment’s religion clauses if it encompasses information learned during the sacrament? Or can the state justify overriding the seal of confession as a necessary and justifiable measure to protect children?This webinar will examine the passage of Washington’s Senate Bill 5375, the historical and theological significance of confession, the constitutional protections afforded by the free exercise and establishment clauses, and the concerns of some that religious practices could be commandeered in service to the state’s police power. The discussion will also address whether the law unconstitutionally targets Catholic clergy and whether the state’s interest in child protection can supersede the religious obligation of priests to maintain absolute confidentiality, under penalty of excommunication.Our guests will consider the delicate relationship between religious liberty and state power in this high-stakes case.Featuring:Matthew Martens, Partner, WilmerHale LLP(Moderator) Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute

Congress is currently debating the Antisemitism Awareness Act. This proposed legislation aims to provide a clear definition of antisemitism for use in enforcing existing civil rights laws. Supporters argue that the bill is a crucial tool for combating rising antisemitism by filling a gap in current legal definitions. Opponents, however, contend that the bill could stifle free speech and limit criticism of Israel. Join the Federalist Society for a timely discussion on the legal and constitutional implications of this legislation, exploring the complexities of defining hate speech while upholding the principles of free expression.Featuring: William Creeley, Legal Director, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)Prof. Eugene Kontorovich, Professor of Law and Director, Center for the Middle East and International Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law SchoolModerator: Aharon Friedman, Special Counsel, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP

The recent dismissal of the Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyrights by President Trump raises fundamental questions about the scope of the President’s removal authority and the constitutional status of these offices. Do these officials exercise executive power such that they must be removable at will? Or has Congress validly restricted removal in pursuit of independence?This panel will examine the legal and historical foundations of both positions, tracing the development of the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office, their placement within the legislative branch, and the President’s authority to remove them—if any. The discussion will examine whether these offices lie within the President’s removal authority or whether Congress has validly constrained that power.Our panel will consider the constitutional text, structural implications, and historical practice governing the removal of these unique officers. Featuring:Prof. Anne Joseph O'Connell, Adelbert H. Sweet Professor of Law, Stanford Law SchoolZvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of LawDevin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute[Moderator] Robert Rando, Partner, Patrick Doerr

Join the Federalist Society for a discussion on the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA), legislation aimed at clarifying and restoring patent eligibility in the United States. Specifically, the bill seeks to restore patent eligibility to inventions that have been deemed ineligible by recent court decisions.The panel brings together top voices in patent law: David Jones, Executive Director at High Tech Alliance; Joseph Matal, Principal at Clear IP; Jamie Simpson, Chief Policy Officer and Counsel at Council for Innovation Promotion; and Former Federal Circuit Judge Kathleen M. O'Malley. The conversation will be moderated by Earl Bright, President and General Counsel at ExploraMED Development.Join this webinar to explore how PERA seeks to reform the framework for determining what types of inventions are eligible for patent protection in the United States. Featuring: David Jones, Executive Director, High Tech Inventors AllianceJoseph Matal, Principal, Clear IP LLCHon. Kathleen M. O'Malley, Former Federal Circuit JudgeJamie Simpson, Chief Policy Officer and Counsel at Council for Innovation Promotion[Moderator] Earl Bright, President and General Counsel at ExploraMED Development

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has come under increasing criticism, with some accusing it of constantly reversing precedent, especially in cases involving labor policy issues. Professor Sam Estreicher of the NYU School of Law describes this supposed “policy oscillation” as having created unpredictability for employers, unions, and all stakeholders under the Act as to the state of the law under the NLRA. Many have also brought into question the independence of the NLRB, especially after the recent termination by the President of NLRB Member Gwynne Wilcox. The ensuing litigation regarding her termination will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.In hopes of remedying the alleged policy oscillation and partisan interference with the Board’s decision-making, Professor Estreicher, Professor David Sherwyn, and G. Roger King have proposed establishing an Article I labor court to replace the five-member National Labor Relations Board. This panel will discuss the current state of the National Labor Relations Board and the potential merits of replacing the Board with an Article I labor court.Featuring:Prof. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law; Director, Center for Labor, New York University School of LawRichard F. Griffin, Jr., Of Counsel, Bredhoff & Kaiser PLLC; Former General Counsel, National Labor Relations BoardProf. David Sherwyn, Professor of Law, Cornell University School of Hotel AdministrationGlenn Taubman, Staff Attorney, National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation(Moderator) G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association

In recent months, a number of new legal theories and tools have been proposed – some prominently used – in civil rights cases, many involving anti-Semitism in higher education. What legal mechanisms are available against universities, whether in governmental enforcement actions or private party lawsuits? Is Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 being used in new ways? What about other approaches, such as government contract rules, the Ku Klux Klan Act, RICO, or the use of the tax code and immigration law? The panel will consider a range of possibilities as well as constitutional and statutory limitations.Featuring:Dr. Mark Goldfeder, Esq., CEO and Director, National Jewish Advocacy CenterMarc Greendorfer, Co-Founder and President, Zachor Legal InstituteRobert Shibley, Special Counsel, Campus Advocacy, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)Marc Stern, Chief Legal Officer, American Jewish Committee(Moderator) Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

Since January 2025, the National Labor Relations Board has had only two sitting members—one less than necessary for a quorum. When it lacks a quorum, the Board can’t do things like resolve alleged unfair labor practices or rule on election-related objections. Seeing a policy gap, some states are moving to fill it. California, New York, and Massachusetts are all considering legislation that would transfer at least some of the inactive Board’s duties to state agencies. These bills have sparked a controversy about federal preemption and the role of states in regulating labor relations. Our panelists will flesh out the debates and explain where the debate is likely to go in the coming months.Featuring:Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair of the Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.Prof. Benjamin I. Sachs, Kestnbaum Professor of Labor and Industry, Harvard Law School(Moderator) G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association

The United States Supreme Court first acknowledged what would become the church autonomy doctrine, also known as the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, in the 1871 case of Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (1871). That case involved a schism in a Presbyterian church in Louisville, Kentucky, over the issue of slavery. The Court fashioned a principle that civil courts should not decide issues regarding faith, doctrine, and membership. Later, in Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94 (1952), the Court cemented the rule of deference to ecclesiastical bodies in internal church disputes, grounding the rule in the First Amendment and applying it to states through the Fourteenth Amendment. However, a competing rule emerged in certain circumstances in a 5-4 decision in Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979). In Jones, a divided Court held that civil courts may also use “neutral principles” of law to resolve church schisms involving property disputes. Today, courts wrestle with the dilemma of applying deference or neutral principles and face challenging questions regarding the nature of the church autonomy doctrine, including whether it is jurisdictional in nature and its application in a variety of circumstances.Join us for a conversation among religious liberty advocates on these and related topics.Featuring:Prof. Carl H. Esbeck, R. B. Price and Isabelle Wade & Paul C. Lyda Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Missouri School of LawL. Martin Nussbaum, Partner, First & Fourteenth PLLCEric Rassbach, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious LibertiesHiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute(Moderator) Hon. Brantley Starr, District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

The outcome of FTC v. Meta could reshape the social media landscape as well as U.S. merger policy. For the first time, the government is seeking to unwind two acquisitions more than a decade old, Facebook's purchase of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014. In its complaint, the Federal Trade Commission alleges that Facebook sought to eliminate threats to its social networking monopoly and ultimately harmed consumers through increased user ad loads and decreased quality and user privacy. Meta argues that the social media market is flush with competitors, including X, Snapchat, and TikTok, and that its investments helped both Instagram and WhatsApp expand rapidly. The trial concluded on May 27, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and a decision is expected anytime. Join this FedSoc Forum as we discuss the case and its potential impact.Featuring:Slade Bond, Chair, Public Policy and Legislative Affairs Practice, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLPJennifer Huddleston, Senior Fellow, Technology Policy, Cato InstituteProf. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityModerator: Asheesh Agarwal, Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce--To register, click the link above.