Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.

Rico v. U.S. (November 3) - Fugitive-Tolling; Issue(s): Whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release.
Hencely v. Fluor Corporation (November 4) - Federal Tort Claims Act;Issue(s): Whether Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. should be extended to allow federal interests emanating from the Federal Tort Claims Act’s combatant-activities exception to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders.
The Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist (November 4) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a district court's final judgment as to completely diverse parties must be vacated when an appellate court later determines that it erred by dismissing a non-diverse party at the time of removal.
Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited v. Burton (November 5) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (November 5) - Tariffs, IEEPA; Issue (s): Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the president to impose tariffs.
The GEO Group v. Menocal (November 10) - Sovereign Immunity; Issue(s): Whether an order denying a government contractor’s claim of derivative sovereign immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine.
Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety (November 10) - Civil Rights; Issue(s): Whether an individual may sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.
Rutherford v. U.S. (November 12) - First Step Act; Issue(s): Whether a district court may consider disparities created by the First Step Act’s prospective changes in sentencing law when deciding if “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
Fernandez v. U.S. (November 12) - Compassionate Release; Issue(s): Whether a combination of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that may warrant a discretionary sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) can include reasons that may also be alleged as grounds for vacatur of a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Featuring:

Prof. Thomas C. Berg, James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of Law
Zac Morgan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation
Prof. Jacob Schuman, Associate Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law
Prof. Erica Zunkel, Director of Clinical and Experiential Learning, Clinical Professor of Law, & Director of the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Clinic, University of Chicago Law School
(Moderator) Logan Spena, Legal Counsel, Center for Free Speech, Alliance Defending Freedom

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), created under the America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011, has long been a source of debate. The Supreme Court has reviewed several of its procedures, and Congress has introduced PTAB reform bills in every session since 2017.
A core PTAB function is deciding Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions that challenge patent validity. Under new PTO leadership, IPR institution rates have sharply declined, prompting complaints from companies like SAP America and Motorola, which claim they were unfairly harmed by the shift and that the PTO has not provided adequate legal justification. PTO Director John Squires has defended the new direction, announcing he will personally decide all preliminary IPR institutions—a task previously handled by three-judge panels. The PTO has also proposed rules requiring petitioners to waive future prior art challenges to qualify for IPR institution.
This webinar will examine the SAP and Motorola petitions, Director Squires’s policy memo, and their implications for PTAB reform, the AIA framework, and the constitutional foundations of U.S. patent law.
Featuring:
Arthur Gollwitzer, Partner, Jackson Walker LLP
Jamie Simpson, Chief Policy Officer and Counsel, The Council for Innovation Promotion
Robert Taylor, Founder and Owner, RPT Legal Strategies PC
[Moderator] Philip Nelson, Partner, Knobbe Martens

While President Trump’s Executive Orders directed at individual law firms drew immediate attention, the administration’s broader enforcement of nondiscrimination employment law in the legal industry has gone comparatively unanalyzed. In March, Acting EEOC Chairman Andrea Lucas wrote letters to 20 large law firms requesting information on their employment practices (at least four of those firms subsequently settled with the Commission). In May, Americans for Equal Opportunity filed an EEOC charge challenging the legality of allegedly discriminatory programs administered by Sponsors for Educational Opportunity and its 44 law-firm partners. These processes are necessarily opaque, leaving the status of EEOC investigations (other than those publicly settled) unclear. As the EEOC appears to continue investigating these varying sets of programs and allegations, we pause to consider the merits of these matters.
Featuring:

Jonathan A. Segal, Partner, Duane Morris LLP; Managing Principal, Duane Morris Institute
Alison Somin, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation
(Moderator) Dan Morenoff, Executive Director & Secretary, American Civil Rights Project; Adjunct Fellow, Manhattan Institute

States have become more and more active in using their consumer protection statutes to initiate investigations and lawsuits against Chinese companies. These investigations and efforts have centered on concerns about so-called white labeling of consumer products to hide the country of origin and concerns about data privacy and security. This webinar will feature the Attorneys General of Nebraska and Alaska—two AGs who have taken a leading interest in this emerging area. They will discuss the growing role of state consumer protection laws in addressing foreign-backed corporate misconduct and what the future may hold for this important area of enforcement.
Featuring:

Hon. Mike Hilgers, Attorney General, Nebraska
Hon. Stephen Cox, Attorney General, Alaska
(Moderator) O.H. Skinner, III, Executive Director, Alliance For Consumers

In 2018, Tesla’s board of directors proposed, and its stockholders approved by a wide margin, a significant executive compensation plan for CEO Elon Musk. Under the plan, Musk stood to earn tens of billions of dollars if he achieved a series of highly ambitious performance milestones that would increase Tesla’s market value by hundreds of billions. Over time, Tesla’s value rose dramatically—by more than 1,000%—with shareholders retaining the vast majority of the created value and Musk receiving substantial compensation.A Tesla stockholder subsequently filed suit, alleging that the compensation plan was unfair to the company and that the board’s approval process was compromised by a lack of independence. The Delaware Court of Chancery agreed, finding that the board was not sufficiently independent of Musk, that the stockholder approval was ineffective, and that the plan was substantively unfair to Tesla. The court rescinded the plan and later awarded the plaintiff’s attorneys $345 million in fees.Tesla’s response included reapproving the plan through another stockholder vote, though the Court of Chancery deemed that ratification ineffective as well. The litigation has sparked broader discussion about Delaware corporate law, shareholder rights, and potential legislative reforms, and it has coincided with Tesla’s decision to reincorporate in Texas.Following oral arguments before the Delaware Supreme Court on October 15, 2025, former Chief Justice Myron T. Steele (of counsel, Potter Anderson) and Robert T. Miller, the Allison & Dorothy Rouse Chair in Law at George Mason University’s Scalia Law School, will discuss the case and its implications for corporate governance and executive compensation.
Featuring:

Hon. Myron T. Steele, Former Chief Justice, Delaware Supreme Court; Of Counsel, Potter Anderson
(Moderator) Robert T. Miller, Allison & Dorothy Rouse Chair in Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Climate change has been described as a “super wicked” policy problem. Policymakers face profound difficulties in assessing the magnitude of the risks, the costs of potential solutions, and the challenges of collective action. Because climate change is global in scope, the source of emissions is often seen as less important than their overall volume. Yet despite extensive efforts by many countries, including the United States at various times, worldwide carbon emissions continue to rise.Frustration with this state of affairs has led some state and local authorities to pursue climate litigation in addition to legislative or regulatory action. These lawsuits allege that energy producers are responsible for substantial monetary harms; and taken together, they seek many billions or even trillions of dollars in damages. Many recent cases focus on claims that companies misrepresented the effects of fossil fuels on the environment in violation of state consumer protection laws.On October 8, 2025, join us for a panel discussion examining the legal and policy issues raised by these cases, including: • Preemption under the Clean Air Act and federal common law; • Challenges in demonstrating causation and attribution; • Possible implications for First Amendment protections; • Allocation of damages among dozens of energy companies, including state-owned firms that may be shielded by sovereign immunity. • The contributing role of both plaintiffs and other beneficiaries of fossil fuels; and • Whether litigation is likely to help advance efforts to address climate change.
Featuring:

David Bookbinder, Director of Law & Policy, Environmental Integrity Project
Professor Michael Gerrard, Andrew Sabin Professor of Professional Practice and Founder and Faculty Director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School
Professor Donald J. Kochan, Professor of Law and Executive Director of the Law & Economics Center, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Adam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Director, Scalia Law’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State
(Moderator) Michael Buschbacher, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC

When Congress amended the Civil Rights Act in 1976, it directed federal courts to use judicial discretion to award “reasonable attorney’s fees” to a prevailing party. Yet when state actors are found in violation of the nation’s civil rights laws, what is “reasonable” often means that civil rights attorneys take a reduced fee award. Because of this, states are emboldened to enact and enforce more unconstitutional laws and the pattern repeats.
Mere days following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the New York Assembly enacted new legislation allowing secular businesses to permit customers to carry concealed weapons on their property, but refusing to afford sensitive locations, like churches, the same choice. His Tabernacle Church in Elmira, New York filed suit under the Civil Rights Act claiming the new law violated its First and Second Amendment rights. It prevailed both in district court and at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
When the matter returned to the district court, the State of New York claimed the church’s attorneys were entitled to just 16% of the fees requested in their application. Judge John R. Sinatra, Jr. of the Western District of New York rejected New York’s arguments, awarding 100% of the requested fees, concluding that the Civil Rights Act “encourages lawyers taking meritorious cases like this one” but to engage in “[p]erennial ‘haircuts’” in fee awards would “discourage well qualified counsel.”
Join the Federalist Society for a discussion on the importance of courts awarding appropriate attorney’s fees in civil rights litigation.
Featuring:

Erin E. Murphy, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLC
(Moderator) Jeremy G. Dys, Senior Counsel, First Liberty

In recent months, Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced a ban on “Sharia law and Sharia compounds” in the state, citing longstanding principles that U.S. and Texas law take precedence over conflicting foreign law. This position is reflected in the 2017 American Laws for American Courts statute and in an Attorney General opinion affirming that contracts violating Texas public policy cannot be enforced.
These commitments were tested in a North Texas family law case, where an Islamic prenuptial agreement called for disputes to be resolved under religious law. The Texas Supreme Court ultimately stayed the arbitration order and ordered review of the original arbitration agreement for "validity and enforceability."
Other recent developments - including video accounts of a Houston imam calling for boycotts of certain businesses and reports of a proposed Muslim-exclusive residential community (“EPIC”) - have prompted legislative responses such as HB 4211, which requires property transfer disclosures and ensures disputes are adjudicated under Texas and U.S. law.
How should courts weigh religious arbitration against constitutional and statutory protections? What legal tools exist to address disputes that implicate cultural or religious norms? How can Americans both respect religious diversity and uphold constitutional imperatives?
Featuring:

Qanta A. Ahmed, MD, Senior Fellow, Independent Women's Forum

https://www.qantaahmed.com/bio/

Professor Eugene Volokh, Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
(Moderator) Karen J. Lugo, Founder, Libertas-West Project

Valerie Kloosterman, a devout Christian and third-generation healthcare professional, served her community as a Physician Assistant for 17 years. In 2021, University of Michigan Health introduced mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion training that required participants to affirm statements Kloosterman believed conflicted with her religious convictions and medical judgment. After she requested a religious accommodation, hospital officials denied her request, criticized her beliefs, and ultimately terminated her employment.
Kloosterman filed suit in federal court, asserting Title VII and constitutional claims. While the court allowed her core claims to move forward, it later granted the hospital’s motion to compel arbitration. Kloosterman appealed, and in August 2025, the Sixth Circuit sided with her, ruling that the hospital had defaulted on its arbitration rights after litigating for over a year. The court rejected what it called a “heads I win, tails you lose” strategy of reserving arbitration until after seeing how the case would unfold in court.
Join Kevin Wynosky and Kayla Toney as they unpack the Sixth Circuit’s opinion and discuss its broader implications for employment law and religious accommodations.
Featuring:

Kevin Wynosky, Associate Counsel, Clement & Murphy
(Moderator) Kayla Toney, Counsel, First Liberty Institute

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.

Villarreal v. Texas (October 6) - Sixth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether a trial court abridges a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess.
Berk v. Choy (October 6) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a state law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit may be applied in federal court.
Barrett v. U.S. (October 7) - Fifth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment permits two sentences for an act that violates 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j).
Chiles v. Salazar (October 7) - First Amendment; Issue(s): Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections (October 8) - Election Law; Issue(s): Whether petitioners, as federal candidates, have pleaded sufficient factual allegations to show Article III standing to challenge state time, place, and manner regulations concerning their federal elections.
U.S. Postal Service v. Konan (October 8) - Federal Tort Claims Act; Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff's claim that she and her tenants did not receive mail because U.S. Postal Service employees intentionally did not deliver it to a designated address arises out of "the loss" or "miscarriage" of letters or postal matter under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Bowe v. U.S. (October 14) - Habeas Corpus; Issue(s): (1) Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; and (2) whether Subsection 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under Section 2255.
Ellingburg v. U.S. (October 14) - Criminal Law; Issue(s): Issue(s): Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act is penal for purposes of the Constitution's ex post facto clause.
Case v. Montana (October 15) - Fourth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause.
Louisiana v. Callais (October 15) - Election Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature's enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.

Featuring:

Jana Bosch, Deputy Solicitor General, Ohio
Matthew Cavedon, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute
Amanda Gray Dixon, Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
Prof. Michael T. Morley, Assistant Professor, Florida State University College of Law
Richard B. Raile, Partner, Baker Hostetler LLP
(Moderator) Erielle Azerrad, Of Counsel, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC

Professor Ron Rotunda wrote seminal law books that are still used in law schools across the country and was the author of over 500 law review articles and other legal publications. These books and articles have been cited more than 2000 times by law reviews, by state and federal courts at every level, by the U.S. Supreme Court, and by foreign courts in Europe, Africa, Asia, and South America. He was also a member of the Federalist Society’s Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group. Each year, the Practice Group holds an annual FedSoc Forum in his honor to discuss pressing issues and trends in legal culture.
Join us for the 2025 installment in that series, where the Honorable G. Barry Anderson will, in a discussion moderated by Professor Michael McGinniss, offer his insights about judicial independence and the rule of law, and the role of lawyers in supporting the rule of law. He will discuss how such support can be well demonstrated to clients when litigation does not turn out as they had hoped. He will also address systems of judicial selection and their impacts on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
Featuring:

Hon. Barry Anderson, Associate Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court (ret.)
(Moderator) Prof. Michael S. McGinniss, Professor of Law and J. Philip Johnson Faculty Fellow, University of North Dakota School of Law

The European Union’s Digital Services Act applies to digital platforms and service providers offering services to users in the EU, regardless of where the company is based—including U.S. companies.
EU officials contend the Digital Services Act is needed to protect democracy from misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech online. Regulators in Brussels promise it will create a safer digital space by holding platforms such as Google, Amazon, Meta, and X accountable for policing these categories. Service providers that fail to comply risk fines of up to 6% of global annual revenue, restricted access to the EU market, or suspension of operations.
House Judiciary Republicans recently issued a report warning that European regulators could use the Digital Services Act to chill speech, suppress political dissent, and establish a global censorship regime. By contrast, House Judiciary Democrats argue the Digital Services Act includes procedural safeguards, judicial oversight of content moderation, and democratic accountability within the EU.
Will the Act make Brussels the new “sheriff of the digital public square”? Could it export European hate speech laws—which have at times been used against individuals peacefully expressing their views—beyond Europe? And what steps can governments, companies, and citizens take to safeguard free expression online?
Join the Federalist Society for a discussion with experts on the EU, the Digital Services Act, and freedom of expression as we consider whether the United States should support—or oppose—the Act.
Featuring:

Stéphane Bonichot, Partner, Briard Bonichot & Associés
Dr. Adina Portaru, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom International
Dr. John Rosenthal, Independent scholar and journalist
Berin Szóka, President, TechFreedom
Moderator: Prof. Maimon Schwarzschild, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law

Gabriel Olivier is an evangelical Christian who often shares his faith in public. In May 2021, when sharing his faith near an amphitheater in a public park in Brandon, Mississippi, the city’s chief of police confronted Olivier with a recently amended city ordinance requiring “protests” to occur in a designated area. Olivier repositioned himself but soon returned when the designated area proved remote and isolating. The city charged Olivier for violating the ordinance, and he pled nolo contendere and agreed to pay a fine. Olivier then challenged the ordinance under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, seeking an injunction prohibiting future enforcement of the law against his expressive activity.
The district court barred Olivier’s request for injunctive relief, applying the preclusion doctrine from Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). As a result, Olivier cannot challenge the ordinance, even though he alleges that it continues to restrict his speech and risks future penalties. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, splitting from the Ninth and Tenth Circuits and deepening a circuit split on whether Heck applies to noncustodial plaintiffs who cannot access habeas relief. The Fifth Circuit denied rehearing en banc by one vote, over dissents arguing Olivier’s plea should not bar future constitutional protection. In July, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Featuring:

Nathan Kellum, Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute
(Moderator) Tobias S. Loss-Eaton, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP

In Dinner Table Action v. Schneider, pending in the First Circuit, Maine is appealing a permanent injunction barring the enforcement of a ballot initiative passed in 2024 that would have capped contributions for independent expenditures at $5,000. The initiative, formulated and supported by the anti-super PAC group, Equal Citizens, was designed to challenge the case that “created” super PACs, SpeechNow.org v. FEC, a unanimous en banc D.C. Circuit decision, which held that no limits can be placed on contributions for independent expenditures, and has since been reaffirmed by several federal circuit courts. If the First Circuit were to remove the injunction, it would create a circuit split, and open up the possibility of revisiting SpeechNow.org v. FEC.The Dinner Table Action District Court also ruled that mandatory disclosure of donors starting at $0 unconstitutionally burdens Free Speech by not affording any possibility for anonymous speech. As such, this case sits at an interesting intersection between free speech and election law. Join us for a litigation update where we will discuss the developments to date in this case, its potential impacts, and where it may be headed. Featuring:

Charles Miller, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech
(Moderator) Stephen R. Klein, Partner, Barr & Klein PLLC

All fifty states mandate certain vaccinations for schoolchildren. Forty-six of them allow religious exemptions. New York once did as well, maintaining such exemptions for more than half a century before eliminating them in 2019. Medical exemptions remain.
Members of the Amish community now challenge New York’s policy, claiming that opposition to vaccines is integral to their “traditional way of life,” as recognized in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). The Petitioners include three Amish parents, one representing all Amish and Mennonites in New York, as well as three Amish schools—funded by and serving Amish communities on Amish land. In 2022, the state charged these schools with violating its vaccination law and levied $118,000 in penalties.
The Petitioners defended themselves by filing a Section 1983 action in federal court, raising an as-applied challenge under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court dismissed the case, and the Second Circuit affirmed under Employment Division v. Smith’s rational basis framework. The Petitioners are seeking Supreme Court review.
Featuring:

Robert M. Overing, Deputy Solicitor General, Alabama Office of the Attorney General
(Moderator) Hon. Sean D. Jordan, Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

Many areas of the country are beset by serious housing shortages. State-level regulatory policies such as exclusionary zoning and other restrictions on construction are, according to some analysts, major causes of the crisis. A variety of possible reforms have been enacted or proposed in various studies, including “YIMBY” (“Yes In My Backyard”) zoning deregulation, inclusionary zoning, rent control, and state constitutional litigation and amendment.
Join us for this discussion on the merits or pitfalls of the range of possible state-level remedies for the housing crisis.
Featuring:

James Burling, Vice President of Legal Affairs, Pacific Legal Foundation
Christopher Elmendorf, Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law
David Schleicher, Walter E. Meyer Professor of Property and Urban Law, Yale Law School
(Moderator) Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

In this CLE webinar, David Cunanan, John J. Park, and Phillip Sechler will discuss recent important developments in the realm of legal ethics and professional responsibility, including the recent adoption of changes to an Arizona rule restricting who can be a complainant for purposes of state bar ethics complaints, developments related to Rule 5.6(b) of the ABA Model Rules, and the expanding use (and misuse) of AI in the legal profession.
CLE Info
If you are not seeking CLE credit for participating in this webinar, you may register free of charge.
Featuring:

Hon. David Cunanan, Independent Bar Council, Arizona; Former Judge, Maricopa County Superior Court, Arizona
John J. Park, Jr., General Counsel, Indigo Energy
Philip A. Sechler, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

Cost:

No CLE - Free
CLE (Member) - $25
CLE (Non-Member) - $50

To register, click the link at the top of the page.

One year ago, U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta held that “Google is a monopolist and has acted as one to maintain its monopoly”, and, in doing so, violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act. On Tuesday, September 2, 2025, Judge Mehta’s remedy decision rejected the United States’ request for structural relief and indicated only limited conduct and behavioral requirements were appropriate to address any past effect of Google’s conduct and to protect competition going forward. Does either party have substantive grounds to expect an appellate court to reverse Judge Mehta’s liability and remedy decision? Is the remedy decision consistent with the liability decision (and vice-versa)? What are the next steps to implementing the remedy decision? What is the likely impact of Judge Mehta’s liability and remedy decisions on Google, monopolization law, and the Government’s anti-monopoly agenda. Please join our body of expert lawyers for a discussion of these and other related questions.
Featuring:

Alden F. Abbott, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University
Ashley Baker, Executive Director, The Committee for Justice
Kathleen W. Bradish, Vice President and Director of Legal Advocacy, American Antitrust Institute
Derek W. Moore, Counsel, Rule Garza Howley LLP
(Moderator) Bilal Sayyed, Counsel, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

In First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin, the New Jersey Attorney General, Matthew Platkin, issued a subpoena to a faith-based, pro-life, nonprofit, requiring that it turn over years of sensitive information, including the names and contact information of its donors. First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, which provides free medical services and is funded by private donations, refused to comply with the demand for donor information, alleging that the subpoena chilled its rights of association and speech.
First Choice filed an action in federal court, but the district court twice dismissed the case, finding it "unripe" and requiring that the constitutional issues first be adjudicated in state court. The Third Circuit affirmed this decision.
On June 16th, 2025, the Supreme Court granted cert to consider whether, when the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, a federal court in a first-filed action is deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court. This case addresses broader issues, including the power of state officials and the role of federal courts in protecting First Amendment rights from chilling effects caused by state action.
Featuring:

Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Prof. Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of Law

In April, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to rescind a regulation defining the Endangered Species Act’s prohibition against “harm” to an endangered species to include destruction and modification of habitat. That regulation was previously upheld by the Supreme Court under Chevron in Sweet Home v. Babbitt, over a sharp dissent by Justice Scalia accusing the agency of imposing “unfairness to the point of financial ruin—not just upon the rich, but upon the simplest farmer who finds his land conscripted to national zoological use.” Citing Loper Bright’s overturning of Chevron, the Service proposes to rescind this regulation and adopt Justice Scalia’s opinion as the best reading of the statute. This would substantially curtail regulation of habitat, the loss of which is purportedly the leading threat to endangered species. Join this FedSoc Forum in discussing this proposal, its interpretation of the Endangered Species Act, and the effect of Loper Bright on agencies’ modification of regulations previously upheld under Chevron.




Featuring:
Karrigan Börk, Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law; Senior Fellow, California Environmental Law and Policy Center; and Director, UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences
Will Yeatman, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation
(Moderator) Jonathan Wood, Vice President of Law & Policy, Property and Environment Research Center