FedSoc Forums

Many areas of the country are beset by serious housing shortages. State-level regulatory policies such as exclusionary zoning and other restrictions on construction are, according to some analysts, major causes of the crisis. A variety of possible reforms have been enacted or proposed in various studies, including “YIMBY” (“Yes In My Backyard”) zoning deregulation, inclusionary zoning, rent control, and state constitutional litigation and amendment. Join us for this discussion on the merits or pitfalls of the range of possible state-level remedies for the housing crisis.Featuring:James Burling, Vice President of Legal Affairs, Pacific Legal FoundationChristopher Elmendorf, Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, UC Davis School of LawDavid Schleicher, Walter E. Meyer Professor of Property and Urban Law, Yale Law School(Moderator) Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

In this CLE webinar, David Cunanan, John J. Park, and Phillip Sechler will discuss recent important developments in the realm of legal ethics and professional responsibility, including the recent adoption of changes to an Arizona rule restricting who can be a complainant for purposes of state bar ethics complaints, developments related to Rule 5.6(b) of the ABA Model Rules, and the expanding use (and misuse) of AI in the legal profession.CLE InfoIf you are not seeking CLE credit for participating in this webinar, you may register free of charge.Featuring:Hon. David Cunanan, Independent Bar Council, Arizona; Former Judge, Maricopa County Superior Court, ArizonaJohn J. Park, Jr., General Counsel, Indigo EnergyPhilip A. Sechler, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division OneCost:No CLE - FreeCLE (Member) - $25CLE (Non-Member) - $50To register, click the link at the top of the page.

One year ago, U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta held that “Google is a monopolist and has acted as one to maintain its monopoly”, and, in doing so, violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act. On Tuesday, September 2, 2025, Judge Mehta’s remedy decision rejected the United States’ request for structural relief and indicated only limited conduct and behavioral requirements were appropriate to address any past effect of Google’s conduct and to protect competition going forward. Does either party have substantive grounds to expect an appellate court to reverse Judge Mehta’s liability and remedy decision? Is the remedy decision consistent with the liability decision (and vice-versa)? What are the next steps to implementing the remedy decision? What is the likely impact of Judge Mehta’s liability and remedy decisions on Google, monopolization law, and the Government’s anti-monopoly agenda. Please join our body of expert lawyers for a discussion of these and other related questions.Featuring:Alden F. Abbott, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason UniversityAshley Baker, Executive Director, The Committee for JusticeKathleen W. Bradish, Vice President and Director of Legal Advocacy, American Antitrust InstituteDerek W. Moore, Counsel, Rule Garza Howley LLP(Moderator) Bilal Sayyed, Counsel, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

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.On June 16th, 2025, the Supreme Court granted cert to 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.Featuring:Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Prof. Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of Law

In April, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to rescind a regulation defining the Endangered Species Act’s prohibition against “harm” to an endangered species to include destruction and modification of habitat. That regulation was previously upheld by the Supreme Court under Chevron in Sweet Home v. Babbitt, over a sharp dissent by Justice Scalia accusing the agency of imposing “unfairness to the point of financial ruin—not just upon the rich, but upon the simplest farmer who finds his land conscripted to national zoological use.” Citing Loper Bright’s overturning of Chevron, the Service proposes to rescind this regulation and adopt Justice Scalia’s opinion as the best reading of the statute. This would substantially curtail regulation of habitat, the loss of which is purportedly the leading threat to endangered species. Join this FedSoc Forum in discussing this proposal, its interpretation of the Endangered Species Act, and the effect of Loper Bright on agencies’ modification of regulations previously upheld under Chevron. Featuring: Karrigan Börk, Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law; Senior Fellow, California Environmental Law and Policy Center; and Director, UC Davis Center for Watershed SciencesWill Yeatman, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation(Moderator) Jonathan Wood, Vice President of Law & Policy, Property and Environment Research Center

In 2020 and 2021, Idaho and West Virginia passed laws that required public schools and colleges to designate sports by biological sex and to forbid males from competing on women’s sports teams. Two male athletes who identified as females, one a middle school shot-put and discus thrower and the other a collegiate cross-country runner, challenged the laws in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Idaho and Southern District of West Virginia, alleging a right to compete in women’s sports and saying the state laws discriminate on the basis of sex and transgender status in violation of Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. In Little v. Hecox, the Idaho district court entered a preliminary injunction against the Idaho law for violating the Equal Protection Clause, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the West Virginia district court preliminarily enjoined the West Virginia law for violating Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause and then dissolved that injunction, upholding the law at summary judgment. The Fourth Circuit reversed and ordered the district court to enjoin the law for violating Title IX.The Supreme Court accepted certiorari on both of these cases and will consider whether states can designate women’s sports based on biological sex consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss these cases and the broader issues at play, including the scope of Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause as they relate to school sports and gender identity.Featuring:Jonathan Scruggs, Senior Counsel and the Director for the Center for Conscience Initiatives, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending Education

In Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, the U.S. Supreme Court took up the question of whether the operation of charter schools by religious entities was constitutionally permissible (or even required). The Court deadlocked 4-4, leaving in place a ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court that the religious charter school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, violated the Establishment Clause. This forum will take up the questions left unanswered in Drummond and what the next phase of the debate over religious charter schools will look like, including whether charter schools should be considered state actors and whether the Free Exercise Clause prevents a state from prohibiting religious operators from forming charter schools.Featuring:Rachel Laser, President and CEO, Americans United for Separation of Church and StateProf. John A. Meiser, Associate Clinical Professor and Director of the Lindsay and Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic, Notre Dame Law School(Moderator) Prof. Michael P. Moreland, University Professor of Law and Religion and Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law

Across the country, bar associations are increasingly at the center of legal and political controversy. Recent disciplinary proceedings—such as efforts by the DC Bar to disbar Acting OIRA Administrator Jeffrey Clark, ethics complaints against Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen and Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke—have raised urgent questions about the line between professional regulation and ideological weaponization of legal licensing.Are these proceedings neutral applications of ethical standards, or do they reflect growing pressure to use professional discipline as a political weapon? What procedural and constitutional safeguards exist to protect the federal government from state licensing authorities and to protect lawyers against viewpoint discrimination? Are these tools sufficient? How should courts, bar associations, and the legal academy understand their roles in preserving both public trust and ideological diversity within the profession? Featuring: James M. Burnham, Founder and Managing Partner, King Street Legal, PLLCMichael Francisco, Partner, First & Fourteenth PLLCGene P. Hamilton, President & Co-Founder, America First Legal FoundationProf. Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School(Moderator) Prof. Denise M. Harle, Clinical Professor and Director of the First Amendment Clinic, Florida State University College of Law

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