Episodios

  • Courthouse Steps Preview: Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.

    Courthouse Steps Preview: Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.
    Sep 4 2025
    In 2020 and 2021, Idaho and West Virginia passed laws that required public schools and colleges to designate sports by biological sex and to forbid males from competing on women’s sports teams. Two male athletes who identified as females, one a middle school shot-put and discus thrower and the other a collegiate cross-country runner, challenged the laws in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Idaho and Southern District of West Virginia, alleging a right to compete in women’s sports and saying the state laws discriminate on the basis of sex and transgender status in violation of Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. In Little v. Hecox, the Idaho district court entered a preliminary injunction against the Idaho law for violating the Equal Protection Clause, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the West Virginia district court preliminarily enjoined the West Virginia law for violating Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause and then dissolved that injunction, upholding the law at summary judgment. The Fourth Circuit reversed and ordered the district court to enjoin the law for violating Title IX.
    The Supreme Court accepted certiorari on both of these cases and will consider whether states can designate women’s sports based on biological sex consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss these cases and the broader issues at play, including the scope of Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause as they relate to school sports and gender identity.
    Featuring:

    Jonathan Scruggs, Senior Counsel and the Director for the Center for Conscience Initiatives, Alliance Defending Freedom
    (Moderator) Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending Education
    Más Menos
    53 m
  • After Drummond: What’s Next in the Debate over Religious Charter Schools?

    After Drummond: What’s Next in the Debate over Religious Charter Schools?
    Sep 3 2025
    In Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, the U.S. Supreme Court took up the question of whether the operation of charter schools by religious entities was constitutionally permissible (or even required). The Court deadlocked 4-4, leaving in place a ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court that the religious charter school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, violated the Establishment Clause. This forum will take up the questions left unanswered in Drummond and what the next phase of the debate over religious charter schools will look like, including whether charter schools should be considered state actors and whether the Free Exercise Clause prevents a state from prohibiting religious operators from forming charter schools.
    Featuring:

    Rachel Laser, President and CEO, Americans United for Separation of Church and State
    Prof. John A. Meiser, Associate Clinical Professor and Director of the Lindsay and Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic, Notre Dame Law School
    (Moderator) Prof. Michael P. Moreland, University Professor of Law and Religion and Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law
    Más Menos
    1 h y 2 m
  • Ethics or Ideology? Bar Associations and the Boundaries of Professional Discipline

    Ethics or Ideology? Bar Associations and the Boundaries of Professional Discipline
    Sep 2 2025
    Across the country, bar associations are increasingly at the center of legal and political controversy. Recent disciplinary proceedings—such as efforts by the DC Bar to disbar Acting OIRA Administrator Jeffrey Clark, ethics complaints against Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen and Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke—have raised urgent questions about the line between professional regulation and ideological weaponization of legal licensing.
    Are these proceedings neutral applications of ethical standards, or do they reflect growing pressure to use professional discipline as a political weapon? What procedural and constitutional safeguards exist to protect the federal government from state licensing authorities and to protect lawyers against viewpoint discrimination? Are these tools sufficient? How should courts, bar associations, and the legal academy understand their roles in preserving both public trust and ideological diversity within the profession?

    Featuring:

    James M. Burnham, Founder and Managing Partner, King Street Legal, PLLC
    Michael Francisco, Partner, First & Fourteenth PLLC
    Gene P. Hamilton, President & Co-Founder, America First Legal Foundation
    Prof. Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
    (Moderator) Prof. Denise M. Harle, Clinical Professor and Director of the First Amendment Clinic, Florida State University College of Law
    Más Menos
    1 h y 3 m
  • Does One Size Fit All? Qualified Immunity Inside and Outside Split-Second Policing Decisions

    Does One Size Fit All? Qualified Immunity Inside and Outside Split-Second Policing Decisions
    Aug 28 2025
    Qualified immunity shields all government officials from suit when the constitutional rights they violate are not “clearly established.” Yet the public conversation often centers on police officers. Supreme Court cases on the doctrine frequently involve split-second law enforcement decisions, and when Congress considered reform in the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020, its focus was again on police, excluding other officials.
    How should we think about qualified immunity in the policing context versus other government contexts, particularly when officials are not acting under urgent time pressure? Should there be a single, uniform standard, or should the doctrine be tailored to the circumstances faced by the defendant? And if tailoring is appropriate, should that responsibility rest with the political branches rather than the courts?
    Join us for a discussion on the origins, evolution, and future of qualified immunity—and bring your questions.
    Featuring:

    Elliott Averett, Attorney, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP
    William Most, Attorney, Most & Associates
    (Moderator) Anya Bidwell, Attorney, Institute for Justice
    Más Menos
    1 h y 5 m
  • Litigation Update: Etienne v. Ferguson

    Litigation Update: Etienne v. Ferguson
    Aug 28 2025
    The ongoing case of Etienne v. Ferguson raises profound questions about the interplay between religious liberty and state authority, particularly regarding Catholic confession, which centuries-old religious doctrine deems as absolutely confidential. The case challenges Washington's Senate Bill 5375, titled "Concering the duty of clergy to report child abuse and neglect." Does a state mandatory reporter law violate the First Amendment’s religion clauses if it encompasses information learned during the sacrament? Or can the state justify overriding the seal of confession as a necessary and justifiable measure to protect children?
    This webinar will examine the passage of Washington’s Senate Bill 5375, the historical and theological significance of confession, the constitutional protections afforded by the free exercise and establishment clauses, and the concerns of some that religious practices could be commandeered in service to the state’s police power. The discussion will also address whether the law unconstitutionally targets Catholic clergy and whether the state’s interest in child protection can supersede the religious obligation of priests to maintain absolute confidentiality, under penalty of excommunication.
    Our guests will consider the delicate relationship between religious liberty and state power in this high-stakes case.
    Featuring:

    Matthew Martens, Partner, WilmerHale LLP
    (Moderator) Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute
    Más Menos
    48 m
  • Defining Antisemitism: A Debate on Free Speech and Civil Rights

    Defining Antisemitism: A Debate on Free Speech and Civil Rights
    Aug 26 2025
    Congress is currently debating the Antisemitism Awareness Act. This proposed legislation aims to provide a clear definition of antisemitism for use in enforcing existing civil rights laws. Supporters argue that the bill is a crucial tool for combating rising antisemitism by filling a gap in current legal definitions. Opponents, however, contend that the bill could stifle free speech and limit criticism of Israel. Join the Federalist Society for a timely discussion on the legal and constitutional implications of this legislation, exploring the complexities of defining hate speech while upholding the principles of free expression.
    Featuring:

    William Creeley, Legal Director, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)
    Prof. Eugene Kontorovich, Professor of Law and Director, Center for the Middle East and International Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School
    Moderator: Aharon Friedman, Special Counsel, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
    Más Menos
    1 h
  • Legislative or Executive? The Curious Case of the Library of Congress

    Legislative or Executive? The Curious Case of the Library of Congress
    Aug 19 2025
    The recent dismissal of the Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyrights by President Trump raises fundamental questions about the scope of the President’s removal authority and the constitutional status of these offices. Do these officials exercise executive power such that they must be removable at will? Or has Congress validly restricted removal in pursuit of independence?
    This panel will examine the legal and historical foundations of both positions, tracing the development of the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office, their placement within the legislative branch, and the President’s authority to remove them—if any. The discussion will examine whether these offices lie within the President’s removal authority or whether Congress has validly constrained that power.
    Our panel will consider the constitutional text, structural implications, and historical practice governing the removal of these unique officers.

    Featuring:
    Prof. Anne Joseph O'Connell, Adelbert H. Sweet Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
    Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law
    Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute
    [Moderator] Robert Rando, Partner, Patrick Doerr
    Más Menos
    1 h
  • The Patent Eligibility Reform Act: Clarifying Patent Eligibility for the U.S. Patent System?

    The Patent Eligibility Reform Act: Clarifying Patent Eligibility for the U.S. Patent System?
    Aug 19 2025
    Join the Federalist Society for a discussion on the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA), legislation aimed at clarifying and restoring patent eligibility in the United States. Specifically, the bill seeks to restore patent eligibility to inventions that have been deemed ineligible by recent court decisions.
    The panel brings together top voices in patent law: David Jones, Executive Director at High Tech Alliance; Joseph Matal, Principal at Clear IP; Jamie Simpson, Chief Policy Officer and Counsel at Council for Innovation Promotion; and Former Federal Circuit Judge Kathleen M. O'Malley. The conversation will be moderated by Earl Bright, President and General Counsel at ExploraMED Development.
    Join this webinar to explore how PERA seeks to reform the framework for determining what types of inventions are eligible for patent protection in the United States.

    Featuring:
    David Jones, Executive Director, High Tech Inventors Alliance
    Joseph Matal, Principal, Clear IP LLC
    Hon. Kathleen M. O'Malley, Former Federal Circuit Judge
    Jamie Simpson, Chief Policy Officer and Counsel at Council for Innovation Promotion
    [Moderator] Earl Bright, President and General Counsel at ExploraMED Development
    Más Menos
    1 h