in July of 2018, Governor Henry McMaster of South Carolina issued an executive order to end the inclusion of Planned Parenthood in the Medicaid program. The Department of Health and Human Services then informed Planned Parenthood that they were no longer qualified to provide services to Medicaid beneficiaries, which prompted lawsuits both from Planned Parenthood and beneficiaries seeking to enforce their right to “free-choice-of-provider,” included in a 1967 Medicaid provision. This case asked whether this provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider. On June 26, 2025, the Court ruled 6–3 in favor of South Carolina, affirming the state's right to exclude abortion providers from its Medicaid program. Tune in to this Courthouse Steps podcast as we break down the case and its recent decision.

Featuring:

John J. Bursch, Senior Counsel and VP, Appellate Advocacy, Alliance Defending Freedom
Kyle Douglas Hawkins, Partner, Lehotsky Keller
Moderator: Ryan L. Bangert, Senior Vice President, Strategic Initiatives & Special Counsel to the President, Alliance Defending Freedom

On June 18, 2025, the Supreme Court released its decisions for two circuit splits arising under the Clean Air Act (CAA) provision regarding judicial venue: EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C. (23-1229), and Oklahoma v. EPA (23-1067). Decided 7-2 and 8-0, respectively, the outcome of these cases hinged on the Court’s interpretation of the CAA’s unique venue provision, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1).
The CAA states that challenges to “nationally applicable” actions may be filed only in the D.C. Circuit. 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). Conversely, challenges to CAA actions that are “locally or regionally applicable” may generally be filed only in the appropriate circuit court for the region. Id. But there is an exception: actions that are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect” must be filed in the D.C. Circuit “if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.” Id.
In Calumet, the Court ruled 7-2 that the “EPA’s denials of small refinery exemption petitions are locally or regionally applicable actions that fall within the “nationwide scope or effect” exception, requiring venue in the D.C. Circuit.” Similarly, in Oklahoma, the Court ruled 8-0 that “EPA’s disapprovals of the Oklahoma and Utah state implementation plans are locally or regionally applicable actions reviewable in a regional court of appeals.” Tune in as Jimmy Conde and Garrett Kral offer a breakdown of these decisions.
Featuring:

James Conde, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC
Moderator: Garrett Kral, Administrative and Environmental Law Attorney

--
To register, click the link above.

In the last several years, numerous minors who identify as transgender have undergone surgery and other medical procedures to mirror common physical features of the opposite sex.
In March 2023, Tennessee enacted Senate Bill 1, which prohibits medical procedures for the purpose of either (1) enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex, or (2) treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity. Individuals, joined by the United States, brought suit against Tennessee. They alleged that a ban on “gender affirming care” violates the Equal Protection Clause and that the Due Process Clause’s “substantive” component gives parents a right to demand medical interventions for their children, even if a state has found them to be unproven and risky.
On June 18th, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Tennessee’s law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review.
Featuring:

Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute

In Kousisis v. United States, the Supreme Court considered the question of whether a defendant who induces a victim to enter into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud--even if the defendant did not seek to cause the victim economic loss. It heard oral argument on December 9, 2024, and on May 22, 2025, issued a unanimous decision authored by Justice Barrett affirming the lower court's holding that the defendant could be convicted of federal fraud.
Although the Court was unanimous, there are an array of opinions. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch authored an opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment, and Justice Sotomayor wrote to concur in judgment.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will discuss the decision and the potential ramifications of the case.
Featuring:

Brandon Moss, Partner, Wiley Rein

In Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Mexico brought suit against several U.S. gun manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson. It alleged, 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 Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 4, 2025. On June 5, 2025, the Court issued a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Kagan, ruling that the PLCAA did prevent the suit from moving forward. Justices Thomas and Jackson both filed concurrences.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will discuss the decision and the potential ramifications of the case.
Featuring:

Joel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP

The SEC has periodically examined the ecosystem governing public company shareholder communications and voting—the “proxy plumbing ecosystem”—and it is expected that the SEC will again review this area under soon-to-be SEC Chairman Paul Atkins’ leadership. This panel will focus on how the proxy ecosystem works, the organizations that control and maintain the “plumbing” and the roles each participant plays in assuring that shareholders can get their votes executed.
Consider this a primer so that when the debate occurs you can follow it, and why some will vociferously seek to maintain the status quo while others will with equal force seek to disrupt it.
Featuring:

Lawrence Conover, Vice President, Special Advisor for Proxy & Corporate Actions, Broadridge
Hon. Troy Paredes, Founder, Paredes Strategies LLC
Matthew Thornton, Deputy General Counsel, Investment Company Institute
Moderator: Joanne Medero, Former Managing Director, BlackRock Inc.

--
To register, click the link above.

In 2020, several collegiate athletes filed suit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) arguing that by both denying athletes compensation and preventing them from pursuing third-party deals using their names, images, or likenesses (NIL) for profit, the NCAA was violating antitrust laws. After several years of discussion, there has still not been an official settlement reached, though one including back pay, revenue sharing, and a change in NIL rights has been proposed. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case, its possible outcomes, and its implications for collegiate sports and the issue of sports antitrust writ large.
Featuring:

Prof. Jodi Balsam, Professor of Clinical Law, Brooklyn Law School
Erik Clark, Ohio Deputy Attorney General for Major Litigation, Ohio Attorney General's Office
Rakesh Kilaru, Partner, Wilkinson Stekloff LLP
Moderator: Kaitlyn Barry, Associate, Baker McKenzie

--
To register, click the link above.

Among the points emphasized by the second Trump administration has been a major push for deregulation. President Trump has directed that there must be ten deregulatory actions for every one regulatory one, and put forward Presidential Memoranda and Executive Orders to that end. As some have noted, however, such deregulation can take significant time due to factors like the requirements for notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Interestingly, an April Presidential Memorandum seems to contemplate that potential hurdle for executive actions directing repeal of regulations contrary to ten specific recent Supreme Court decisions, including without notice and comment “where appropriate.”
This panel will seek to discuss the potential impact of this presidential memorandum, when deregulation may happen, incurring a need for notice & comment, and what the Judicial Branch might ultimately determine about the Executive Branch’s efforts to enforce their precedents in this manner.
Featuring:

John Lewis, Deputy Legal Director, Governing for Impact
Jonathan Wolfson, Chief Legal Officer and Policy Director, Cicero Institute
(Moderator) Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates, and Former OFCCP Director

The ubiquitous deployment of both wireless and wireline technology is critical to 5G and other next generation services. However, lengthy permitting processes, as well as burdensome NEPA and NHPA requirements, continue to slow infrastructure builds. As the Trump Administration continues to prioritize streamlining rules and regulations, as well as promoting access to reliable, affordable broadband internet, all eyes are on the FCC, NTIA, and the Hill to see what may come next. This webinar features Paul Beaudry, Vice President of Regulatory and Government Affairs for Cogeco, Tony Clark, Executive Director of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and former Commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and Caroline Van Wie, Vice President of Federal Regulatory at AT&T. Danielle Thumann, Senior Counsel to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, will moderate and participate in the discussion.

In April, Dr. Livia Tossici-Bolt was criminally convicted in a British court for offering consensual conversation in an abortion facility “buffer zone” in Bournemouth, England. The court found that she violated a Public Spaces Protection Order that prohibits “engaging in an act of approval or disapproval with regard to abortion services,” despite holding a sign that simply read: “Here to talk if you want." The U.S. State Department issued a statement of concern about her case and the decline of freedom of expression in the United Kingdom. Dr. Tossici-Bolt's conviction is the latest in a string of cases targeting thought and peaceful speech. In October 2024, the same court convicted Adam Smith-Connor for silent prayer in a "buffer zone.” U.S. Vice President JD Vance highlighted his case at the Munich Security Conference.
Featuring:


Paul Coleman, Executive Director, ADF International


Moderator: Prof. Maimon Schwarzschild, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law