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 Law
Richard F. Griffin, Jr., Of Counsel, Bredhoff & Kaiser PLLC; Former General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board
Prof. David Sherwyn, Professor of Law, Cornell University School of Hotel Administration
Glenn 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 Center
Marc Greendorfer, Co-Founder and President, Zachor Legal Institute
Robert 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 Law
L. Martin Nussbaum, Partner, First & Fourteenth PLLC
Eric Rassbach, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberties
Hiram 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, LLP
Jennifer Huddleston, Senior Fellow, Technology Policy, Cato Institute
Prof. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Moderator: Asheesh Agarwal, Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce

--
To register, click the link above.

Join the Federalist Society for a timely and compelling discussion on the RESTORE Act, legislation aimed at overturning the Supreme Court’s eBay v. MercExchange decision and reinstating the presumptive right to injunctions for patent holders. This panel brings together some of the top voices in intellectual property: former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu, Professors Adam Mossoff and Kristen Osenga, and Chris Storm, IP Legal Director at Uber (speaking in his personal capacity). The conversation will be moderated by Judge Ryan Holte of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
The webinar will explore how the RESTORE Act seeks to rebalance the patent system in favor of property rights. Whether you're a policymaker, practitioner, or academic, don’t miss this opportunity to hear from leading experts on one of the most consequential patent reform efforts in recent history.
Featuring:

Hon. Andrei Iancu, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Dean Kristen Osenga, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law
Chris Storm, IP Legal Director, Uber
Moderator: Judge Ryan T. Holte, U.S. Court of Federal Claims and Jurist-In-Residence Professor of Law, The University of Akron School of Law

--
To register, click the link above.

Title IX's guarantee against discrimination on the basis of sex in education has been the subject of intensely differing Executive Branch interpretations over the years. These disputes include fundamental disagreements over the meaning of the word "sex" as used in the law, the manner in which the law applies to sex-separated sports and private facilities, the role of Title IX coordinators in responding to sexual harassment, and the due process to which individuals are entitled in campus disciplinary proceedings.Join us for a discussion on the right about how the ever-changing enforcement of Title IX has affected students, families, educators, and institutions and a potential legislative solution to ever-changing interpretations of Title IX.Featuring:

Tyler W. Coward, Lead Counsel, Government Affairs, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)
Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending Education
Paul F. Zimmerman, Senior Counsel, Policy & Regulatory, Defense of Freedom Institute
(Moderator) Robert S. Eitel, Co-Founder and President, Defense of Freedom Institute

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

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order effectively ending birthright citizenship for children born to mothers who are unlawfully present or temporary lawful residents in the United States and whose fathers are not lawful permanent residents at the time of the child’s birth. One day later, four states and three individuals challenged this order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, which three days later granted a universal temporary restraining order enjoining the government from implementing this order. Two weeks later, this became a nationwide injunction. Other similar nationwide injunctions have since been issued from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The government appealed all of these, and the Supreme Court took the case in order to decide the issue of whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions.
On June 27, 2025, the Court ruled in favor of the government, holding that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.” The Court granted the government’s applications for a partial stay of these injunctions, “but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.”
Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case, its decision, and future implications.
Featuring:

Ed Wenger, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC
Moderator: Elbert Lin, Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP


--
To register, click the link above.

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