FedSoc Forums

Join the Federalist Society for a webinar on the ongoing legal challenges to the Biden-era Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, a component of the Inflation Reduction Act. Ashley Parrish, Partner at King & Spalding, will provide an analysis of the multi-faceted litigation. He will explore how pharmaceutical companies are arguing that the program prevents accountability by granting the government "unlimited, unreviewable, unchecked rulemaking authority" over drug prices, and that it compels speech by forcing participation in agreements that imply voluntary negotiation. Mr. Parrish will also examine recent appellate court rulings and forecast the program's future, including its implications for the broader healthcare landscape. Featuring: Ashley C. Parrish, Partner, King & Spalding, LLP

Ed Wenger, a Partner at Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC and former Chief Deputy Solicitor General of Florida, dives into the Supreme Court's ruling on Trump's executive order regarding birthright citizenship. The discussion highlights the rise of universal injunctions and their historical context under the Judiciary Act of 1789. Topics include the implications for class actions, Justice Jackson's dissent on judicial authority, and evolving landscapes in class action litigation. The conversation wraps with insights on constitutional ramifications surrounding citizenship.

Early in his Chairmanship, Federal Communications Chair Chairman Brendan Carr established a new Council for National Security within the agency. The council aims to "leverage the full range of the Commission’s regulatory, investigatory, and enforcement authorities to protect American and counter foreign adversaries, particularly the threats posed by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Chinese Communist Party (CCP)." Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss the council and its implications for the telecommunications and national security spaces.Featuring: Adam Chan, Director, FCC Council on National Security Moderator: Megan L. Brown, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP

Over the past decade, electricity prices for consumers have risen by more than 22% on average. At the same time, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)—the international body responsible for setting reliability and security standards for the North American power grid—has issued increasingly urgent warnings about the growing risks to the U.S. electric power system's reliability.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), an independent agency established by Congress, plays a central role in this space. Under the Federal Power Act, FERC oversees the interstate transmission and wholesale sale of electricity and is responsible for reviewing, approving, and enforcing NERC’s reliability standards.Nearly 30 years ago, FERC fundamentally changed how it regulates the electric power industry. Did those changes contribute to the growing risks to the future reliability of the U.S. electric power system we now face? Or have they helped prevent even greater problems? Most importantly, what should federal electric regulation look like going forward?Join us for a dynamic and in-depth conversation with two seasoned experts as they explore these critical questions about the future of electricity regulation in the United States.Featuring:John Kennerly Davis, Jr., Senior Attorney, Former Deputy Attorney General of VirginiaAri Peskoe, Director, Electricity Law Initiative, Harvard Law School(Moderator) Robert T. Carney, Senior Counsel, Caplin & Drysdale; Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown Law

Whether AI training and generation is a fair use under copyright law puts two important American business sectors in opposition, and each looks to the various branches of the federal government for answers. Fundamentally, essentially all training of AI models involves copying of copyrighted materials, and many outputs from AI systems also may be substantially similar to copyrighted material and thus infringing if they are not fair uses.On May 9, 2025, the U.S. Copyright Office released a pre-publication version of the third and final part of its report on Copyright and AI, focused on Generative AI Training. The report concludes that some is fair use but some is not, and urges that existing efforts to engage in licensing of copyrighted content continue. Meanwhile, over forty cases on the issue are ongoing in the United States alone, with cases ongoing in another eight nations as well. The District Court in Delaware has ruled that at least one such case was not a fair use, and further rulings are expected soon from around the country. Meanwhile the White House has indicated an interest in AI policy and may have its own prerogatives.Leading experts will discuss the issue and answer questions on this fast-moving and important issue.Featuring:Meredith Rose, Senior Policy Counsel, Public KnowledgeRegan Smith, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, News/Media AllianceModerator: Zvi Rosen, Assistant Professor, Southern Illinois University School of Law

Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton concerned Texas Law H.B. 1181, and what precedent should apply in considering its impact on free speech. Passed in 2023, the law requires commercial entities, including social media platforms, "that knowingly and intentionally publish or distribute material on an Internet website... more than one-third of which is sexual material harmful to minors" to age-gate their content, and to verify the age of their users, ensuring they are 18 years of age or older.Soon after the law passed, plaintiffs sued, claiming the law violated their right to free speech. Drawing on a line of cases including Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004), they argued that since the law impacted constitutionally protected speech, strict scrutiny should be applied and the TX law failed that test. The Fifth Circuit denied that argument, instead applying a rational basis test, drawing from the precedent of Ginsburg v. New York (1968).The Supreme Court granted certiorari to answer the question of whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review, instead of strict scrutiny, to a law burdening adults’ access to protected speech, and heard oral argument on January 15, 2025.On June 27, 2025, a 6-3 Court issued its decision, holding that the correct answer was to apply intermediate scrutiny, and that the Texas law survived intermediate scrutiny because it only incidentally burdened adults' protected speech.Join us for a Courthouse steps decision program where we will break down and analyze the decision, opinions, and what the potential impacts may be.Featuring:Darpana Sheth Nunziata, General Counsel, Center for Individual Rights

In Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, the Court considered whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA) violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court heard oral argument on April 1, 2025 and on June 20, 2025 a 9-0 Court ruled the PSJVTA did not violate the Fifth amendment because the statute "reasonably ties the assertion of jurisdiction over the Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches."Chief Justice Roberts authored the opinion for the Court, and Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence in which Justice Gorsuch joined as to Part II.Join us for a Courthouse Steps decision program where we will break down and analyze this decision and discuss the potential effects of this case.Featuring:Erielle Davidson, Associate, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC(Moderator) Shiza Francis, Associate, Shutts and Bowen LLP

In June of 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Kelo v. City of New London that the local government did not violate the Fifth Amendment's Public Use Clause when it condemned private residential lots and transferred them to commercial developers to promote local economic development as part of a comprehensive municipal development plan. Kelo was certainly a landmark decision and, twenty years later, its impact is still felt and merits further consideration. Join our panel as it discusses Kelo’s legacy, the nature of “public use,” and the judiciary’s current and future relationship with eminent domain.Featuring:Prof. Peter Byrne, John Hampton Baumgartner, Jr. Professor of Real Property Law; Faculty Director, Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Program; Faculty Director, Georgetown Climate Resource Center, Georgetown Law CenterWesley W. Horton, Of Counsel, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLPTim Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Goldwater InstituteProf. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityModerator: Prof. Eric Claeys, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University--To register, click the link above.

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