FedSoc Forums

In Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe, the Supreme Court held that courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international norms under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and that aiding-and-abetting liability exists under neither the ATS nor the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991. The decision limits the use of U.S. courts to pursue transnational human-rights claims absent clear congressional authorization.In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación CIMEX, S.A. (Cuba), the Court held that the Helms-Burton Act removes sovereign immunity for Cuban agencies and instrumentalities sued for trafficking in property confiscated by the Cuban government. Plaintiffs suing those entities under the Act, therefore, do not need to separately satisfy one of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s enumerated exceptions.Join us for a discussion of these decisions, their implications, and what they reveal about the Court’s approach to statutory interpretation and separation of powers.
Featuring:

Prof. Julian Ku, Faculty Director of International Programs and Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Hofstra University
Molly Nixon, Senior Fellow in Executive Power, Cato Institute

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.
From the Articles of Confederation's earliest days, the states disagreed about how to handle the budding nation’s westernmost territories. At the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, the Framers partially addressed these issues by providing the Property Clause in Article IV, Section 3. This granted Congress the “Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States[.]” Since then, the United States has acquired and retained hundreds of millions of acres of land, leaving large swaths of it unappropriated and in the hands of unelected federal administrators. Though the Supreme Court has interpreted Article I’s Necessary and Proper Clause to allow the federal government to hold property while furthering its enumerated powers, experts disagree over whether federal agencies violate the vertical separation of power by holding land within a state’s borders and exerting vast delegated powers over it. Join our panel of the foremost scholars and litigators of public lands as they explore the text, history, and purpose of the Property Clause, and whether the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article IV, Section 3 has wreaked havoc on the Constitution’s otherwise narrow allowance for federal control of public lands.
Featuring:

Ethan Blevins, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation
Tony Francois, Partner, Briscoe Prows Kao Ivester & Bazel LLP
Prof. Richard Samuelson, Associate Professor of Government, Hillsdale College, Washington, D.C. Campus
(Moderator) Hon. Ryan T. Holte, Judge, United States Court of Federal Claims; Distinguished Jurist-in-Residence Professor of Law, The University of Akron School of Law

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.Innovation is at the heart of the American economy, fueled by a patent system that represented a deliberate radical break from the British model. Under English practice, the Crown granted patents as royal favors, monopolies awarded at the sovereign's pleasure, with no requirement of genuine novelty or utility. The Framers rejected this. They believed that intellectual property rights should both reward ingenuity and advance society. By drawing Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 almost verbatim from the South Carolina Constitution, they tied the grant of patents to the mandate to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts."This system democratized invention, where anyone could apply for a patent, and set the stage for centuries of American innovative dominance. The U.S. model has largely been adopted globally.As we approach the Semiquincentennial, join our panel to explore the inventive spirit unleashed after the Founding. How did the Constitution break with British common law? Why did the Framers embed IP rights in the Constitution itself rather than the Bill of Rights? What does it mean that the provision passed without recorded controversy? And how healthy are those rights today?Featuring:Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. David S. Olson, Associate Professor, Boston College Law SchoolProf. Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law(Moderator) Hon. John D. Love, Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas

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.Innovation is at the heart of the American economy, fueled by a patent system that represented a deliberate radical break from the British model. Under English practice, the Crown granted patents as royal favors, monopolies awarded at the sovereign's pleasure, with no requirement of genuine novelty or utility. The Framers rejected this. They believed that intellectual property rights should both reward ingenuity and advance society. By drawing Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 almost verbatim from the South Carolina Constitution, they tied the grant of patents to the mandate to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts."This system democratized invention, where anyone could apply for a patent, and set the stage for centuries of American innovative dominance. The U.S. model has largely been adopted globally.As we approach the Semiquincentennial, join our panel to explore the inventive spirit unleashed after the Founding. How did the Constitution break with British common law? Why did the Framers embed IP rights in the Constitution itself rather than the Bill of Rights? What does it mean that the provision passed without recorded controversy? And how healthy are those rights today?
Featuring:

Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Prof. David S. Olson, Associate Professor, Boston College Law School
Prof. Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law
(Moderator) Hon. John D. Love, Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas

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.
State constitutions were not afterthoughts to the Founding—they were the proving grounds that shaped and informed the United States Constitution. As America celebrates its 250th anniversary, this webinar will explore how these early charters both inspired our national framework and continue to operate as vital, independent safeguards of individual liberty. Discover why state constitutions remain essential pillars of federalism—protecting freedom not just in theory, but in practice.
Featuring:

Hon. Nels S.D. Peterson, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Georgia
Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Goldwater Institute
Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
(Moderator) Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

After two decades of flat demand, US electricity demand is experiencing rapid growth. Demand is expected to increase 25% by 2030 and 78% by 2050, pushing up electricity prices as suppliers scramble to fund and construct massive amounts of new infrastructure. Average residential bills increased by nearly 30% from 2021 to 2025 and are expected to continue going up, adding to the inflation concerns of consumers. At the same time, public officials are issuing increasingly urgent warnings about growing risks to the reliability of the U.S. electric power system.

Our nation’s technological progress, prosperity, and well-being depend on ever-expanding supplies of reliable and affordable electric power to meet rapidly growing demand from proliferating data centers and the expansion of other power-hungry enterprises. The causes that have inflated the price of electricity and threatened the reliability of electric service must be identified correctly and dealt with effectively. How have certain policy developments, including the deregulation movement, the expansion of federal regulation, and the push for decarbonization, affected the price of electricity and the reliability of electric service? Going forward, what changes in federal and state regulation would produce the greatest positive impact on the price of electricity and the reliability of electric service?
Join us for a discussion of electric regulation covering these and other important questions featuring experts with decades of relevant experience.

Featuring:

Mark Curtis Christie, Founding Director of the Center for Energy Law and Policy, William & Mary Law School; Former Chairman, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Former Chairman, Virginia State Corporation Commission
Bernard L. McNamee, Former Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Moderator) J. Kennerly Davis, Former Deputy Attorney General for Virginia

In Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA v. Amarin Pharma, the Supreme Court unanimously held that, to plausibly allege induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), a complaint must identify words or conduct that affirmatively encourage infringement. Writing for the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson explained that a generic manufacturer's label and public statements must do more than merely leave open the possibility that doctors might prescribe or pharmacists might dispense the drug for a patented indication.Join us for a webinar breaking down the ruling and its implications for patent litigation.
Featuring:

Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Wesley Weeks, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP

Following the October 2023 terrorist attacks in Israel, reports of antisemitism have risen across America. In 2025, the U.S. Department of Education opened civil-rights investigations into dozens of colleges over their alleged failure to protect Jewish students.Debates over antisemitism, free speech, and the boundaries of political coalitions have become increasingly visible. Some have called on conservatives and libertarians to take a forceful stand against antisemitism and draw clearer lines against figures who refuse to do so. Others have grown skeptical of how antisemitism is defined and argue that supporters of Israel are squelching legitimate dissent.Are more proactive measures needed to combat antisemitism in America? When does coalition-building become moral evasion, and when does gatekeeping risk policing legitimate dissent? Join us for a timely and lively discussion of antisemitism, free speech, and the proper limits of the right’s “big tent.”Featuring:

Dr. Jesse Merriam, Associate Professor of Government; Pre-Law Advisor, Patrick Henry College
Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
(Moderator) Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder, Chairman, and CEO of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under 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

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.
Education today looks radically different than it did at the Founding, but that may be changing. As America celebrates its 250th anniversary, this webinar will explore the government’s role in education during the Founding era, the subsequent 19th- and early 20th-century developments that upended the Founding-era tradition, and the body of Supreme Court precedent that continues to emerge from that upheaval. Is a return to tradition in the making?
Featuring:

Michael Bindas, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Prof. Nicole Stelle Garnett, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law and Associate Dean for External Engagement, University of Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Mark Storslee, Associate Professor and C. Boyden Gray Distinguished Scholar, University of North Carolina School of Law
(Moderator) Shaka Mitchell, Senior Fellow, American Federation for Children