FedSoc Forums

For nearly fifty years, the Presidential Records Act has governed the preservation, ownership, and eventual disclosure of presidential records. But in April, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the Act is unconstitutional and that “the President need not further comply with its dictates.” OLC argued that the statute exceeds Congress’s powers and intrudes on the Executive's independence.That conclusion has now moved from the realm of executive-branch legal interpretation to active litigation. In May, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates concluded that the Presidential Records Act is likely constitutional and preliminarily ordered numerous Executive Branch offices and officials—though not the President and Vice President themselves—to comply with it. The government has appealed that ruling to the D.C. Circuit.What constitutional authority, if any, does Congress have to regulate the creation, preservation, ownership, and disclosure of presidential records? Join us as our panel examines this question, the ongoing litigation, and the broader implications for congressional power, executive privilege, and the separation of powers.
Featuring:

Michael Edney, Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Christopher Fonzone, Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Reiss Center on Law and Security, NYU School of Law
(Moderator) Zack Smith, Senior Legal Fellow, Courts and the Constitution, Legal Policy Center, The Heritage Foundation

The 1963 Supreme Court case United States v. Philadelphia National Bank established a "structural presumption": if a merger creates a single entity controlling 30% or more of a market, it is legally presumed to lessen competition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, U.S. antitrust law’s merger statute. U.S. federal and state antitrust enforcers challenging mergers have relied on this presumption for more than half a century. Certain state attorneys general have most recently utilized this presumption to argue that a combined Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery would control roughly 27% or more of key theatrical distribution and basic cable markets and hence be anti-competitive.

Defenders of the presumption argue that it provides predictability to businesses and gives regulators an efficient way to identify and prevent harmful mergers. Critics charge that the presumption relies on an outdated economic theory and triggers a heavy burden shift for businesses based on thin or speculative evidence of potential harm. Join our panel of experts as they explore the future of the Philadelphia National Bank presumption and whether it will remain in place if the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery or other similar cases reach the Supreme Court.
Featuring:

Debbie Feinstein, Partner, Arnold & Porter
Hon. Douglas H. Ginsburg, Senior Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Prof. Herbert Hovenkamp, James G. Dinan University Professor, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School
Rahul Rao, Antitrust Partner, White & Case
Prof. D. Daniel Sokol, Professor of Law and Business, USC Gould School of Law and Marshall School of Business
(Moderator) Michael F. Murray, Partner, Litigation Department, Paul Hastings

In Louisiana v. Callais, a divided Supreme Court narrowed the circumstances in which states may use race as a factor in drawing election districts. The Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Alito, held that compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can justify the use of race in redistricting only when the circumstances give rise to a strong inference that the State intentionally denied minority voters an equal opportunity to elect their preferred candidates because of race. Justice Kagan penned a dissent, which argued that the majority opinion “renders Section 2 all but a dead letter.”Callais has already begun to shape litigation elsewhere. A pending federal complaint against the Denver Public School Board alleges that the board violated Section 2 and the Fifteenth Amendment by deliberately redrawing two of its seven districts to preserve Black and Hispanic electoral majorities, with board members explaining the effort in terms of ensuring that students are “represented by people who look like them.” Supporters of the board’s decision argue that shared racial background should be a meaningful consideration in political representation. Critics counter that this reasoning revives the same race-based logic the Constitution forbids, and that voters and candidates should be evaluated as individuals rather than as members of racial groups.Callais has also shaped important policy decisions. In June, the Office of Legal Counsel relied on Callais to conclude that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Title VII guidelines were unconstitutional because they contemplated liability based on disparate effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, and pressured employers to engage in race-based decision making.Join us for a webinar examining the downstream effects of the Callais decision and what it may mean for redistricting disputes like the Denver case and others like it.
Featuring:

Michael A. Carvin, Former Partner, Jones Day
Prof. Jeffrey M. Wice, Adjunct Professor of Law; Director, N.Y. Census and Redistricting Institute, New York Law School
(Moderator) Hon. Linda Chavez, Chairman, Center for Equal Opportunity

When an AI system fabricates damaging claims about a real person, is the AI company liable for defamation? Just last week, in Keene v. Google, a federal court confronted this question for the first time, holding that allegedly false Google AI search summaries could be viewed as potentially defamatory factual assertions – and that “actual malice” on Google’s part could be shown if Google’s AI kept outputting the falsehoods after plaintiff had expressly alerted Google about this. In July, a Delaware state trial court likewise allowed conservative activist Robby Starbuck’s defamation suit against Google to proceed.What do these early decisions mean for defamation law in the age of large language models? Join us as we discuss when AI-generated falsehoods may become actionable, how traditional libel doctrines apply to AI outputs, and what these cases could mean for AI developers, users, and the future of online information.Featuring:Prof. Lyrissa Lidsky, Raymond & Miriam Ehrlich Eminent Scholar Chair in US Constitutional Law, University of Florida Levin College of LawProf. Eugene Volokh, Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University; Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, UCLA School of Law(Moderator) Shlomo Klapper, CEO & Founder, Learned Hand

When an AI system fabricates damaging claims about a real person, is the AI company liable for defamation? Just last week, in Keene v. Google, a federal court confronted this question for the first time, holding that allegedly false Google AI search summaries could be viewed as potentially defamatory factual assertions – and that “actual malice” on Google’s part could be shown if Google’s AI kept outputting the falsehoods after plaintiff had expressly alerted Google about this. In July, a Delaware state trial court likewise allowed conservative activist Robby Starbuck’s defamation suit against Google to proceed.
What do these early decisions mean for defamation law in the age of large language models? Join us as we discuss when AI-generated falsehoods may become actionable, how traditional libel doctrines apply to AI outputs, and what these cases could mean for AI developers, users, and the future of online information.
Featuring:

Prof. Lyrissa Lidsky, Raymond & Miriam Ehrlich Eminent Scholar Chair in US Constitutional Law, University of Florida Levin College of Law
Prof. Eugene Volokh, Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University; Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, UCLA School of Law
(Moderator) Shlomo Klapper, CEO & Founder, Learned Hand

In September 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia preliminarily enjoined the EPA from sending four Clean Air Act waivers to Congress for potential repeal under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). These waivers have allowed California to enact its own vehicle emission standards. Judge Beryl Howell held the CRA's bar on judicial review does not reach an agency's threshold determination that its action is a "rule," and found California had standing to challenge the EPA's June 2026 press release announcing it was transmitting the rules to Congress. What may happen next in this case; and what does this litigation suggest about the limits on using the CRA as a deregulatory tool? Join us for a panel discussing the decision and the broader state of play on CRA issues under the current administration.
Featuring:

Michael Buschbacher, Managing Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC
Andrew Ceonzo, Counsel to U.S. Senator Schmitt and the Senate Judiciary Committee
(Moderator) Daniel M. Flores, Senior Counsel, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives

The annual Mike Lewis Memorial Forum honors the life and legacy of Mike Lewis, a former naval aviator and leading scholar of international law. Mike wrote and spoke extensively on the use of force and the law of armed conflict and served on the Executive Committee of the Federalist Society’s International & National Security Law Practice Group. Mike passed away from cancer in 2015 at age 50. He was admired across ideological lines for both his scholarship and his generosity of spirit.This year’s Forum will examine the law governing anticipatory self-defense and whether the traditional interpretation of international law adequately accounts for modern threats. This traditional view generally permits anticipatory self-defense only against an “imminent” threat. But that standard took shape in an era when threats moved at the speed of 19th-century naval vessels.
How should that requirement apply in an era of missiles, cyberattacks, and other threats capable of materializing rapidly? Critics argue that a strict imminence requirement leaves states unable to respond to serious threats before they fully materialize, and that the resulting gap between doctrine and state practice erodes confidence in international law. Defenders of the traditional standard counter that loosening it risks inviting states to invoke self-defense as a pretext for aggression.
The panel will consider whether international law should permit a broader range of anticipatory action against developing threats, what principles should govern such uses of force, and whether the U.N. Charter itself can be interpreted to accommodate them. More broadly, the discussion will explore how the law governing self-defense can respond to changing technologies and security challenges while continuing to constrain the use of force.
Featuring:

Dr. Brian Cox, Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute
Prof. John Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Senior Research Fellow, School of Civic Leadership, Civitas Institute, University of Texas at Austin; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
(Moderator) Vincent J. Vitkowsky, Fellow, National Security Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Jurisdictions increasingly require attorneys to complete CLE credits addressing bias, diversity, and inclusion in the legal profession. These requirements are often justified as tools to help lawyers reduce bias and ensure competent representation of clients from varied backgrounds. But these mandatory programs also raise significant and unsettled questions about how the profession may regulate bias in a manner consistent with federal law. When does a required course permissibly educate lawyers about bias, discriminatory conduct, barriers to access to justice, or cultural competency in legal practice? And when might mandatory training cross the line into compelled speech, viewpoint discrimination, or race- or sex-conscious practices that conflict with constitutional principles or civil-rights statutes?
Join us for a CLE program examining the boundaries of these mandatory CLE requirements, including how such rules and programs can be structured to help lawyers recognize and mitigate bias in the legal profession while remaining consistent with constitutional and statutory limits.
Featuring:

Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
Prof. William Jacobson, Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School
Daniel Lennington, Deputy Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty
(Moderator) Prof. Michael S. McGinniss, Professor of Law and J. Philip Johnson Faculty Fellow, University of North Dakota School of Law


CLE
This event has been approved for
1.00 Total CLE Hours
Approved specialty credit (DEI, Ethics, etc.) is included on the State Approval Status chart below.
State Approval Status

In order to receive CLE credit for this webinar, attendees must attend the Zoom Webinar and have access to the chat box. This event's accreditation is highly predicated upon interactivity and verification measures that are only available via the webinar.
If you join via audio, calling in, SIP, or H.323, you will not be eligible to receive CLE Credit.
CLE Materials

Questions? Check out our CLE FAQ page.

Shortly after retaking office, President Trump signed executive orders reorienting the federal government’s approach to civil rights. Those orders directed agencies to identify and eliminate unlawful diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and other practices involving race- or sex-based discrimination, while emphasizing equal treatment, individual merit, and nondiscrimination. In April of last year, Executive Order 14281 (Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy) went further, announcing a policy to "eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible" — placing renewed focus on one of the oldest and most consequential debates in antidiscrimination law.Join us for a webinar that examines how the administration’s civil rights agenda is being implemented across the federal government.Featuring:

Hon. Brittany Bull Panuccio, Commissioner, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Hon. Craig Trainor, Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Hon. Devon Westhill, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Agriculture
(Moderator) Hon. Ken Marcus, Founder, Chairman, and CEO, The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

In this Federalist Society America 250 series, experts analyze modern legal and policy debates through the lens of the Founding generation. The Founders gave us the tools to answer many contemporary questions; join us as we explore those answers.
American lawyers have long been defined by a commitment to represent even the most unpopular clients—a tradition that traces back to the Founding. When John Adams defended the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre, he did so in the face of intense public hostility, underscoring a simple but enduring principle: the right to counsel does not turn on public approval. This webinar revisits that moment to examine the lawyer’s role in an adversarial system—not as an endorsement of a client’s conduct, but as a safeguard of the legal system itself.
That principle has been under strain in recent decades. Lawyers representing controversial clients or causes have faced increasing public backlash and, in some cases, professional consequences. Similar pressures surfaced during the Red Scare, when attorneys representing alleged subversives were themselves subject to suspicion. As criticism shifts from clients to the lawyers who represent them, the question becomes harder to ignore: what happens to the legal system when representation itself is treated as suspect? Join our panel as they discuss what the Founding-era commitment to principled representation means for lawyers today.
Featuring:

William Creeley, Legal Director, The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
Erin E. Murphy, Partner, Clement & Murphy PLLC
Prof. Richard Samuelson, Associate Professor of Government, Hillsdale College, Washington, D.C. Campus
(Moderator) Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One


CLE
This event has been approved for
1.00 Total CLE Hours
Approved specialty credit (DEI, Civility, Ethics, etc.) is included on the State Approval Status chart below.
State Approval Status

In order to receive CLE credit for this webinar, attendees must attend the Zoom Webinar and have access to the chat box. This event's accreditation is highly predicated upon interactivity and verification measures that are only available via the webinar.
If you join via audio, calling in, SIP, or H.323, you will not be eligible to receive CLE Credit.
CLE Materials

Questions? Check out our CLE FAQ page.