Currently, the FDIC and NCUA—apart from a limited number of state credit unions—maintain a government-enforced duopoly on deposit insurance. This webinar will explore whether the existing framework should be preserved or reformed, including the potential expansion of private deposit insurance beyond the few states that currently permit it for state credit unions to all banks and credit unions.
Featuring:

Dennis R. Adams, Principal, Dennis R. Adams Consulting; former CEO, American Share Insurance

On October 20, 2023, the Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond sued the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board for signing a contract with St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, claiming that St. Isidore cannot participate in the charter school program because it is a religious school. The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed, holding that the contract violated the Establishment Clause.
The United States Supreme Court is hearing this case to address 1) if the teaching decisions of a private school are considered state action when the school contracts with the state to provide free education and 2) if a state is prohibited from excluding a religious school from its charter school program because of the Free Exercise Clause or if it can justify the exclusion under the Establishment Clause. Arguments are scheduled for April 30.
Featuring:

Philip A. Sechler, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
(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

Discussions about the United States acquiring Greenland have re-emerged in public discourse, particularly during the second Trump administration, highlighting the enduring strategic importance of the island. This webinar will provide crucial context to the current debate by exploring historical attempts at acquisition, analyzing the underlying strategic and economic interests driving this consideration, and examining the complex legal and sovereignty issues involved, including questions of international law and potential constitutional implications for the United States. Join us for this timely discussion to gain a deeper understanding of the historical, strategic, and legal dimensions of this fascinating topic.

Featuring:

What does the new administration mean for cryptocurrency regulation and the balance of authority between the SEC and the states? Traditionally, Republican-led SECs and financial regulators have favored federal preemption of state authority. Under the Biden Administration, however, many red states invoked their consumer protection powers to challenge federal agency actions and defend federalism. This panel will explore ongoing state litigation against the SEC over the definition of a security and examine how the evolving federal-state dynamic could shape cryptocurrency regulation.
Featuring:

Justin Clark, Civil Chief, Kentucky Office of the Attorney General
Paul N. Watkins, Managing Partner, Fusion Law PLLC
Eric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney General
Moderator: Katie Biber, Chief Legal Office, Paradigm

Prosecution laches is an infrequently used equitable doctrine that bars enforcement of a patent when the patentee has unreasonably delayed prosecution in a way that prejudices others. It is most commonly used by accused infringers as a defense in patent litigation, although the USPTO can also use it as a basis for refusing allowance. Regardless, it is most often used against the backdrop of multiple continuation applications.

Continuation applications are applications which all follow from (i.e., claim priority to) a single earlier application. Creating “families” of patent applications in this way is a very common practice and allows the patent owner to claim different embodiments of the original invention in response to changes in marketplace and/or technological evolution.
In Sonos Inc. v. Google LLC, currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit, the district court, following a jury verdict in favor of the patentee, found Sonos’ patents unenforceable due to prosecution laches, despite Sonos diligently prosecuting continuation applications for 13 years, serially filing a continuation with each allowance. If upheld, the ruling will represent a notable change to patent practice with far-reaching effects for U.S. innovators of all stripes including, independent innovators, corporate innovators, and universities.
This FedSoc forum will use the Sonos v. Google and other laches cases as needed to explore the conflict between prosecution laches and current continuation practice and much more.

The Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) reads, “The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The government may not dismiss the prosecution during trial without the defendant’s consent.” This rule has recently been used by the Justice Department in cases like the Mayor Eric Adams case and January 6th cases. In both instances, judges have questioned the reasons for the dismissal and revealed unsolved conflict between permissive and restrictive views of the judge’s role, both to explore executive decisions of the prosecution and whether to dismiss indictments with or without prejudice to their later renewal. This panel will discuss the rule and its recent uses, along with questions regarding the government’s motivation to dismiss such cases and just how far judicial review can and ought to go when approving the dismissals.
Featuring:

Prof. Paul Cassell, Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law and University Distinguished Professor of Law, The University of Utah College of Law
Andrew McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National Review
William Shipley, Attorney, Law Offices of William L. Shipley & Associates
Moderator: Hon. John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding

Bondi v. VanDerStok concerned whether the ATF’s 2022 update to its regulations under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), which articulated that federal law requirements that apply to the manufacture and sale of standard firearms also apply to “ghost guns” –readily convertible weapons parts or receiver kits– exceeds the mandate of the same. The ATF argued it simply clarified what had already been true in response to the notable rise in the use of ghost guns. The challengers, including two individual gun owners and a gun advocacy organization, alleged the updated regulations exceeded the statutory authority granted to the ATF and brought a facial challenge. The Court heard oral argument on October 8, 2024.
On March 26, 2025, a 7-2 Court ruled the ATF’s rule is not facially inconsistent with the GCA.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program where we will break down and analyze this decision and what its potential effects might be.

