FedSoc Forums

In 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency withdrew California’s previously-granted waiver to implement its Advanced Clean Car Program. This program had been in effect since 2013 and required that car companies reduce carbon dioxide emissions and produce fleets that are at least 15% electric vehicles. The waiver was withdrawn due to a lack of “compelling and extraordinary conditions” and because California could not show a direct connection between greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.In 2022, however, the EPA reinstated the waiver. This prompted legal challenges from fuel producers (among others) who argued that California did not meet the requirements to justify these state-specific standards. The D.C. Circuit dismissed the fuel producers' statutory claim based on a determination that they did not prove that their injuries would be redressed by a decision in their favor.This Supreme Court case presented the question whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties. On June 20, the Court ruled 7-2 in favor of standing. Join this FedSoc Forum to hear more about the case and this decision, authored by Justice Kavanaugh.Featuring:Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLPModerator: Jeff Beelaert, Partner, Givens Pursley LLP--To register, click the link above.

Administrative law is in flux, nowhere more so than at the National Labor Relations Board. The Board has long made labor law (or “policy”) by issuing decisions and applying its own precedent. But in a recent oral argument at the Seventh Circuit, one member of the panel suggested that he didn’t want to hear about “Board law.” The judges, he said, could read the statute for themselves. That statement was controversial and thought-provoking. After last term’s blockbuster decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, courts are no longer supposed to defer to administrative agencies on legal questions. So does that mean Board law is dead? Or is the issue more complicated? Join our panelists as we dissect the issue.Featuring:Prof. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law Director, Center for Labor and Employment Law Co-Director, Institute of Judicial Administration, NYU School of LawAlexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair of the Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.(Moderator) Karen Harned, President, Harned Strategies LLC

Mahmoud v. Taylor concerns the question of whether parents have the right to be notified and opt their children out of classroom lessons on gender and sexuality that violate their religious beliefs.In 2022, the Montgomery County, Maryland, School Board introduced storybooks for pre-K through fifth-grade classrooms covering topics like gender transitions and pride parades. Maryland law and the Board’s own policies provide parents the right to receive notice and opt their kids out of books that violate their religious beliefs. However, when parents attempted to exercise this right, the School Board eliminated notice and opt-outs altogether. In response, a diverse coalition of religious parents, including Muslims, Christians, and Jews, sued the School Board in federal court. The parents argue that storybooks are age-inappropriate, spiritually and emotionally damaging for their kids, and inconsistent with their beliefs.Last year, the Fourth Circuit upheld the School Board’s policy, ruling that the removal of notice and opt-outs does not impose a legally cognizable burden on parents’ religious exercise. The parents appealed.On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that parents challenging the Board’s introduction of the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt-outs, are entitled to a preliminary injunction. Join us for a breakdown of this decision and its implications.Featuring:Eric Baxter, Vice President and Senior Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty(Moderator) Prof. Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of Law

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has traditionally regulated interstate and international communications and, as part of that, maintained a universal service fund that requires telecommunications carriers to contribute quarterly based on their revenues. In order to calculate these contribution amounts, the FCC contracts the help of the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC). The constitutionality of these delegations of power—to the FCC by Congress and to USAC by the FCC—were challenged in court by Consumers’ Research. On June 27, 2025, the Court ruled in favor of the FCC, rejecting the argument that the universal-service contribution scheme violates the nondelegation doctrine. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case, its decision, and what this means for the nondelegation doctrine going forward. Featuring: Sean Lev, Partner, HWG LLP Moderator: Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute -- To register, click the link above.

In recent years, a flurry of lawsuits has been launched nationwide against religious organizations, raising fraud and other claims related to tithing and church donations. These challenges generally argue that church leaders falsely claimed they would only put donations to one use, but instead put them to another. These cases, which have been heard in the 9th, 10th, and D.C. Circuits, as well as multi-district litigation in federal court in Utah, raise church autonomy issues, such as the extent to which religious leaders can determine how to use donations made to the organization. Additionally, at least one of these cases raises the procedural question of whether church autonomy should be treated more like immunity from suit, and allow for interlocutory appeals on church autonomy matters. On this FedSoc forum, Daniel Blomberg and Dr. James C. Phillips will run through several of these cases, discussing these and related issues.Featuring:Daniel Blomberg, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty(Moderator) Dr. James C. Phillips, Associate Professor & Director, Constitutional Government Initiative, Wheatley Institute, Brigham Young University

in July of 2018, Governor Henry McMaster of South Carolina issued an executive order to end the inclusion of Planned Parenthood in the Medicaid program. The Department of Health and Human Services then informed Planned Parenthood that they were no longer qualified to provide services to Medicaid beneficiaries, which prompted lawsuits both from Planned Parenthood and beneficiaries seeking to enforce their right to “free-choice-of-provider,” included in a 1967 Medicaid provision. This case asked whether this provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider. On June 26, 2025, the Court ruled 6–3 in favor of South Carolina, affirming the state's right to exclude abortion providers from its Medicaid program. Tune in to this Courthouse Steps podcast as we break down the case and its recent decision. Featuring: John J. Bursch, Senior Counsel and VP, Appellate Advocacy, Alliance Defending Freedom Kyle Douglas Hawkins, Partner, Lehotsky Keller Moderator: Ryan L. Bangert, Senior Vice President, Strategic Initiatives & Special Counsel to the President, Alliance Defending Freedom

On June 18, 2025, the Supreme Court released its decisions for two circuit splits arising under the Clean Air Act (CAA) provision regarding judicial venue: EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C. (23-1229), and Oklahoma v. EPA (23-1067). Decided 7-2 and 8-0, respectively, the outcome of these cases hinged on the Court’s interpretation of the CAA’s unique venue provision, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). The CAA states that challenges to “nationally applicable” actions may be filed only in the D.C. Circuit. 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). Conversely, challenges to CAA actions that are “locally or regionally applicable” may generally be filed only in the appropriate circuit court for the region. Id. But there is an exception: actions that are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect” must be filed in the D.C. Circuit “if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.” Id.In Calumet, the Court ruled 7-2 that the “EPA’s denials of small refinery exemption petitions are locally or regionally applicable actions that fall within the “nationwide scope or effect” exception, requiring venue in the D.C. Circuit.” Similarly, in Oklahoma, the Court ruled 8-0 that “EPA’s disapprovals of the Oklahoma and Utah state implementation plans are locally or regionally applicable actions reviewable in a regional court of appeals.” Tune in as Jimmy Conde and Garrett Kral offer a breakdown of these decisions.Featuring:James Conde, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLCModerator: Garrett Kral, Administrative and Environmental Law Attorney--To register, click the link above.

In the last several years, numerous minors who identify as transgender have undergone surgery and other medical procedures to mirror common physical features of the opposite sex.In March 2023, Tennessee enacted Senate Bill 1, which prohibits medical procedures for the purpose of either (1) enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex, or (2) treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity. Individuals, joined by the United States, brought suit against Tennessee. They alleged that a ban on “gender affirming care” violates the Equal Protection Clause and that the Due Process Clause’s “substantive” component gives parents a right to demand medical interventions for their children, even if a state has found them to be unproven and risky.On June 18th, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Tennessee’s law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review.Featuring:Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute

In Kousisis v. United States, the Supreme Court considered the question of whether a defendant who induces a victim to enter into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud--even if the defendant did not seek to cause the victim economic loss. It heard oral argument on December 9, 2024, and on May 22, 2025, issued a unanimous decision authored by Justice Barrett affirming the lower court's holding that the defendant could be convicted of federal fraud.Although the Court was unanimous, there are an array of opinions. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch authored an opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment, and Justice Sotomayor wrote to concur in judgment.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will discuss the decision and the potential ramifications of the case.Featuring:Brandon Moss, Partner, Wiley Rein

In Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Mexico brought suit against several U.S. gun manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson. It alleged, among other things, that they were in part liable for the killings perpetrated by Mexican cartels. Mexico argued that the gun manufacturers know the guns they sell are/may be illegally sold to the cartels and thus are the proximate causes of the resulting gun violence.The manufacturers argued that they were immune from such suits under the U.S. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which protects U.S. gun manufacturers from certain types of liability, though not universally, as it contains a predicate exception for manufacturers who knowingly violate applicable federal (and potentially international) law.The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 4, 2025. On June 5, 2025, the Court issued a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Kagan, ruling that the PLCAA did prevent the suit from moving forward. Justices Thomas and Jackson both filed concurrences.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will discuss the decision and the potential ramifications of the case.Featuring:Joel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP