FedSoc Forums

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.
In Federalist 23, Alexander Hamilton identified the common defense and the preservation of peace against external attacks as two of the principal purposes served by union. The Constitution that union adopted divides the power to declare war—vested in Congress—and the power to direct war—vested in the President as Commander in Chief. But what does it say about national security more broadly? The Founders were not without reservation about the risks of concentrating the means of defense, with James Madison warning the Constitutional Convention that a “standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.” It was also clear from the start, however, that functions like intelligence gathering belonged more naturally to the executive, whose institutional character supported the necessary secrecy and dispatch.
This webinar will explore how the Founders understood national security power beyond the battlefield, how closely subsequent practice tracked their design, and whether today’s allocation of powers serves both the nation's security and its liberty.
Featuring:

Dr. Alberto Coll, Director, Global Engagement; Vincent de Paul Professor of Law, DePaul University College of Law
Prof. Matthew Waxman, Liviu Librescu Professor of Law, Columbia School of Law
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) Molly Nixon, Senior Fellow in Executive Power, Cato Institute

Can states and local governments use consumer protection laws to regulate national climate policy? District of Columbia v. ExxonMobil is one of a growing number of climate lawsuits seeking to hold energy companies liable for alleged misrepresentations about the effects of fossil fuels. The case presents important questions about federalism, the boundaries of state consumer protection laws, and whether courts or the political branches should resolve disputes over climate policy. Join us for a discussion on the case and the broader legal implications.

Featuring:





Prof. Jason Johnston, Blaine T. Phillips Distinguished Professor in Environmental Law, University of Virginia Law School


Beatrice (Bebe) Strnad, Consumer Protection Bureau Chief, Nebraska Attorney General's Office
(Moderator) Corinne Snow, Partner, Vinson & Elkins LLP

Can states and local governments use consumer protection laws to regulate national climate policy? District of Columbia v. ExxonMobil is one of a growing number of climate lawsuits seeking to hold energy companies liable for alleged misrepresentations about the effects of fossil fuels. The case presents important questions about federalism, the boundaries of state consumer protection laws, and whether courts or the political branches should resolve disputes over climate policy. Join us for a discussion on the case and the broader legal implications.

Featuring:





Prof. Jason Johnston, Blaine T. Phillips Distinguished Professor in Environmental Law, University of Virginia Law School


Beatrice (Bebe) Strnad, Consumer Protection Bureau Chief, Nebraska Attorney General's Office
(Moderator) Corinne Snow, Partner, Vinson & Elkins LLP

Join us for a timely discussion on two developments shaping the future of digital assets in the United States. We will examine the CLARITY Act and its effort to establish clear rules for whether digital assets fall under SEC or CFTC oversight, as well as the ongoing dispute over Federal Reserve master accounts for crypto-focused banking institutions.Together, these issues highlight a central question: will digital asset firms gain both regulatory clarity and meaningful access to the nation’s financial infrastructure? The webinar will explore how the interaction between market-structure legislation and banking access could influence stablecoins, institutional adoption, and the broader integration of crypto into traditional finance.
Opening Remarks:

Hon. Cynthia Lummis, U.S. Senate, Wyoming
Featuring:

Paige Paridon, Executive Vice President and Co-Head of Regulatory Affairs, Bank Policy Institute
Alex Pollock, Senior Fellow, Mises Institute
Corey Then, Deputy General Counsel of Regulatory Strategy and Global Policy, Circle
Prof. David Zaring, Elizabeth F. Putzel Professor and Professor of Legal Studies & Business Ethics, The Wharton School, The University of Pennsylvania
(Moderator) J.C. Boggs, Partner, King & Spalding

This term, several important questions of criminal law and procedure reached the Supreme Court, ranging from digital privacy and criminal venue to appeal waivers and capital sentencing.
In Chatrie v. United States, the Court held that law enforcement conducts a Fourth Amendment search when it obtains a person’s cell-phone location history from a company through a geofence warrant.
In Abouammo v. United States, the Court unanimously held that a defendant charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1519 with falsifying a document to obstruct a federal investigation must be tried in the district where the alleged falsification occurred, not in a different district where the investigation was based.
In Hamm v. Smith, the Court dismissed as improvidently granted a capital case concerning whether and how courts may consider multiple IQ scores when evaluating a claim that a defendant is intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for execution under the Eighth Amendment.
And in Hunter v. United States, the Court held that appeal waivers are generally enforceable but recognized a “miscarriage of justice” exception for egregious sentencing errors that would bring the judicial system into disrepute.
Join us for a webinar breaking down these decisions, the separate opinions, and what they may mean for the criminal justice system.
Featuring:

Matthew Cavedon, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute
Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
(Moderator) Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime

Hon. Lindsey Graham (1955-2026)
For more than two decades, Senator Lindsey Graham was a consequential voice on the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. He played a prominent role in some of the era’s most contentious judicial-confirmation battles, including the nominations of Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, and, as chairman during the 116th Congress, helped guide President Trump’s judicial nominees through the committee.
Join us for a discussion reflecting on Senator Graham’s legacy, including his impact on the federal judiciary and the Senate’s advice-and-consent role.
Introduction by Sheldon Gilbert, President and CEO, The Federalist Society
Featuring:

Hon. Andrew N. Ferguson, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission, Former Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Michael Fragoso, Partner, Torridon Law PLLC; Former Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Lee Holmes, Shareholder, D.C. Office Managing Shareholder; Former Staff Director and Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Katherine Nikas, Senior Director, Microsoft; Former Staff Director and Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
(Moderator) Hon. Julius N. Richardson, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

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.The Founders regarded trial by jury as an indispensable check on government power, and the Fifth and Seventh Amendments enshrined that guarantee. In recent decades, however, the proliferation of administrative adjudication has steadily displaced the jury from disputes between citizens and the state. While the Supreme Court's decision in SEC v. Jarkesy was a significant step toward restoring the constitutional baseline, much work remains. Lower courts continue to rely on Atlas Roofing Co. v. OSHA to uphold agency adjudication of claims that, at the Founding, would have been tried before a jury. Cases like the recently decided FCC v. AT&T and next term's Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC illustrate just how far modern practice has drifted from constitutional design.Thomas Jefferson identified the jury "as the only anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." Yet today, Americans routinely face penalties imposed by federal agencies, not juries of their peers. Join us for a Federalist Society America 250 panel discussion looking back to the Founding Era to ask: What has become of the right to a jury trial in actions brought by the federal government?Featuring:

Robert E. Johnson, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Prof. Renée Lerner, Donald Phillip Rothschild Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School
Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
(Moderator) Hon. Jennifer Walker Elrod, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

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.The Founders drew their understanding of international law — known at the time as the law of nations — from 18th Century classical texts. Hamilton, Madison, Jay, Jefferson, and others all studied the edition of Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations, released on the eve of the American Revolution. Its precepts were analyzed in The Federalist Papers, debated in the Constitutional Convention, and resulted in a few basic principles. First, along with the Constitution and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, all Treaties made under the authority of the United States "shall be the supreme Law of the Land." Second, the Define and Punish Clause gives Congress the power to define and punish . . . Offenses against the Law of Nations.” The Founders viewed the right of self-defense as a fundamental, inherent natural right of nations. They recognized the right of preemptive use of force in anticipatory self defense. This right had an expansive interpretation, allowing actions against credible threats without awaiting an actual first strike. There was room for argument on how “imminent” the threat must be. Current international law on this issue consists of the UN Charter and contemporary understandings and interpretations of customary international law. This Forum will bring together two foremost scholars, each expert in both the Founders’ understanding and the current understanding of international law, for a conversation about the historic and contemporary interpretations of the propriety of our current war against Iran and related matters.
Featuring:


Prof. Martin S. Flaherty, Charles and Marie Robertson Visiting Professor, School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University
Prof. Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor Emeritus of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
(Moderator) Dr. Sohan Dasgupta, Assistant Secretary for Trade and Economic Security, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (former) | Political Head, Millennium Challenge Corporation (former) | Managing Director, Berkeley Research Group (BRG)

The government-speech doctrine generally permits the government to select and promote its own messages without being subject to First Amendment scrutiny. But does that principle have limits? What about when public funds, facilities, or employees are used to convey partisan messages or selectively promote particular viewpoints?Join us for a discussion on whether and to what extent the First Amendment constrains the government’s own speech.
Featuring:

Erik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP
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] Hon. Susanna Dokupil, Justice, Texas First Court of Appeals

CLE credit for this event is available at On-Demand CLE.
Parental rights have long occupied an important place in American law and political thought. While the Supreme Court today generally recognizes parental rights as fundamental, the constitutional foundations of those rights remain the subject of significant debate. Modern doctrine, reflected in cases such as Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Troxel v. Granville, and more recent disputes involving parental authority over children’s education and upbringing, largely rests on substantive due process—a doctrine that itself remains controversial.
This webinar will explore parental rights from their roots in natural law and the political thought of the American Founding through their development in modern constitutional jurisprudence. What did the Founders understand the parent-child relationship to entail, and how did earlier natural-law traditions shape those views? How did parental rights come to be recognized as fundamental within American constitutional law? And looking forward, what is the strongest constitutional foundation for protecting parental rights? Should substantive due process remain the primary vehicle, or are there alternative constitutional grounds that may provide a more secure basis for these protections?
Featuring:

Michael P. Farris, General Counsel, NRB
Prof. Martin Guggenheim, Fiorello LaGuardia Professor of Clinical Law Emeritus, New York University School of Law
Prof. Melissa Moschella, Professor of the Practice, Philosophy, McGrath Institute for Church Life, University of Notre Dame
Anthony Sanders, Director, Center for Judicial Engagement, Institute for Justice
(Moderator) Gene C. Schaerr, Partner, Schaerr Jaffe LLP


CLE
This event has been approved for
1.00 Total CLE Hours
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.
State Approval Status


CLE Materials

Questions? Check out our CLE FAQ page.