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 The waiver was withdrawn due to a lack of “compelling and extraordinary conditions” and because California could not show a direct connection between greenhouse gas emissions and air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 several states and fuel companies who argued that California did not meet the requirements to justify these state-specific standards. The D.C. Circuit dismissed most of their claims, finding that these parties did not prove that their injuries would be redressed by a decision in their favor. This case now asks whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by pointing to the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties. Join this FedSoc Forum to hear more about the case, the argument, and its possible outcomes.Featuring:Mark Pinkert, Partner, Holtzman VogelModerator: Mohammad Jazil, Partner, Holtzman Vogel--To register, click the link above.

In January, President Trump renamed the "Gulf of Mexico" the "Gulf of America." The Associated Press refused to follow that lead, keeping "Gulf of Mexico" in its style guide. The White House responded by denying AP reporters access to some White House press events. The AP sued, and Judge McFadden of the District of Columbia recently issued an opinion siding with the AP. What are the First Amendment principles at play? Might this headline-grabbing fight have broader implications for the First Amendment or the separation of powers?Join us for a litigation update on this case. Featuring: Tyson Langhofer, Senior Counsel and Director of the Center for Academic Freedom at Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Casey Mattox, VP of Legal Strategy at Stand Together

Since Inauguration Day, President Trump and his Cabinet have taken a range of important executive actions directly impacting environmental law and regulations with a laser focus on achieving domestic energy dominance – a centerpiece of the Trump agenda. This panel will review these executive actions along with other upcoming major regulatory reform activities, and their possible future impacts on the environmental law regime. This webinar will be the first of four webinars previewing the Thirteenth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on the topic of Theories of Presidential Power. Featuring: Eric Grant, Partner, Hicks Thomas LLP Matthew Leopold, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth Prof. Andrew Mergen, Emmett Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor of Law in Environmental Law, Harvard Law School Sambhav Sankar, Senior Vice President of Programs, Earthjustice Moderator: Jeffrey Wood, Partner, Baker Botts -- To register, click the link above.

In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court will decide 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, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari in January 2025, and arguments are scheduled for April 22nd.The question before the court is: Do public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt-out?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

In Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc. the Supreme Court will consider "Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary’s supervision."In Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc., several Christian-owned businesses, along with six individuals in Texas, brought suit alleging that the Affordable Care Act's preventative services coverage requirement was illegal and unconstitutional. They contend it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as the ACA required them to fund preventative services that conflicted with their religious beliefs, and that it violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, given the controlling effect of a non-appointed advisory body over which preventative treatments were required. Given those issues, the case sits at an interesting intersection of health law, religious liberty law, and administrative procedure, and the Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument on April 21, 2025.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyse how oral argument went before the Court.Featuring:Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Goldwater Institute

What does the new administration mean for cryptocurrency regulation and the balance of authority between the SEC and the states? Traditionally, Republican-led SECs and financial regulators have favored federal preemption of state authority. Under the Biden Administration, however, many red states invoked their consumer protection powers to challenge federal agency actions and defend federalism. This panel will explore ongoing state litigation against the SEC over the definition of a security and examine how the evolving federal-state dynamic could shape cryptocurrency regulation.Featuring: Justin Clark, Civil Chief, Kentucky Office of the Attorney GeneralPaul N. Watkins, Managing Partner, Fusion Law PLLCEric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney GeneralModerator: Katie Biber, Chief Legal Office, Paradigm

Russia’s war against Ukraine has been marked by deliberate attacks on civilians, healthcare workers, and critical infrastructure. From targeting rescue personnel with follow-up strikes to direct attacks on hospitals and maternity wards, Russia’s actions raise serious questions under the Law of Armed Conflict. Additionally, its ongoing kinetic and cyber attacks on energy infrastructure further challenge established legal norms.This Federalist Society webinar will examine how these actions violate the Law of Armed Conflict, focusing on specific incidents and responsible actors. Panelists will also explore potential legal remedies and the prospects for war crimes prosecutions.Mike Lewis served as a naval aviator before becoming a renowned law professor, respected by scholars and practitioners alike. A great friend of the Federalist Society, he spoke at numerous lawyer and student chapter events and was a dedicated member of the Executive Committee of the International & National Security Law Practice Group. Each year, the Practice Group honors his legacy with a webinar.Featuring: Prof. Michael A. Newton, Director, International Legal Studies Program, Vanderbilt Law SchoolModerator: Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

The United Nations was founded to promote peace, security, and international cooperation, but critics argue that it has become an inefficient bureaucracy that often works against U.S. interests. In particular, UN agencies and organizations – in which each UN Member State can choose whether or not to participate – have sometimes taken positions in conflict with what some U.S. policy makers regard as important principles and priorities. The Trump Administration recently announced that the United States will no longer participate in the U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC), will end all financial support for the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), and may withdraw from the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).Supporters, on the other hand, contend that the U.N. and its affiliated organizations remain a vital forum for diplomacy and that the United States should lead efforts to reform them rather than abandon them.Should the United States push for structural changes within the U.N. and its affiliated entities, or would withdrawal better serve American sovereignty and foreign policy goals? What are the legal and geopolitical implications of either path? Join the Federalist Society for a discussion with experts on international law, foreign policy, and constitutional governance as we explore whether the United States should help reform or quit the United Nations. Featuring: Hon. Grover Joseph Rees, III, Former General Counsel of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization, Former United States Ambassador to East TimoPeter Yeo, Senior Vice President, UN Foundation; President, Better World CampaignModerator: John McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law

When federal law enforcement raids the wrong home, do innocent homeowners have any legal recourse? The answer is more complicated than one might expect. Over the years, the Supreme Court has limited the ability to bring constitutional claims against federal officers, citing the absence of a congressionally authorized cause of action. However, Congress has provided a remedy for certain torts committed by federal law enforcement through the law-enforcement proviso of the Federal Tort Claims Act—legislation enacted in response to notorious federal raids in the 1970s. Yet even this statutory remedy may fall short today.In Martin v. United States, the Supreme Court will determine whether the law-enforcement proviso can overcome sovereign immunity and whether an innocent family, whose home was mistakenly raided by an FBI SWAT team, has a path to relief. Join us for an in-depth discussion on the implications of this case and the broader question of accountability for federal law enforcement.Featuring: Patrick Jaicomo, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice

Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian green card holder, was detained by ICE on March 8 and faces deportation for his involvement in the protests and disruptions at Columbia University related to the war between Hamas and Israel. The U.S. government cites an immigration law provision allowing his deportation because of “serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” Critics have argued that the government's action is retaliation for his speech. How does the Constitution apply in the case of non-citizens legally present in the U.S.? What is the role of the courts here? Join us on April 1 at 11 AM EST for a conversation between Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute and Conor Fitzpatrick, Supervising Senior Attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). Their conversation will be moderated by Casey Mattox, Vice President of Legal Strategy at Stand Together. Featuring: Conor Fitzpatrick, Supervising Senior Attorney, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan InstituteModerator: Casey Mattox, Vice President of Legal Strategy at Stand Together.