Advertise on podcast: FedSoc Forums

Ellingburg v. United States concerned whether forced restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA), was a civil remedy or a criminal penalty. The MVRA requires defendants who are convicted of some types of federal crimes to pay monetary restitution to the victims. Holsey Ellingburg committed a robbery in 1995. Then, during the course of his trial, the MVRA was passed. When sentenced, he was given both a prison sentence and ordered to pay mandatory restitution under the MVRA. Ellingburg eventually challenged the forced restitution, arguing that the application of the MVRA to him violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Eighth Circuit ruled against Ellingburg, holding that MVRA restitution is a civil remedy. Ellingburg petitioned the Supreme Court for review, which held the MVRA is "plainly criminal punishment" and thus its application to Ellingburg violated the Ex Post Facto clause.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze the decision and what its impacts may be. Featuring: Matthew P. Cavedon, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute (Moderator) Sarah Field, Chief Counsel, Legal Policy, Koch Capabilities, LLC

Last year was a tumultuous one for labor law. Not only was the National Labor Relations Board stalled by the firing of then-Member Gwynne Wilcox, but the Board itself came under fire in lawsuits challenging its current structure. Perceiving a gap, lawmakers in California and New York stepped in, authorizing local agencies to take up much of the Board’s work. Those laws, however, have each been blocked by federal district courts. In separate decisions, these courts found federal law preempted the state laws, despite the Board’s tribulations. Were those decisions right? Will they hold? And if they do, what do they mean for the future of federal–state relations? Join our panel as they look forward to the next chapter of American labor law. Featuring: Prof. Benjamin I. Sachs, Kestnbaum Professor of Labor and Industry, Harvard Law School Aaron B. Solem, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Foundation (Moderator) Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair, Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.

The panel will discuss the questions left open—or raised—by the Supreme Court’s decisions in FCC v. Consumers' Research and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, about the proper approach to statutory construction and the role that the nondelegation doctrine should play as a background principle in statutory analysis in cases where an agency has claimed broad authority to weigh competing public values when promulgating legislative rules. The discussion might address such subtopics as: Whether the Supreme Court’s rejection of an “extravagant” interpretation of FCC’s statutory authority in Consumers’ Research tells us anything about how courts should approach statutory cases where an agency is asserting an expansive view of its statutory authorities—given that the Court appeared to say that the dissent’s (supposedly “extravagant”) interpretation would present a nondelegation problem. What role nondelegation concerns should play under the avoidance canon in cases where an agency seeks to stretch nebulous or expressly open-ended delegations to achieve whatever policy objective the Executive Branch deems fit from one administration to the next. Whether these kinds of concerns can be dealt with by expanding clear statement rules—like that the Court has begun to develop with the major questions doctrine. Whether and to what extent legitimate nondelegation concerns arise in cases where Congress has expressly said that an issue is vested to agency discretion—as was contemplated in Loper Bright for certain kinds of rules for which the Court said the agency gets to decide. Featuring: Prof. Jonathan Adler, Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law and William H. Cabell Research Professor, William & Mary Law School; Senior Fellow, Property and Environment Research Center Prof. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School (Moderator) Adam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Director, Scalia Law's C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State

Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections involved whether a candidate for federal office has standing to challenge an Illinois law that requires election officials to count mail-in ballots postmarked or certified as of election day and received within two weeks of the election. Following the 2024 election cycle, Congressman Michael Bost and two other political candidates sued the state board of elections, contending that counting ballots after election day violated federal law (principally 2 U. S. C. §7 and 3 U. S. C. §1, which set election day as the Tuesday following the first Monday in November). The district court dismissed the case, deciding the candidates lacked standing and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. Now the Supreme Court has reversed that ruling, holding in a decision by Chief Justice Roberts that Bost had standing to challenge the rules dealing with the counting of votes in his election. Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze the decision and what its impacts may be. Featuring: Jason Torchinsky, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC (Moderator) Hans A. Von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Institute for the Rule of Law, Advancing American Freedom

Louisiana's congressional districts, which it redrew following the 2020 census, currently sit in a state of legal uncertainty.The map initially only had one majority-black district. However, following a 2022 case called Robinson v. Ardoin (later Laundry), which held that it violated section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, Louisiana re-drew the map to include two majority-black congressional districts.In January 2024, a different set of plaintiffs sued alleging the new map violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The case rose to SCOTUS and was heard as a part of the OT24 term. The issues before the Court included (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.On June 27, 2025, rather than issue a decision on the case, the Supreme Court issued an order restoring the case to the OT 25 calendar for reargument. This time, the Court has explicitly granted the question of "Whether Louisiana’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the 14th or 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution." Oral argument (round 2) is set for October 15, 2025.Join us for a post-oral argument Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze how this oral argument went before the Court.Featuring: Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School (Moderator) Brad A. Benbrook, Founding Partner, Benbrook Law Group

