FedSoc Forums

In Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, the U.S. Supreme Court took up the question of whether the operation of charter schools by religious entities was constitutionally permissible (or even required). The Court deadlocked 4-4, leaving in place a ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court that the religious charter school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, violated the Establishment Clause. This forum will take up the questions left unanswered in Drummond and what the next phase of the debate over religious charter schools will look like, including whether charter schools should be considered state actors and whether the Free Exercise Clause prevents a state from prohibiting religious operators from forming charter schools.
Featuring:

Rachel Laser, President and CEO, Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Prof. John A. Meiser, Associate Clinical Professor and Director of the Lindsay and Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic, Notre Dame Law School
(Moderator) Prof. Michael P. Moreland, University Professor of Law and Religion and Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law

CLE credit for this event is available at On-Demand CLE.
In this CLE webinar, David Cunanan, John J. Park, and Phillip Sechler will discuss recent important developments in the realm of legal ethics and professional responsibility, including the recent adoption of changes to an Arizona rule restricting who can be a complainant for purposes of state bar ethics complaints, developments related to Rule 5.6(b) of the ABA Model Rules, and the expanding use (and misuse) of AI in the legal profession.
Featuring:

Hon. David Cunanan, Independent Bar Council, Arizona; Former Judge, Maricopa County Superior Court, Arizona
John J. Park, Jr., General Counsel, Indigo Energy
Philip A. Sechler, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

Cost:

No CLE - Free
CLE (Member) - $25
CLE (Non-Member) - $50

To register, click the link at the top of the page.

Across the country, bar associations are increasingly at the center of legal and political controversy. Recent disciplinary proceedings—such as efforts by the DC Bar to disbar Acting OIRA Administrator Jeffrey Clark, ethics complaints against Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen and Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke—have raised urgent questions about the line between professional regulation and ideological weaponization of legal licensing.
Are these proceedings neutral applications of ethical standards, or do they reflect growing pressure to use professional discipline as a political weapon? What procedural and constitutional safeguards exist to protect the federal government from state licensing authorities and to protect lawyers against viewpoint discrimination? Are these tools sufficient? How should courts, bar associations, and the legal academy understand their roles in preserving both public trust and ideological diversity within the profession?

Featuring:

James M. Burnham, Founder and Managing Partner, King Street Legal, PLLC
Michael Francisco, Partner, First & Fourteenth PLLC
Gene P. Hamilton, President & Co-Founder, America First Legal Foundation
Prof. Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
(Moderator) Prof. Denise M. Harle, Clinical Professor and Director of the First Amendment Clinic, Florida State University College of Law

Qualified immunity shields all government officials from suit when the constitutional rights they violate are not “clearly established.” Yet the public conversation often centers on police officers. Supreme Court cases on the doctrine frequently involve split-second law enforcement decisions, and when Congress considered reform in the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020, its focus was again on police, excluding other officials.
How should we think about qualified immunity in the policing context versus other government contexts, particularly when officials are not acting under urgent time pressure? Should there be a single, uniform standard, or should the doctrine be tailored to the circumstances faced by the defendant? And if tailoring is appropriate, should that responsibility rest with the political branches rather than the courts?
Join us for a discussion on the origins, evolution, and future of qualified immunity—and bring your questions.
Featuring:

Elliott Averett, Attorney, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP
William Most, Attorney, Most & Associates
(Moderator) Anya Bidwell, Attorney, Institute for Justice

The ongoing case of Etienne v. Ferguson raises profound questions about the interplay between religious liberty and state authority, particularly regarding Catholic confession, which centuries-old religious doctrine deems as absolutely confidential. The case challenges Washington's Senate Bill 5375, titled "Concering the duty of clergy to report child abuse and neglect." Does a state mandatory reporter law violate the First Amendment’s religion clauses if it encompasses information learned during the sacrament? Or can the state justify overriding the seal of confession as a necessary and justifiable measure to protect children?
This webinar will examine the passage of Washington’s Senate Bill 5375, the historical and theological significance of confession, the constitutional protections afforded by the free exercise and establishment clauses, and the concerns of some that religious practices could be commandeered in service to the state’s police power. The discussion will also address whether the law unconstitutionally targets Catholic clergy and whether the state’s interest in child protection can supersede the religious obligation of priests to maintain absolute confidentiality, under penalty of excommunication.
Our guests will consider the delicate relationship between religious liberty and state power in this high-stakes case.
Featuring:

Matthew Martens, Partner, WilmerHale LLP
(Moderator) Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute

Congress is currently debating the Antisemitism Awareness Act. This proposed legislation aims to provide a clear definition of antisemitism for use in enforcing existing civil rights laws. Supporters argue that the bill is a crucial tool for combating rising antisemitism by filling a gap in current legal definitions. Opponents, however, contend that the bill could stifle free speech and limit criticism of Israel. Join the Federalist Society for a timely discussion on the legal and constitutional implications of this legislation, exploring the complexities of defining hate speech while upholding the principles of free expression.
Featuring:

William Creeley, Legal Director, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)
Prof. Eugene Kontorovich, Professor of Law and Director, Center for the Middle East and International Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School
Moderator: Aharon Friedman, Special Counsel, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP

The recent dismissal of the Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyrights by President Trump raises fundamental questions about the scope of the President’s removal authority and the constitutional status of these offices. Do these officials exercise executive power such that they must be removable at will? Or has Congress validly restricted removal in pursuit of independence?
This panel will examine the legal and historical foundations of both positions, tracing the development of the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office, their placement within the legislative branch, and the President’s authority to remove them—if any. The discussion will examine whether these offices lie within the President’s removal authority or whether Congress has validly constrained that power.
Our panel will consider the constitutional text, structural implications, and historical practice governing the removal of these unique officers.

Featuring:
Prof. Anne Joseph O'Connell, Adelbert H. Sweet Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law
Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute
[Moderator] Robert Rando, Partner, Patrick Doerr

Join the Federalist Society for a discussion on the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA), legislation aimed at clarifying and restoring patent eligibility in the United States. Specifically, the bill seeks to restore patent eligibility to inventions that have been deemed ineligible by recent court decisions.
The panel brings together top voices in patent law: David Jones, Executive Director at High Tech Alliance; Joseph Matal, Principal at Clear IP; Jamie Simpson, Chief Policy Officer and Counsel at Council for Innovation Promotion; and Former Federal Circuit Judge Kathleen M. O'Malley. The conversation will be moderated by Earl Bright, President and General Counsel at ExploraMED Development.
Join this webinar to explore how PERA seeks to reform the framework for determining what types of inventions are eligible for patent protection in the United States.

Featuring:
David Jones, Executive Director, High Tech Inventors Alliance
Joseph Matal, Principal, Clear IP LLC
Hon. Kathleen M. O'Malley, Former Federal Circuit Judge
Jamie Simpson, Chief Policy Officer and Counsel at Council for Innovation Promotion
[Moderator] Earl Bright, President and General Counsel at ExploraMED Development

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