FedSoc Forums

Päivi Räsänen, a Finnish parliamentarian, has been criminally prosecuted for expressing her Christian beliefs on marriage and sexuality in a 2019 tweet. Following multiple police interrogations, in April 2021, she was charged with “hate speech” under the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity section of the Finnish Criminal Code, alongside Lutheran bishop Juhana Pohjola. Despite two unanimous acquittals, Räsänen now faces the seventh year of legal proceedings. The landmark case was heard at the Finnish Supreme Court on 30 October 2025, following the State prosecutor’s appeal. The prosecution is seeking tens of thousands of euros in fines and is demanding that Räsänen publications be censored.
Featuring:
Lorcán Price, Legal Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom International (Counsel for Päivi Räsänen)
(Moderator) Karen J. Lugo, Founder, Libertas-West Project

Allegations of politically motivated “debanking” have intensified debate over how federal regulation, supervisory practices, and concerns about “reputation risk” influence banks’ decisions about which customers to serve. In recent months, the President issued an Executive Order directing agencies to reexamine supervisory and risk-management frameworks, while the banking regulators themselves have taken steps related to supervision, anti-money-laundering obligations, and the treatment of reputation risk—often implicating questions surrounding confidential supervisory information. At the same time, Congress and stakeholders across the financial sector continue to grapple with the scope and meaning of federal “fair access” standards and what they might require of banks going forward.With these developments unfolding in parallel, important questions remain unresolved. What role should the government play in shaping banks’ customer relationships? How should supervisory expectations be calibrated, and what legal clarity—whether legislative or regulatory—might be needed to strike the proper balance?Please join the Federalist Society on Wednesday, January 7, at 12 PM ET for a virtual discussion exploring these issues and examining where regulators and lawmakers may go from here.

Featuring:
John Berlau, Senior fellow and Director of Finance Policy, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Tabitha Edgens, Executive Vice President & Co-Head of Regulatory Affairs, Bank Policy Institute
Brian Knight, Senior Counsel, Corporate Engagement Team, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) John Heltman, Washington Bureau Chief, American Banker

In an unprecedented action, the SEC in July dismissed with prejudice a pending enforcement case concerning an alleged violation of a rule promulgated under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (ICA). In 2023, the SEC had charged the defendants (a mutual fund, its investment advisor, and independent directors of the fund) with violating its 2016 “liquidity rule,” which limits the percentage of assets investment companies may hold in "illiquid" investments. The independent directors argued that the ICA did not authorize the SEC to make rules concerning fund liquidity and that its decision to do so based on a protection of investors rationale was owed no deference under the 2024 Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright.
The district court ordered supplemental briefing on Loper Bright implications, but before the SEC filed its supplemental response, it dismissed the case against all defendants, citing “policy reasons”, without more explanation.


Our panelists will discuss the numerous legal and policy issues and questions raised by this sequence of events.

Featuring:


Jan Folena, Partner and Co-Chair of Securities & Regulatory Enforcement, Stradley Ronon
Margaret Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
(Moderator) Michael Piwowar, Executive Vice President, Milken Institute Finance

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.

Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana (January 12) - Federal Officer Removal Statute; Issue(s): (1) Whether a causal-nexus or contractual-direction test survives the 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statute, which provides federal jurisdiction over civil actions against "any person acting under [an] officer" of the United States "for or relating to any act under color of such office"; and (2) whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract.
West Virginia v. B.P.J. (January 13) - Fourteenth Amendment; Title IX; Issue(s): (1) Whether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prevents a state from consistently designating girls' and boys' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth; and (2) whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prevents a state from offering separate boys' and girls' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.
Little v. Hecox (January 13) - Fourteenth Amendment; Title IX; Issue(s): Whether laws that seek to protect women's and girls' sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation (January 14) - Sovereign Immunity, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether the New Jersey Transit Corporation is an arm of the State of New Jersey for interstate sovereign immunity purposes.
Wolford v. Lopez (January 20) - Second Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in holding that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier.
M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund (January 20) - ERISA; Issue(s): Whether 29 U.S.C. § 1391’s instruction to compute withdrawal liability “as of the end of the plan year” requires the plan to base the computation on the actuarial assumptions most recently adopted before the end of the year, or allows the plan to use different actuarial assumptions that were adopted after, but based on information available as of, the end of the year.
Trump v. Cook (January 21) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, Administrative Law; Issue(s): Whether the Supreme Court should stay a district court ruling preventing the president from firing a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

Featuring:

