FedSoc Forums

The Harrisonburg City school board enacted a policy that required school staff to affirm the board’s view on gender identity including when it conflicted with the staff’s own religious beliefs. Upon any child’s request, the school district policy required staff to immediately begin using opposite-sex pronouns and forbid staff from sharing the information with parents. Middle-school teacher, Deb Figliola challenged the board’s policy as violations of the Virginia Constitution’s Free Speech Clause and the Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act. After arguments before the Rockingham County Circuit Court, the school district agreed to provide a religious accommodation to Figliola and other teachers. Join ADF Senior Counsel Kate Anderson, director of the ADF Center for Parental Rights, who represented Ms. Figliola and Sarah Parshall Perry of the Heritage Foundation as they break down the case.
Featuring:

Kate Anderson, Senior Counsel, Director of Center for Parental Rights, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Sarah Parshall Perry, Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese Center, The Heritage Foundation

The recent flurry of firings in the federal government has sparked new questions surrounding the president’s removal power and its limits. Several lawsuits have now been filed over precisely these questions. These suits could bring an old case back to the forefront—Humphrey's Executor v. United States—in which the Supreme Court ruled that the president cannot constitutionally remove an FTC Commissioner without "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office," as ordered in the FTC Act. Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris has recently advised the Committee on the Judiciary that these “for-cause removal provisions [...] are unconstitutional and that the Department [of Justice] will no longer defend their constitutionality.”
Will this ruling stand, and should it? Is it true that, as the Court reasoned in 1935, the Constitution does not confer an "illimitable power of removal" on the President? Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss these questions and more.
Featuring:

Prof. Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Dr. Dan Epstein, Assistant Professor of Law, St. Thomas University College of Law
Prof. Victoria Nourse, Ralph V. Whitworth Professor in Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Will Yeatman, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation
Moderator: Elizabeth Slattery, Director of Constitutional Scholarship, Pacific Legal Foundation

--
To register, click the link above.

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 Circut 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.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to answer the question of whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of an employment discrimination claim, a majority-group plaintiff must show background circumstances to support the suspicion that the employer discriminates against the majority group. Oral argument is scheduled for February 26th.
Featuring:

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

In Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos Mexico brought suit against several U.S. gun manufacturers including Smith & Wesson, alleging, among other things, that they were in part liable for the killings perpetrated by Mexican cartels. Mexico argued that the gun manufacturers know the guns they sell are/may be illegally sold to the cartels and thus are the proximate causes of the resulting gun violence.
The manufacturers argued that they were immune from such suits under the U.S. Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which protects U.S. gun manufacturers from certain types of liability, though not universally, as it contains a predicate exception for manufacturers who knowingly violate applicable federal (and potentially international) law.
The district court ruled in favor of the manufacturers and Mexico appealed. The First Circuit agreed that while the protections of PLCAA were applicable to the manufacturer, they might still be liable under the predicate exception. The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on March 4, 2025.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will discuss the case and analyze how oral arguments went before the Court.
Featuring:

Brian W. Barnes, Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC

President Trump and his Administration are moving quickly to focus on different priorities for and make reforms to the U.S. Department of Justice. This conversation, with a veteran of the Department who served in the transition for this new Administration, will explore these new priorities and discuss how they may impact criminal and civil enforcement of federal laws and, therefore, justice in the United States.
Featuring:

Gregg N. Sofer, Partner, Husch Blackwell LLP
(Moderator) Hon. John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding

This program will explore key lessons learned on the role of language in shaping the gender debate, including the implications of replacing the term “sex” with “gender.” The speakers will examine where the feminist and conservative positions on gender diverge, analyze the current landscape, and offer perspectives for the future.
Join May Mailman, former Legal Director at the Independent Women’s Forum, and feminist Kara Dansky, author of The Reckoning: How the Democrats and the Left Betrayed Women and Girls, for an insightful discussion on the role of language in the transgender movement.
Featuring:

Kara Dansky, Author, The Reckoning: How the Democrats and the Left Betrayed Women and Girls
May Mailman, Former Legal Director, Independent Women's Forum

In June 2021, the Superior Court of Connecticut approved amendments to Connecticut Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4, which defines professional misconduct. The amendments expanded the definition of misconduct in subsection (7) to include engaging in "conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination...in conduct related to the practice of law" based on a long list of protected characteristics including "race, color, ancestry, sex, pregnancy, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, status as a veteran, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or marital status".
In November 2021, Mario Cerame and Timothy C. Moynahan, two Connecticut lawyers who regularly presented on issues potentially implicated by the new rule, brought suit, alleging the rule as amended violated their First and Fourteenth Amendments. They argued the rule was impermissibly overbroad and chilled lawful speech in so far as it was unclear what speech may be interpreted to be violative of the rule. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of standing. Cerame and Moynahan appealed to the Second Circuit, which, in December 2024 vacated the district court's decision, ruling they did have standing and remanding for further proceedings.
Join us for a litigation update for this interesting case implicating professional responsibility, ABA model rules, and free speech with Margaret Little of NCLA, which represents Cerame and Moynahan.
Featuring:

Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
(Moderator) Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston

Will the 2024 election mark a decisive shift in how U.S. financial regulators approach cryptocurrency and other digital assets? Will the SEC continue its retroactive and reactive regulation, or will it establish clear rules, sensible disclosure frameworks, and targeted enforcement priorities? How will the CFTC balance investor protection, capital formation, market integrity, and innovation? Finally, will the 119th Congress enact comprehensive digital asset legislation, and if so, what form will it take?
Join leading experts for a timely discussion on the evolving regulatory landscape and its implications for digital asset markets, innovation, and the broader financial system.
Featuring:

Hon. Dusty Johnson, U.S. House of Representatives, At-Large, South Dakota
Hon. Cynthia Lummis, U.S. Senate, Wyoming
Hon. Summer Mersinger, Commissioner, Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Hon. Hester Peirce, Commissioner, United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Moderator: J.C. Boggs, III, Partner, King & Spalding

The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) is a sweeping federal statute requiring individuals with significant interests in LLCs and other entities registered under state or tribal law to disclose personal information, unless explicitly exempt. This information is stored in a Treasury Department database maintained by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and accessible by the IRS, federal and foreign law enforcement, and intelligence agencies without court approval. (State authorities must obtain judicial authorization.) Affecting over 32 million entities, the CTA imposes severe penalties for noncompliance, including fines of up to $10,000 and imprisonment. Initially set to take effect on January 1, 2025, for pre-existing entities, the implementation timeline has been disrupted by legal challenges.
Join us as we delve into the constitutional controversies surrounding the CTA. Our speaker, Prof. Thomas Lee, was the lead lawyer in NSBA v. Yellen, the first of the CTA lawsuits filed in the Northern District of Alabama in November 2022. The district court issued a permanent injunction on March 1, 2024, igniting a wave of similar lawsuits, including Texas Top Cop Shop, where a nationwide preliminary injunction was granted in May 2024.
The Supreme Court is currently considering a stay application in Texas Top Cop Shop, and the Eleventh Circuit's decision on the government's appeal in NSBA v. Yellen remains pending. Prof. Lee will provide insights into these pivotal cases and their broader implications for federal regulatory authority and individual rights under the Constitution.
Featuring:
Prof. Thomas Lee, Leitner Family Professor of International Law; Director of Graduate and International Studies, Fordham University School of Law

As President Donald Trump embarks on a second term, U.S. policy toward Iran stands at a crossroads. The Islamic Republic appears weaker and more isolated than ever, with its proxies severely damaged and domestic unrest threatening the regime’s stability. Yet, Tehran remains dangerously close to acquiring a nuclear weapon and has deepened its ties with Russia and China. Should Trump revive the “maximum pressure” strategy, pursue a more comprehensive nuclear agreement, or back an Israeli strike to prevent Iran from going nuclear? This webinar will explore the strategic choices ahead and their implications for the future of U.S. policy in the Middle East.
Featuring:

Elliott Abrams, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies, Council on Foreign Relations
Brian Katulis, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy, Middle East Institute
Moderator: Prof. Jamil Jaffer, Founder & Director, National Security Institute; Assistant Professor of Law & Director, National Security Law & Policy Program at the Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University