FedSoc Forums

In International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court has been asked to review a Washington law that delays notification and reunification of a runaway child with his or her parents if that child claims to be receiving or requests gender-affirming treatment. The lower courts found that a group of parents (including one with a child who had run away before) lacked standing to challenge this law. The parents' petition to the Supreme Court will go before the Justices at an upcoming conference. Join us for a litigation update about this case and its broader implications for standing doctrine particularly in the context of parental rights and gender transition. Featuring: --R. Shawn Gunnarson, Shareholder, Kirton McConkie --Prof. Derek Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School --(Moderator) Prof. Teresa Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas 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

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 CommissionBernard L. McNamee, Former Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission(Moderator) J. Kennerly Davis, Former Deputy Attorney General for Virginia

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 CollegeJosh 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