FedSoc Forums

In Trump v. Barbara, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause guarantees birthright citizenship to children born in the United States, even if their parents are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country, as they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision and the separate opinions.
Featuring:

Prof. Kurt T. Lash, E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of Law
Eric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney General
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Professor, University of Minnesota Law School

In Wolford v. Lopez, the Supreme Court held that Hawaii’s law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. In a 6-3 decision, the majority reasoned that the restrictions fell within the plain text of the Second Amendment and that Hawaii’s proffered historical analogues did not support the constitutionality of its new default rule.
Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision, the separate opinions, and what Wolford may mean for Second Amendment litigation.
Featuring:

Amy E. Swearer, Senior Legal Fellow, Advancing American Freedom
John Ohlendorf, Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC

In Watson v. Republican National Committee, the Supreme Court held 5-4 that federal election-day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots that are postmarked by election day but received up to five business days later. Although those statutes set the day for the “election,” the majority read "election" to mean the expression of the electorate’s choice, which occurs when voting is complete, not when ballots are received.Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision, the separate opinions, and what Watson may mean for absentee voting, state election rules, and future election-law litigation.
Featuring:

Chad Ennis, Vice President, Honest Elections Project
Edward D. Greim, Partner, Graves Garrett Greim LLC

In Mullin v. Doe, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the Trump administration, reversing lower-court orders that had halted the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Syrian and Haitian nationals. The Court held that the TPS statute bars judicial review of non-constitutional challenges to DHS’s TPS termination decisions. It also concluded that the Haitian plaintiffs’ equal-protection claim was unlikely to succeed, reasoning that the administration’s across-the-board opposition to TPS as previously implemented supplied a strong race-neutral explanation for the termination.
Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision, the separate opinions, and the case's potential impact.
Featuring:

Eric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney General
James Rogers, Senior Counsel, America First Legal Foundation

In Wolford v. Lopez, the Supreme Court held that Hawaii’s law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. In a 6-3 decision, the majority reasoned that the restrictions fell within the plain text of the Second Amendment and that Hawaii’s proffered historical analogues did not support the constitutionality of its new default rule.
Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision, the separate opinions, and what Wolford may mean for Second Amendment litigation.
Featuring:

Amy E. Swearer, Senior Legal Fellow, Advancing American Freedom
John Ohlendorf, Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC

In Pung v. Isabella County, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected claims under the Takings Clause and Excessive Fines Clause that the Constitution required compensation based on the property’s fair-market value, holding instead that surplus auction proceeds are the proper measure when the tax sale is fairly conducted. The decision preserves traditional tax-sale systems while leaving room for future challenges to unfair foreclosure procedures.Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision and its impact.
Featuring:

Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Deborah J. La Fetra, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

As America celebrates the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, Proclaiming Liberty by Timothy Sandefur revisits the revolutionary year of 1776 through the minds of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, two men whose words and ideas gave birth to modern liberty. Sandefur’s engaging narrative brings to life the “American mind” as those extraordinary Founders sought to express it—their arguments, ideals, and enduring beliefs in natural rights and self-government.Sweeping from the English Civil War and the writings of Locke and Montesquieu to the colonial battles over the Stamp and Townshend Acts and the battlefields of Massachusetts and Virginia, Sandefur’s narrative shows how the Declaration distilled centuries of debate about freedom, law, and human nature into one of history’s most enduring statements on justice. Blending biography, political thought, and legal history—from Sir Edward Coke and Edmund Burke to Tacitus and Frederick Douglass—Proclaiming Liberty traces the Declaration’s legacy through the abolitionist movement, the Civil War, and the modern age, documenting how its principles have continued to challenge tyranny, refute relativism, and inspire movements for justice.Join us for this discussion between Prof. Lee Strang and Timothy Sandefur as they reflect on the Declaration's intellectual pedigree and enduring relevance for all who love freedom.
Featuring:

Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Goldwater Institute
Prof. Lee J. Strang, Executive Director, Salmon P. Chase Center for Civics, Culture, and Society, The Ohio State University

In United States v. Hemani, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of an indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). In a narrow, as-applied holding, the Court held that the government’s prosecution of a marijuana user for knowingly possessing a gun in his home while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance was inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Applying Bruen and Rahimi, the Court rejected the government’s analogy to historical “habitual drunkard” laws, concluding that those laws targeted different kinds of people, served different purposes, and operated in different ways.
Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision, the separate opinions, and what Hemani may mean for history-and-tradition analysis and Second Amendment litigation.
Featuring:

Prof. F. Lee Francis, Associate Professor, Widener Law Commonwealth
William Bergstrom, Partner, Cooper & Kirk

In International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court has been asked to review a Washington law that delays notification and reunification of a runaway child with his or her parents if that child claims to be receiving or requests gender-affirming treatment. The lower courts found that a group of parents (including one with a child who had run away before) lacked standing to challenge this law. The parents' petition to the Supreme Court will go before the Justices at an upcoming conference. Join us for a litigation update about this case and its broader implications for standing doctrine particularly in the context of parental rights and gender transition.

Featuring:

--R. Shawn Gunnarson, Shareholder, Kirton McConkie
--Prof. Derek Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
--(Moderator) Prof. Teresa Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of Law

The SEC’s “Gag Rule” long conditioned settlement of enforcement actions on the defendant's agreeing never to publicly deny the agency's allegations, even where the defendant admitted no wrongdoing. In Powell v. SEC, now before the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari, Petitioners argue that this condition violates the First Amendment; the Ninth Circuit had upheld the rule as a permissible voluntary waiver.
The case has already produced major developments. Last month, the SEC rescinded the Gag Rule, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has now rescinded its own comparable no-deny settlement policy. The SEC now contends that its rescission of the rule renders Powell moot.Join us for a litigation update on Powell and a broader discussion of what these reversals mean for agency enforcement, settlement negotiations, mootness, and government efforts to control the public narrative.Featuring:

Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Hon. Gregory G. Garre, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP
(Moderator) Jill Jacobson, Litigation Associate, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP