FedSoc Forums

The idea of Artificial Intelligence has long presented potential challenges in the legal realm, and as AI tools become more broadly available and widely used, those potential hurdles are becoming ever more salient for lawyers in their day-to-day operations. Questions abound, from what potential risks of bias and error may exist in using an AI tool, to the challenges related to professional responsibility as traditionally understood, to the risks large language learning models pose to client confidentiality. Some contend that AI is a must-use, as it opens the door to faster, more efficient legal research that could equip lawyers to serve their clients more effectively. Others reject the use of AI, arguing that the risks of use and the work required to check the output it gives exceed its potential benefit.
Join us for a FedSoc Forum exploring the ethical and legal implications of artificial intelligence in the practice of law.

Featuring:

Laurin H. Mills, Member, Werther & Mills, LLC
Philip A. Sechler, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, UCLA School of Law; Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
(Moderator) Hon. Brantley Starr, District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

Wisconsin’s unemployment insurance program provides financial assistance to those who have lost their job through no fault of their own. Under state law, certain nonprofit organizations can opt out of the program, including those operated primarily for religious purposes. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Superior—a religious ministry that serves people with disabilities, the elderly, and the impoverished—requested an exemption from the state’s program so that it could enroll in the Wisconsin Bishops’ Church Unemployment Pay Program (CUPP), which provides the same level of unemployment benefits.
Last year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Catholic Charities could not receive an exemption because its charitable work was not “typical” religious activity. The court said that Catholic Charities could only qualify for an exemption if, for example, it limited its hiring to Catholics and tried to convert those it served.
On June 5th, 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling, holding it was a violation of the First Amendment to withhold a tax exemption on the grounds that they were not “operated primarily for religious purposes” because the organization did not proselytize or limit services to only fellow Catholics.
Join us for an expert analysis of the decision and its implications.
Featuring:

Eric Rassbach, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberties
(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

Marlean Ames, a straight woman, was denied promotion and later demoted in her role at the Ohio Department of Youth Services by her lesbian supervisor. The position she sought and her former position were then given to a lesbian woman and a gay man, respectively. This prompted Ames to file suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that she was unlawfully discriminated against based on her sexual orientation because she is heterosexual. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court in holding that, because Ames was part of the majority group, she had the additional requirement of demonstrating the "background circumstances" that the employer discriminates against majority group members.
On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously vacated and remanded, holding that “the Sixth Circuit’s ‘background circumstances’ rule—which requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim—cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court’s precedents.”
Join us for an expert analysis of this decision and its implications.
Featuring:

Nicholas Barry, Senior Counsel, America First Legal Foundation
(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation

Encinitas Unified School District required two fifth-grade boys and their assigned kindergarten buddies to read and watch My Shadow is Pink and do an activity, pressuring the kindergartners to choose a color to represent their own shadows. The plaintiffs allege this was designed to make the students question their gender identity. Represented by First Liberty Institute and the National Center for Law and Policy, the families filed a complaint in the Southern District of California and sought a motion for preliminary injunction. On May 12, 2025, Judge M. James Lorenz granted that motion in part, requiring the school district to provide advance notice and opt-outs when gender identity material is taught in mentoring programs. The judge’s opinion focused on compelled speech, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of that claim.
Free speech expert Professor Eugene Volokh and counsel Kayla Toney, who represents the families, will break down the opinion and discuss its ramifications for First Amendment jurisprudence.
Featuring:

Kayla Ann Toney, Counsel, First Liberty Institute
(Moderator) Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law

It is widely known that schools have instituted equity-focused policies, teacher training, and curriculum. Critics wonder whether this focus on equity is illegal and unconstitutional.
Deemar v. District 65 (Evanston/Skokie) involves Dr. Stacy Deemar, a drama teacher in Evanston/Skokie School District 65 in Illinois. She has challenged the District’s allegedly racially charged environment and practice of segregating students and staff. In January 2021, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) determined that the District violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. But soon after President Biden took office, OCR withdrew that finding without explanation. Dr. Deemar filed a federal lawsuit and, in April 2025, submitted a new complaint to OCR.
Featuring:

Kimberly Hermann, Executive Director, Southeastern Legal Foundation

For the first time in years, the U.S. Supreme Court is addressing questions of religious liberty and is doing so with three significant cases: Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, Mahmoud v. Taylor, and Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, which have the potential to shape religious liberty in the United States for years to come.
Join Mark Rienzi and Bill Saunders as they discuss these cases, their potential outcomes, and their future impact on religious liberty.
Featuring:

Prof. Mark L. Rienzi, President, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, Catholic University; Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School
(Moderator) Prof. William L. Saunders, Director of the Program in Human Rights, Catholic University of America

With Republicans holding control in Washington, a significant debate has emerged within conservative circles regarding the role of the federal government in primary and secondary education. Should conservatives leverage their electoral mandate to influence the curricula of K-12 schools, or is good governance better served by a more restrained approach? What is the purview of the federal government when it comes to education, and what is better left at the state and local level? What changes, if any, should the government try to implement, and what would be the best methods available?
Join us for an expert discussion on these and related issues.
Featuring:

Robert S. Eitel, Co-Founder and President, Defense of Freedom Institute
Roger Severino, Vice President of Domestic Policy and The Joseph C. and Elizabeth A. Anderlik Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
(Moderator) Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending Education


***This program was originally scheduled for May 1st, but has been rescheduled to May 20th at 12pm ET***

This case concerned the question of whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority. When the Surface Transportation Board granted a petition from the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition to construct and operate an 80-mile Utah railway, they conducted an environmental review in which they considered direct impacts of the highway on nearby land, water, and air. But they did not consider certain environmental “downline impacts” or possible effects on historic sites along the Union Pacific line in Eagle County. The county challenged their review as inadequate, while the Board argues that these effects were either too minimal for serious analysis, or outside the scope of their authority.
This case was decided 8-0 on May 29. The Court ruled in favor of the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, concluding that the federal environmental review process does not have to consider “downline” impacts. Join us in discussing the case and its decision with Mario Loyola and Austin Lipari, who wrote amicus briefs in support of petitioners.
Featuring:

Prof. Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow for Law, Economics, and Technology, The Heritage Foundation; Professor, Florida International University
Moderator: Austin Lipari, Counsel, Boyden Gray PLLC

--
To register, click the link above.

In Barnes v. Felix the Supreme Court addressed what context courts need to consider when evaluating an excessive force claim brought under the Fourth Amendment.
Some circuits, including the Fifth Circuit (which decided Barnes before it reached the Supreme Court), as well as the Second, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits, had adopted the “moment of threat” doctrine. This approach focuses solely on whether there was an imminent danger that created a reasonable fear for one’s life in the immediate moments preceding the use of force. In contrast, other circuits, including the First, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits, held that courts must consider the “totality of the circumstances” when assessing whether the use of force was justified.
The Court heard oral argument on January 22, 2025, and on May 15 issued a unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Kagan, vacating the Fifth Circuit and remanding. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze this decision and what it may mean for excessive force claims moving forward.
Featuring:

Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime

President Trump has issued several executive orders addressing alleged national security threats and discriminatory practices by some of the most prominent law firms in the country. Some of these firms and attorneys have challenged the EOs and actions taken by the administration in response to them, many of them settling with the administration. What does the Constitution have to say about these actions? How will these actions affect law firms in the near future?
Join us for a discussion panel where we will examine these and other key questions.
Featuring:

Michael Francisco, Partner, First & Fourteenth PLLC
Prof. Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
Erin E. Murphy, Partner, Clement & Murphy PLLC
(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President, Legal Strategy, Stand Together