FedSoc Forums

Professor Ron Rotunda wrote seminal law books that are still used in law schools across the country and was the author of over 500 law review articles and other legal publications. These books and articles have been cited more than 2000 times by law reviews, by state and federal courts at every level, by the U.S. Supreme Court, and by foreign courts in Europe, Africa, Asia, and South America. He was also a member of the Federalist Society’s Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group. Each year, the Practice Group holds an annual FedSoc Forum in his honor to discuss pressing issues and trends in legal culture.
Join us for the 2025 installment in that series, where the Honorable G. Barry Anderson will, in a discussion moderated by Professor Michael McGinniss, offer his insights about judicial independence and the rule of law, and the role of lawyers in supporting the rule of law. He will discuss how such support can be well demonstrated to clients when litigation does not turn out as they had hoped. He will also address systems of judicial selection and their impacts on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
Featuring:

Hon. Barry Anderson, Associate Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court (ret.)
(Moderator) Prof. Michael S. McGinniss, Professor of Law and J. Philip Johnson Faculty Fellow, University of North Dakota School of Law

The European Union’s Digital Services Act applies to digital platforms and service providers offering services to users in the EU, regardless of where the company is based—including U.S. companies.
EU officials contend the Digital Services Act is needed to protect democracy from misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech online. Regulators in Brussels promise it will create a safer digital space by holding platforms such as Google, Amazon, Meta, and X accountable for policing these categories. Service providers that fail to comply risk fines of up to 6% of global annual revenue, restricted access to the EU market, or suspension of operations.
House Judiciary Republicans recently issued a report warning that European regulators could use the Digital Services Act to chill speech, suppress political dissent, and establish a global censorship regime. By contrast, House Judiciary Democrats argue the Digital Services Act includes procedural safeguards, judicial oversight of content moderation, and democratic accountability within the EU.
Will the Act make Brussels the new “sheriff of the digital public square”? Could it export European hate speech laws—which have at times been used against individuals peacefully expressing their views—beyond Europe? And what steps can governments, companies, and citizens take to safeguard free expression online?
Join the Federalist Society for a discussion with experts on the EU, the Digital Services Act, and freedom of expression as we consider whether the United States should support—or oppose—the Act.
Featuring:

Stéphane Bonichot, Partner, Briard Bonichot & Associés
Dr. Adina Portaru, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom International
Dr. John Rosenthal, Independent scholar and journalist
Berin Szóka, President, TechFreedom
Moderator: Prof. Maimon Schwarzschild, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law

Gabriel Olivier is an evangelical Christian who often shares his faith in public. In May 2021, when sharing his faith near an amphitheater in a public park in Brandon, Mississippi, the city’s chief of police confronted Olivier with a recently amended city ordinance requiring “protests” to occur in a designated area. Olivier repositioned himself but soon returned when the designated area proved remote and isolating. The city charged Olivier for violating the ordinance, and he pled nolo contendere and agreed to pay a fine. Olivier then challenged the ordinance under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, seeking an injunction prohibiting future enforcement of the law against his expressive activity.
The district court barred Olivier’s request for injunctive relief, applying the preclusion doctrine from Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). As a result, Olivier cannot challenge the ordinance, even though he alleges that it continues to restrict his speech and risks future penalties. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, splitting from the Ninth and Tenth Circuits and deepening a circuit split on whether Heck applies to noncustodial plaintiffs who cannot access habeas relief. The Fifth Circuit denied rehearing en banc by one vote, over dissents arguing Olivier’s plea should not bar future constitutional protection. In July, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Featuring:

Nathan Kellum, Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute
(Moderator) Tobias S. Loss-Eaton, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP

In Dinner Table Action v. Schneider, pending in the First Circuit, Maine is appealing a permanent injunction barring the enforcement of a ballot initiative passed in 2024 that would have capped contributions for independent expenditures at $5,000. The initiative, formulated and supported by the anti-super PAC group, Equal Citizens, was designed to challenge the case that “created” super PACs, SpeechNow.org v. FEC, a unanimous en banc D.C. Circuit decision, which held that no limits can be placed on contributions for independent expenditures, and has since been reaffirmed by several federal circuit courts. If the First Circuit were to remove the injunction, it would create a circuit split, and open up the possibility of revisiting SpeechNow.org v. FEC.The Dinner Table Action District Court also ruled that mandatory disclosure of donors starting at $0 unconstitutionally burdens Free Speech by not affording any possibility for anonymous speech. As such, this case sits at an interesting intersection between free speech and election law. Join us for a litigation update where we will discuss the developments to date in this case, its potential impacts, and where it may be headed. Featuring:

Charles Miller, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech
(Moderator) Stephen R. Klein, Partner, Barr & Klein PLLC

All fifty states mandate certain vaccinations for schoolchildren. Forty-six of them allow religious exemptions. New York once did as well, maintaining such exemptions for more than half a century before eliminating them in 2019. Medical exemptions remain.
Members of the Amish community now challenge New York’s policy, claiming that opposition to vaccines is integral to their “traditional way of life,” as recognized in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). The Petitioners include three Amish parents, one representing all Amish and Mennonites in New York, as well as three Amish schools—funded by and serving Amish communities on Amish land. In 2022, the state charged these schools with violating its vaccination law and levied $118,000 in penalties.
The Petitioners defended themselves by filing a Section 1983 action in federal court, raising an as-applied challenge under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court dismissed the case, and the Second Circuit affirmed under Employment Division v. Smith’s rational basis framework. The Petitioners are seeking Supreme Court review.
Featuring:

Robert M. Overing, Deputy Solicitor General, Alabama Office of the Attorney General
(Moderator) Hon. Sean D. Jordan, Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

Many areas of the country are beset by serious housing shortages. State-level regulatory policies such as exclusionary zoning and other restrictions on construction are, according to some analysts, major causes of the crisis. A variety of possible reforms have been enacted or proposed in various studies, including “YIMBY” (“Yes In My Backyard”) zoning deregulation, inclusionary zoning, rent control, and state constitutional litigation and amendment.
Join us for this discussion on the merits or pitfalls of the range of possible state-level remedies for the housing crisis.
Featuring:

James Burling, Vice President of Legal Affairs, Pacific Legal Foundation
Christopher Elmendorf, Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law
David Schleicher, Walter E. Meyer Professor of Property and Urban Law, Yale Law School
(Moderator) Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

One year ago, U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta held that “Google is a monopolist and has acted as one to maintain its monopoly”, and, in doing so, violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act. On Tuesday, September 2, 2025, Judge Mehta’s remedy decision rejected the United States’ request for structural relief and indicated only limited conduct and behavioral requirements were appropriate to address any past effect of Google’s conduct and to protect competition going forward. Does either party have substantive grounds to expect an appellate court to reverse Judge Mehta’s liability and remedy decision? Is the remedy decision consistent with the liability decision (and vice-versa)? What are the next steps to implementing the remedy decision? What is the likely impact of Judge Mehta’s liability and remedy decisions on Google, monopolization law, and the Government’s anti-monopoly agenda. Please join our body of expert lawyers for a discussion of these and other related questions.
Featuring:

Alden F. Abbott, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University
Ashley Baker, Executive Director, The Committee for Justice
Kathleen W. Bradish, Vice President and Director of Legal Advocacy, American Antitrust Institute
Derek W. Moore, Counsel, Rule Garza Howley LLP
(Moderator) Bilal Sayyed, Counsel, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

In First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin, the New Jersey Attorney General, Matthew Platkin, issued a subpoena to a faith-based, pro-life, nonprofit, requiring that it turn over years of sensitive information, including the names and contact information of its donors. First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, which provides free medical services and is funded by private donations, refused to comply with the demand for donor information, alleging that the subpoena chilled its rights of association and speech.
First Choice filed an action in federal court, but the district court twice dismissed the case, finding it "unripe" and requiring that the constitutional issues first be adjudicated in state court. The Third Circuit affirmed this decision.
On June 16th, 2025, the Supreme Court granted cert to consider whether, when the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, a federal court in a first-filed action is deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court. This case addresses broader issues, including the power of state officials and the role of federal courts in protecting First Amendment rights from chilling effects caused by state action.
Featuring:

Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Prof. Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of Law

In April, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to rescind a regulation defining the Endangered Species Act’s prohibition against “harm” to an endangered species to include destruction and modification of habitat. That regulation was previously upheld by the Supreme Court under Chevron in Sweet Home v. Babbitt, over a sharp dissent by Justice Scalia accusing the agency of imposing “unfairness to the point of financial ruin—not just upon the rich, but upon the simplest farmer who finds his land conscripted to national zoological use.” Citing Loper Bright’s overturning of Chevron, the Service proposes to rescind this regulation and adopt Justice Scalia’s opinion as the best reading of the statute. This would substantially curtail regulation of habitat, the loss of which is purportedly the leading threat to endangered species. Join this FedSoc Forum in discussing this proposal, its interpretation of the Endangered Species Act, and the effect of Loper Bright on agencies’ modification of regulations previously upheld under Chevron.




Featuring:
Karrigan Börk, Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law; Senior Fellow, California Environmental Law and Policy Center; and Director, UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences
Will Yeatman, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation
(Moderator) Jonathan Wood, Vice President of Law & Policy, Property and Environment Research Center

In 2020 and 2021, Idaho and West Virginia passed laws that required public schools and colleges to designate sports by biological sex and to forbid males from competing on women’s sports teams. Two male athletes who identified as females, one a middle school shot-put and discus thrower and the other a collegiate cross-country runner, challenged the laws in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Idaho and Southern District of West Virginia, alleging a right to compete in women’s sports and saying the state laws discriminate on the basis of sex and transgender status in violation of Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. In Little v. Hecox, the Idaho district court entered a preliminary injunction against the Idaho law for violating the Equal Protection Clause, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the West Virginia district court preliminarily enjoined the West Virginia law for violating Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause and then dissolved that injunction, upholding the law at summary judgment. The Fourth Circuit reversed and ordered the district court to enjoin the law for violating Title IX.
The Supreme Court accepted certiorari on both of these cases and will consider whether states can designate women’s sports based on biological sex consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss these cases and the broader issues at play, including the scope of Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause as they relate to school sports and gender identity.
Featuring:

Jonathan Scruggs, Senior Counsel and the Director for the Center for Conscience Initiatives, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending Education