In Barrett v. United States, the Court was asked to consider the relationship between two provisions of the Armed Career Criminal Act and whether a single act that violated both provisions could yield two convictions. The Court held the answer was "no", with a majority of the Court holding that Congress did not "clearly authorize" two convictions stemming from a single act. Though at first glance a technical case related to a provision of the federal criminal code, Barrett raises interesting questions about the Double Jeopardy clause, statutory interpretation, and sentencing. Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze the decision and what its impacts may be. Featuring: William S. McClintock, Partner, Special Matters and Government Investigations, King & Spalding LLP

Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., both involve the question of whether states can designate women’s sports based on biological sex consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.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 granted certiorari, and oral argument is set for January 13, 2026. Join us for a post-oral argument Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze how both oral arguments went before the Court.Featuring: Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending Education (Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation

Recent federal prosecutions have renewed attention on the administration and future of the federal death penalty. This panel brings together experienced capital litigators to examine the evolving legal, institutional, and practical landscape facing federal practitioners. Panelists will address issues including the use of commutations and clemency, charging and authorization protocols in capital cases, litigation strategies unique to federal death-eligible prosecutions, and the interaction between federal and state capital regimes. The discussion will situate current high-profile cases within broader doctrinal and policy trends, assessing how differing approaches across recent administrations have shaped prosecutorial discretion, defense strategy, and judicial oversight in capital litigation. The panel will also provide forward-looking perspectives on where federal death penalty practice may be headed, including implications for future administrations and for capital litigation nationwide. Featuring: Prof. David I. Bruck, Professor of Law, Emeritus, Washington and Lee University School of Law Steve Mellin, Retired Assistant United States Attorney Johnny Sutton, Partner, Ashcroft (Moderator) James M. Trusty, Member, Ifrah Law

Two state laws could transform labor relations in the United States. In both California and Massachusetts, statutes now allow rideshare drivers to organize at the sectoral level: one union could represent all drivers in each state. Both represent a bold experiment—one that departs from the way labor relations has been regulated for more than a century. And each could produce the biggest spike in unionization in decades. But will they work? Will drivers actually organize? And if they do, will the result bump up against federal law? Our expert panel will break down the historical, legal, and policy implications of these bold new laws. Featuring: David Madland, Senior Fellow & Senior Adviser, American Worker Project, Center for American Progress William L. Messenger, Vice President & Legal Director, National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc. (Moderator) Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair, Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.

In an unprecedented action, the SEC in July dismissed with prejudice a pending enforcement case concerning an alleged violation of a rule promulgated under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (ICA). In 2023, the SEC had charged the defendants (a mutual fund, its investment advisor, and independent directors of the fund) with violating its 2016 “liquidity rule,” which limits the percentage of assets investment companies may hold in "illiquid" investments. The independent directors argued that the ICA did not authorize the SEC to make rules concerning fund liquidity and that its decision to do so based on a protection of investors rationale was owed no deference under the 2024 Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright. The district court ordered supplemental briefing on Loper Bright implications, but before the SEC filed its supplemental response, it dismissed the case against all defendants, citing “policy reasons”, without more explanation. Our panelists will discuss the numerous legal and policy issues and questions raised by this sequence of events. Featuring: Jan Folena, Partner and Co-Chair of Securities & Regulatory Enforcement, Stradley Ronon Margaret Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance (Moderator) Michael Piwowar, Executive Vice President, Milken Institute Finance

On November 20th, 2025, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers proposed a rule to define what “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) means under the Clean Water Act. This is yet another effort to finally provide a durable WOTUS rule. Fortunately, the 2023 Supreme Court opinion in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency provided much-needed clarity for the agencies when determining what are regulable waters. Have the agencies developed a proposed rule that is consistent with Sackett? How have they defined key terms like “relatively permanent” and “continuous surface connection” and what wetlands would be regulated? The public comment period for this rule ended on January 5th, 2026, with a final rule likely to come out in the coming months. Please join our panel of experts as they detail what is in the rule, provide analysis and perspective on the rule, and explain what changes the agencies should make for any final rule. Featuring: Prof. Pat Parenteau, Professor of Law Emeritus, Vermont Law School John Paul Woodley, Principal, Advantus Strategies, LLC Damien Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation (Moderator) Daren Bakst, Director of the Center for Energy and Environment and Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Päivi Räsänen, a Finnish parliamentarian, has been criminally prosecuted for expressing her Christian beliefs on marriage and sexuality in a 2019 tweet. Following multiple police interrogations, in April 2021, she was charged with “hate speech” under the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity section of the Finnish Criminal Code, alongside Lutheran bishop Juhana Pohjola. Despite two unanimous acquittals, Räsänen now faces the seventh year of legal proceedings. The landmark case was heard at the Finnish Supreme Court on 30 October 2025, following the State prosecutor’s appeal. The prosecution is seeking tens of thousands of euros in fines and is demanding that Räsänen publications be censored. Featuring: Lorcán Price, Legal Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom International (Counsel for Päivi Räsänen) (Moderator) Karen J. Lugo, Founder, Libertas-West Project

Allegations of politically motivated “debanking” have intensified debate over how federal regulation, supervisory practices, and concerns about “reputation risk” influence banks’ decisions about which customers to serve. In recent months, the President issued an Executive Order directing agencies to reexamine supervisory and risk-management frameworks, while the banking regulators themselves have taken steps related to supervision, anti-money-laundering obligations, and the treatment of reputation risk—often implicating questions surrounding confidential supervisory information. At the same time, Congress and stakeholders across the financial sector continue to grapple with the scope and meaning of federal “fair access” standards and what they might require of banks going forward.With these developments unfolding in parallel, important questions remain unresolved. What role should the government play in shaping banks’ customer relationships? How should supervisory expectations be calibrated, and what legal clarity—whether legislative or regulatory—might be needed to strike the proper balance?Please join the Federalist Society on Wednesday, January 7, at 12 PM ET for a virtual discussion exploring these issues and examining where regulators and lawmakers may go from here. Featuring: John Berlau, Senior fellow and Director of Finance Policy, Competitive Enterprise Institute Tabitha Edgens, Executive Vice President & Co-Head of Regulatory Affairs, Bank Policy Institute Brian Knight, Senior Counsel, Corporate Engagement Team, Alliance Defending Freedom (Moderator) John Heltman, Washington Bureau Chief, American Banker

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. Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana (January 12) - Federal Officer Removal Statute; Issue(s): (1) Whether a causal-nexus or contractual-direction test survives the 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statute, which provides federal jurisdiction over civil actions against "any person acting under [an] officer" of the United States "for or relating to any act under color of such office"; and (2) whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract. West Virginia v. B.P.J. (January 13) - Fourteenth Amendment; Title IX; Issue(s): (1) Whether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prevents a state from consistently designating girls' and boys' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth; and (2) whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prevents a state from offering separate boys' and girls' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth. Little v. Hecox (January 13) - Fourteenth Amendment; Title IX; Issue(s): Whether laws that seek to protect women's and girls' sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation (January 14) - Sovereign Immunity, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether the New Jersey Transit Corporation is an arm of the State of New Jersey for interstate sovereign immunity purposes. Wolford v. Lopez (January 20) - Second Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in holding that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier. M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund (January 20) - ERISA; Issue(s): Whether 29 U.S.C. § 1391’s instruction to compute withdrawal liability “as of the end of the plan year” requires the plan to base the computation on the actuarial assumptions most recently adopted before the end of the year, or allows the plan to use different actuarial assumptions that were adopted after, but based on information available as of, the end of the year. Trump v. Cook (January 21) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, Administrative Law; Issue(s): Whether the Supreme Court should stay a district court ruling preventing the president from firing a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Featuring: Bradey A. Benbrook, Founding Partner, Benbrook Law Group Stephanie L. Freudenberg, Counsel, Schaerr Jaffe LLP Jacob H. Huebert, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance Ryan D. Walters, Deputy Attorney General, Legal Strategy, Texas (Moderator) Tiffany H. Bates, Associate, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC

In Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, Defending Education brought a suit challenging Olentangy Local School District policies related to student speech. These policies, among other things, barred students from using pronouns that match a person's biological sex if that individual identified with different pronouns. Defending Education challenged the policies, contending they both impermissibly prohibited speech, by not allowing students who believed sex is immutable & therefore personal pronouns cannot be chosen to express that belief as they wished, and compelled speech by forcing students to use pronouns for others that express a perspective with which the students did not agree. The case was filed in the southern district of Ohio, which ruled in favor of the school district, and the Sixth Circuit initially affirmed that decision. The case was then reheard en banc by a 17-judge panel, and on November 6, 2025, the court reversed the judgment 10-7, holding that the policies did violate the First Amendment rights of the affected students. Join us for a litigation update on this important case. Featuring: Mathew Hoffmann, Legal Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom (Moderator) Krista Baughman, Founder and Managing Attorney, Baughman Law PC