Bradey A. Benbrook, Founding Partner, Benbrook Law Group
Stephanie L. Freudenberg, Counsel, Schaerr Jaffe LLP
Jacob H. Huebert, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Ryan D. Walters, Deputy Attorney General, Legal Strategy, Texas
(Moderator) Tiffany H. Bates, Associate, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC

In Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, Defending Education brought a suit challenging Olentangy Local School District policies related to student speech. These policies, among other things, barred students from using pronouns that match a person's biological sex if that individual identified with different pronouns. Defending Education challenged the policies, contending they both impermissibly prohibited speech, by not allowing students who believed sex is immutable & therefore personal pronouns cannot be chosen to express that belief as they wished, and compelled speech by forcing students to use pronouns for others that express a perspective with which the students did not agree. The case was filed in the southern district of Ohio, which ruled in favor of the school district, and the Sixth Circuit initially affirmed that decision. The case was then reheard en banc by a 17-judge panel, and on November 6, 2025, the court reversed the judgment 10-7, holding that the policies did violate the First Amendment rights of the affected students. Join us for a litigation update on this important case. Featuring:

Mathew Hoffmann, Legal Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Krista Baughman, Founder and Managing Attorney, Baughman Law PC

In National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) the Court is set to consider “whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with "party coordinated communications" as defined in 11 C.F.R. § 109.37.”.
The case kicked off in 2022 when two Republican party committees brought suit against the FEC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. They contended the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) imposed unconstitutional restrictions on their capacity to coordinate campaign advertising with candidates, and that FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) which had upheld the restrictions as constitutional, had been made unsound by developments in law, facts, and precedent in the intervening time.
As required by FECA for constitutional challenges, the district court certified the legal question to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc which upheld FECA. The Supreme Court granted cert. and Oral Argument is set to be heard on December 9, 2025.
Join us for an expert breakdown of oral arguments.
Featuring:

Brett Nolan, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech

On June 27, 2025, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire challenging President Trump's Executive Order No. 14,160, which denies birthright citizenship to children born after February 19th, 2025 to parents who are either illegally present in or temporary residents of the United States. On July 10th, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction barring the execution of the order, and, in September, the Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari before judgment. The Court granted cert and will hear oral arguments in early 2026.
The case hinges on the question of whether children born to illegal or temporary residents of the United States are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and thus entitled to citizenship under the 14th amendment. Join us for this timely discussion on a case with immense implications for immigration enforcement, our understanding of the 14th amendment, and the meaning of birthright citizenship.
Featuring:

Trent McCotter, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC
Prof. Michael Ramsey, Warren Distinguished Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School
(Moderator) Prof. Randy Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center

The Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in Learning Resources v. Trump, a case examining the scope of presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and its use to impose tariffs. This program will break down the argument, highlight how the Justices probed IEEPA’s limits, and discuss what the Court’s decision may mean for executive power, trade policy, and the future deployment of emergency economic tools.

Featuring:

Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law, William & Mary Law School
Adam White, Laurence H. Silberman Chair in Constitutional Governance and Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Co-Director, Antonin Scalia Law School's C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State

On April 1, 2025, the Texas Association of Money Services Businesses filed suit in the Western District of Texas challenging a Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) order that lowered the cash-transaction reporting threshold from $10,000 to $200 for money-services businesses in certain Texas border ZIP codes, arguing the rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act and constitutional protections.
Should the government be allowed to surveil your financial transactions? Where is the line drawn between protecting privacy and conducting legal investigations? What happens when regulators set standards that can't be met? Join us for a webinar examining Texas Association of Money Services Businesses v. Bondi. On this FedSoc forum, Robert Johnson and Nicholas Anthony will discuss the status of the case, its implications for the future, and the wider landscape of financial surveillance.
Featuring:

Nicholas Anthony, Policy Analyst, Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, Cato Institute
(Moderator) Robert Johnson, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice

Humphrey's Executor v. United States, decided in 1935, upheld the Federal Trade Commission Act, declaring that a president can remove an FTC commissioner only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In March 2025, FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter was notified of her removal by President Trump, who stated in a letter that for her to remain an FTC commissioner was “inconsistent with [the] Administration’s priorities.” Slaughter won in district court, which ordered her reinstatement. After the D.C. Court of Appeals denied the government’s request for a stay, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and stayed the lower court’s ruling.

Join us for a discussion of oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter and the questions it presents about separation of powers, for-cause removal, and the future of Humphrey's Executor.

Featuring:

Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP
(Moderator) Bilal Sayyed, Counsel, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP