Advertise on podcast: FedSoc Forums

On June 30, the Supreme Court held in Trump v. Barbara that nearly all children born on U.S. soil are citizens at birth. But questions remain about the decision’s reasoning and its legal and policy implications. The decision has not ended the debate. The administration and other proponents of a narrower understanding of birthright citizenship are now testing the decision’s boundaries. On August 6, the President issued two executive orders addressing birthright citizenship and birth tourism. The first order expressly identifies categories the administration contends “do not fall within the rule of birthright citizenship as announced by the Supreme Court.” Within days, the issue was back in federal court. Join the Federalist Society and the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy for a two-part online symposium featuring scholars and practitioners examining the decision, its impact, and what comes next. The programs will accompany a collection of short essays to be published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy's online publication, Per Curiam. Featuring: Prof. Linda Denno, Senior Fellow, Civitas Institute, University of Texas, Austin Eric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney General 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) Will Randolph, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy

On September 18, President Trump announced that he was "banning" CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House, citing what he characterized as false reporting by the outlets. Journalists from all three organizations were subsequently denied access to the White House grounds and had their credentials revoked. The outlets have sued, arguing that the administration's actions have violated their First Amendment and due process rights.The controversy is the latest chapter in a longstanding debate over the constitutional relationship between the President and the press. Although the White House is not generally open to the public, presidential administrations have long provided journalists with press credentials and access to briefings, press facilities, and limited-access events. Courts have confronted disputes over the denial or revocation of that access, but important questions remain about the scope of the President’s authority and the protections afforded by the Constitution.What constitutional limits, substantive or procedural, govern a president’s ability to determine which journalists may access the White House? When does the exclusion of a journalist amount to impermissible viewpoint discrimination or retaliation? And does the First Amendment’s Press Clause provide protections distinct from those afforded to speakers generally?Join us for a discussion of the recent exclusions and the constitutional questions they raise. Featuring: Michael Francisco, Partner, First & Fourteenth PLLC Robert Shibley, Special Counsel, Campus Advocacy, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) (Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal Strategy, Stand Together

As America celebrates its 250th birthday, it also remembers the 25th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The attacks were an inflection point in U.S. history and profoundly affected American law, policy, security, and culture. Join us for an engaging discussion of how 9/11 changed law and policy on terrorism and national security more broadly over the past 25 years, both in the U.S. and internationally. Experts will examine the post-9/11 focus on counterterrorism, its effects and consequences for today’s security posture and threats facing the United States, and how terrorism fits into the larger international security picture today. We will also discuss how legal and governance frameworks developed in response to 9/11, and the role of technological innovations over the past 25 years, both in terms of its influence on and enablement of extremist ideology, and as a tool for combatting the same. Featuring: Darrell Blocker, Senior Strategic and Global Intelligence Advisor, Lexpat Global Services Jonathan Fredman, Former Chief Counsel to the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) Counterterrorist Center, Central Intelligence Agency Prof. Mary Habeck, Adjunct Professor of History and Strategic Intelligence, Patrick Henry College (Moderator) Adam R. Pearlman, Founder and CEO, Lexpat Global Services

As the nation marked the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, renewed attention has turned to what our Constitution, ratified just over a decade later, said about slavery. Critics have long argued that the Framers—by ratifying the Fugitive Slave Clause, the Slave Trade Clause, and the Three-Fifths Compromise—entrenched slavery in the Constitution. Yet others point to the anti-slavery sentiments of many of the Founders and argue that theConstitution provided a roadmap to contain and ultimately abolish slavery.This webinar will examine that debate. Did the Constitution entrench slavery, or did its compromises reflect a strategy of containment, one aimed at letting the institution wither rather than confronting it directly at the Founding? How should provisions like the Fugitive Slave Clause be reconciled with the anti-slavery views of key Founders, and what should we make of the gap between those views and the Founders’ conduct?Featuring:Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Goldwater InstituteProf. Kenneth Williams, Professor and Fred Gray Endowed Chair for Civil Rights and Constitutional Law, Texas Tech University School of Law(Moderator) Hon. Cory Liu, State District Judge, Austin, Texas

As the nation marked the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, renewed attention has turned to what our Constitution, ratified just over a decade later, said about slavery. Critics have long argued that the Framers—by ratifying the Fugitive Slave Clause, the Slave Trade Clause, and the Three-Fifths Compromise—entrenched slavery in the Constitution. Yet others point to the anti-slavery sentiments of many of the Founders and argue that theConstitution provided a roadmap to contain and ultimately abolish slavery.This webinar will examine that debate. Did the Constitution entrench slavery, or did its compromises reflect a strategy of containment, one aimed at letting the institution wither rather than confronting it directly at the Founding? How should provisions like the Fugitive Slave Clause be reconciled with the anti-slavery views of key Founders, and what should we make of the gap between those views and the Founders’ conduct? Featuring: Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Goldwater Institute Prof. Kenneth Williams, Professor and Fred Gray Endowed Chair for Civil Rights and Constitutional Law, Texas Tech University School of Law (Moderator) Hon. Cory Liu, State District Judge, Austin, Texas

For decades, the First Amendment has protected the rights of individuals, associations, and businesses to participate in public debate on matters of public concern. Yet a growing number of governments are pursuing novel legal theories that seek to impose liability for, compel, or otherwise restrict corporate speech.This panel will examine emerging efforts to regulate corporate expression through litigation, legislation, and administrative action. For example, state and local governments across the country have brought climate-change lawsuits that rely, in large part, on companies’ speech and associations as a basis for liability, often disguised under nuisance, consumer-protection, or related theories. Other jurisdictions have been more direct. Hawaii’s Act 11 expressly targets speech of corporations, partnerships, and nonprofits on any electoral issues. And states like Texas have increasingly required businesses to convey government-prescribed messages on their products and services.From climate litigation and compelled disclosures to mandated warnings and restrictions on corporate advocacy, panelists will explore these trends and whether they are consistent with the First Amendment and the fundamental structure and premises of a free society. Featuring: Ryan L. Bangert, Senior Vice President, Strategic Initiatives & Special Counsel to the President, Alliance Defending Freedom Erik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr Jaffe LLP Darpana Sheth, General Counsel, Center for Individual Rights Owen Yeates, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech (Moderator) Gene Schaerr, Partner, Schaerr Jaffe LLP

Recent litigation has resurfaced longstanding debates over the scope of First Amendment protections for members of the armed forces. While service members retain constitutional rights, the unique demands of military service have long permitted restrictions on speech and conduct that would not be permissible in civilian life. This panel will examine the historical development of First Amendment protections in the military context and discuss how that history informs current legal disputes and policy debates. Featuring: Prof. Antony Kolenc, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law, Ave Maria School of Law Christopher J. Motz, Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute Iain Pedden, Chief Defense Counsel, U.S. Marine Corps (Moderator) Thomas Wheatley, Special Counsel, Office of the Secretary of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense

Recent litigation has resurfaced longstanding debates over the scope of First Amendment protections for members of the armed forces. While service members retain constitutional rights, the unique demands of military service have long permitted restrictions on speech and conduct that would not be permissible in civilian life. This panel will examine the historical development of First Amendment protections in the military context and discuss how that history informs current legal disputes and policy debates. Featuring: Prof. Antony Kolenc, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law, Ave Maria School of Law Christopher J. Motz, Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute Iain Pedden, Chief Defense Counsel, U.S. Marine Corps (Moderator) Thomas Wheatley, Special Counsel, Office of the Secretary of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense

On June 30, the Supreme Court held in Trump v. Barbara that nearly all children born on U.S. soil are citizens at birth. But questions remain about the decision’s reasoning and its legal and policy implications.The decision has not ended the debate. The administration and other proponents of a narrower understanding of birthright citizenship are now testing the decision’s boundaries. On August 6, the President issued two executive orders addressing birthright citizenship and birth tourism. The first order expressly identifies categories the administration contends “do not fall within the rule of birthright citizenship as announced by the Supreme Court.” Within days, the issue was back in federal court.Join the Federalist Society and the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy for a two-part online symposium featuring scholars and practitioners examining the decision, its impact, and what comes next. The programs will accompany a collection of short essays to be published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy's online publication, Per Curiam. Featuring: Gene Hamilton, President and Co-Founder, America First Legal Foundation Hon. Steven J. Menashi, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (Moderator) Tiago De Almeida Graff, Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy

Gordon S. Wood, who passed away in June, was one of the nation’s most influential historians of the American Revolution and the early Republic. For more than half a century, his scholarship has shaped how Americans—including legal scholars and the judiciary—understand the Revolution, the Founding, and the Constitution. In landmark works, including the Bancroft Prize-winning The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787 and the Pulitzer Prize-winning The Radicalism of the American Revolution, Wood explored how the colonies became a new nation and established a new constitutional order. On Constitution Day, join us for a conversation reflecting on Wood’s life, scholarship, and legacy. The panel will consider his account of the Revolution and the Constitution, his influence on constitutional scholarship and public understanding of the Founding, and what his work teaches about interpreting the past on its own terms amid continuing debates over America’s origins and ideals. Featuring: Richard Brookhiser, Senior Editor, National Review Prof. Steven Calabresi, Clayton J. and Henry R. Barber Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law and Co-Chairman, Board of Directors, The Federalist Society Prof. Jeffrey Rosen, Senior Fellow, FIRE; CEO Emeritus, National Constitution Center (Moderator) Hon. Lisa Branch, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

For nearly fifty years, the Presidential Records Act has governed the preservation, ownership, and eventual disclosure of presidential records. But in April, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the Act is unconstitutional and that “the President need not further comply with its dictates.” OLC argued that the statute exceeds Congress’s powers and intrudes on the Executive's independence.That conclusion has now moved from the realm of executive-branch legal interpretation to active litigation. In May, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates concluded that the Presidential Records Act is likely constitutional and preliminarily ordered numerous Executive Branch offices and officials—though not the President and Vice President themselves—to comply with it. The government has appealed that ruling to the D.C. Circuit.What constitutional authority, if any, does Congress have to regulate the creation, preservation, ownership, and disclosure of presidential records? Join us as our panel examines this question, the ongoing litigation, and the broader implications for congressional power, executive privilege, and the separation of powers. Featuring: Michael Edney, Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Christopher Fonzone, Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Reiss Center on Law and Security, NYU School of Law (Moderator) Zack Smith, Senior Legal Fellow, Courts and the Constitution, Legal Policy Center, The Heritage Foundation

The 1963 Supreme Court case United States v. Philadelphia National Bank established a "structural presumption": if a merger creates a single entity controlling 30% or more of a market, it is legally presumed to lessen competition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, U.S. antitrust law’s merger statute. U.S. federal and state antitrust enforcers challenging mergers have relied on this presumption for more than half a century. Certain state attorneys general have most recently utilized this presumption to argue that a combined Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery would control roughly 27% or more of key theatrical distribution and basic cable markets and hence be anti-competitive. Defenders of the presumption argue that it provides predictability to businesses and gives regulators an efficient way to identify and prevent harmful mergers. Critics charge that the presumption relies on an outdated economic theory and triggers a heavy burden shift for businesses based on thin or speculative evidence of potential harm. Join our panel of experts as they explore the future of the Philadelphia National Bank presumption and whether it will remain in place if the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery or other similar cases reach the Supreme Court. Featuring: Debbie Feinstein, Partner, Arnold & Porter Hon. Douglas H. Ginsburg, Senior Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit Prof. Herbert Hovenkamp, James G. Dinan University Professor, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Rahul Rao, Antitrust Partner, White & Case Prof. D. Daniel Sokol, Professor of Law and Business, USC Gould School of Law and Marshall School of Business (Moderator) Michael F. Murray, Partner, Litigation Department, Paul Hastings

In Louisiana v. Callais, a divided Supreme Court narrowed the circumstances in which states may use race as a factor in drawing election districts. The Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Alito, held that compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can justify the use of race in redistricting only when the circumstances give rise to a strong inference that the State intentionally denied minority voters an equal opportunity to elect their preferred candidates because of race. Justice Kagan penned a dissent, which argued that the majority opinion “renders Section 2 all but a dead letter.”Callais has already begun to shape litigation elsewhere. A pending federal complaint against the Denver Public School Board alleges that the board violated Section 2 and the Fifteenth Amendment by deliberately redrawing two of its seven districts to preserve Black and Hispanic electoral majorities, with board members explaining the effort in terms of ensuring that students are “represented by people who look like them.” Supporters of the board’s decision argue that shared racial background should be a meaningful consideration in political representation. Critics counter that this reasoning revives the same race-based logic the Constitution forbids, and that voters and candidates should be evaluated as individuals rather than as members of racial groups.Callais has also shaped important policy decisions. In June, the Office of Legal Counsel relied on Callais to conclude that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Title VII guidelines were unconstitutional because they contemplated liability based on disparate effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, and pressured employers to engage in race-based decision making.Join us for a webinar examining the downstream effects of the Callais decision and what it may mean for redistricting disputes like the Denver case and others like it. Featuring: Michael A. Carvin, Former Partner, Jones Day Prof. Jeffrey M. Wice, Adjunct Professor of Law; Director, N.Y. Census and Redistricting Institute, New York Law School (Moderator) Hon. Linda Chavez, Chairman, Center for Equal Opportunity

When an AI system fabricates damaging claims about a real person, is the AI company liable for defamation? Just last week, in Keene v. Google, a federal court confronted this question for the first time, holding that allegedly false Google AI search summaries could be viewed as potentially defamatory factual assertions – and that “actual malice” on Google’s part could be shown if Google’s AI kept outputting the falsehoods after plaintiff had expressly alerted Google about this. In July, a Delaware state trial court likewise allowed conservative activist Robby Starbuck’s defamation suit against Google to proceed.What do these early decisions mean for defamation law in the age of large language models? Join us as we discuss when AI-generated falsehoods may become actionable, how traditional libel doctrines apply to AI outputs, and what these cases could mean for AI developers, users, and the future of online information.Featuring:Prof. Lyrissa Lidsky, Raymond & Miriam Ehrlich Eminent Scholar Chair in US Constitutional Law, University of Florida Levin College of LawProf. 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) Shlomo Klapper, CEO & Founder, Learned Hand

When an AI system fabricates damaging claims about a real person, is the AI company liable for defamation? Just last week, in Keene v. Google, a federal court confronted this question for the first time, holding that allegedly false Google AI search summaries could be viewed as potentially defamatory factual assertions – and that “actual malice” on Google’s part could be shown if Google’s AI kept outputting the falsehoods after plaintiff had expressly alerted Google about this. In July, a Delaware state trial court likewise allowed conservative activist Robby Starbuck’s defamation suit against Google to proceed. What do these early decisions mean for defamation law in the age of large language models? Join us as we discuss when AI-generated falsehoods may become actionable, how traditional libel doctrines apply to AI outputs, and what these cases could mean for AI developers, users, and the future of online information. Featuring: Prof. Lyrissa Lidsky, Raymond & Miriam Ehrlich Eminent Scholar Chair in US Constitutional Law, University of Florida Levin College of Law 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) Shlomo Klapper, CEO & Founder, Learned Hand