Featuring:

President Trump’s February 18 “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies” Executive Order directs independent regulatory agencies to submit for review all proposed and final significant regulatory actions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President. This joint webinar, sponsored by the Administrative Law and the Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Groups, will discuss the real-world implications of this order for independent agencies, including the Federal Communications Committee and the Federal Trade Commission.
Featuring:

J. Howard Beales, III, Professor Emeritus of Strategic Management and Public Policy, School of Business, The George Washington University
Hon. Susan E. Dudley, Founder, GW Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, The George Washington University
Thomas M. Johnson, Jr. Partner, Wiley Rein LLP
Prof. Adam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Co-Director, Antonin Scalia Law School’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State
Moderator: Svetlana Gans, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher

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. A 2-1 panel agreed the new map violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and enjoined the new map. Given the timing, the case briefly went up to the Supreme Court which granted an emergency application for stay, citing Purcell v. Gonzalez. That allowed the 2022 map to be used for the 2024 elections.Now the case is before the Supreme Court again, this time with a range of issues for the court to address including: (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.Join us for a post-oral argument Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court.

Featuring:

The First Amendment’s Religion Clauses guarantee religious entities the freedom to make certain internal governance decisions without State interference. Supreme Court cases like Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral (1952), Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich (1976), Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC (2012), and Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (2020) have affirmed that this constitutional protection bars civil courts from intruding into some religious matters involving faith, doctrine, and church governance. However, lower courts differ in some respects on how to understand and apply the “church autonomy doctrine.” The panel will explore the roots of the church autonomy doctrine, its recent applications, and its implications and trajectory.
Featuring:

Prof. Thomas C. Berg, James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of Law
Prof. Leslie C. Griffin, William S. Boyd Professor of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law
Alex J. Luchenitser, Associate Vice President & Associate Legal Director, Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Branton J. Nestor, Associate, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
(Moderator) Amanda Salz, Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

After the U.S. Supreme Court in Morrison v. Olson (1988) and U.S. v. Lopez (1995) held two federal statutes were unconstitutional as those statutes were beyond the power of Congress to enact, some claimed it was the dawn of a new federalism revolution. However, such challenges to federal power did not seem to continue.
Now, a new case McNutt v. DOJ, once again directly challenges whether a federal statute is beyond Congress’s power to enact. This time, the challenge is to the federal ban on at-home distilling. This case raises substantial issues concerning the scope of Congress’s power and how much decision-making authority the Constitution left for states to decide.
This FedSoc Forum will provide an update on what has occurred so far and discuss the important issues raised by this case.
Featuring:

Thomas Berry, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
Michael Pepson, Regulatory Counsel, Americans for Prosperity Foundation
Eric J. Segall, Ashe Family Chair Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law
Moderator: Theodore Cooperstein, Appellate Counsel, Theodore Cooperstein PLLC

On his first day back in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14154 (Unleashing American Energy). Among numerous other objectives, this broad Executive Order directs the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to “expedite and simplify the permitting process” by providing guidance on the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and rescinding CEQ’s NEPA regulations.

Less than four weeks later, CEQ issued a Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies on how to conform their NEPA practices to the President’s Executive Order and other factors. Less than a week after that, CEQ published an interim final rule removing its NEPA regulations. Among the potential intended impacts of these actions is more expeditious federal government reviews of environmental permits.

Environmental Justice – an effort to affirmatively address disproportionate pollution and environmental burdens borne by low-income and minority communities – grew from an Executive Order by President Clinton in 1994 through expanded efforts across the entire federal government with special emphasis at DOJ and the EPA in the Biden Administration. President Trump issued an Executive Order on his second day in office prohibiting “… all discriminatory and illegal preferences…,” followed by a Memorandum by Attorney General Pam Bondi rescinding the Environmental Justice policies of prior administrations. What are the implications of this Administration’s cancelling of environmental justice writ large? What does this mean for environmental enforcement and infrastructure development in low-income and minority communities? Do its concepts still live on in the federal government and at state and local levels? Join us for a balanced discussion of these questions and more.

Featuring:

City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency concerned whether the Clean Water Act allows the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform.
On March 4, 2025, the Court held that the Clean Water Act does not authorize the EPA to include “end-result” provisions in wastewater discharge permits. Justice Samuel Alito authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court.
Featuring:

Jim Burling, Vice President of Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation

Over the past couple of weeks, there have been several developments in the litigation surrounding the Trump Adminsitration’s directives pausing disbursements of foreign development assistance funds.
On February 25, 2025, a D.C. District judge ordered the Administration to issue a portion of the payments that it had previously sought to pause by the next day (that is, by 11:59 p.m. on February 26). The Trump Administration appealed to the Supreme Court requesting an administrative stay, which the Chief Justice granted on a temporary basis as the application was referred to the full Court. On March 5, 2025, a 5-4 Court vacated the stay granted by the Chief Justice, leaving in place the February 25 order (though it noted the deadline stated therein had passed and the lower court needed to give clarity as to the requirements that still remained for the Government) and the initial February 13 temporary restraining order which initially enjoined the Administration from enforcing its earlier directives to pause all aid payments.
Join us for a litigation update on this case as we discuss the various orders, the move by the Court to vacate the stay, and what may happen next.
Featuring:

Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom
Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Distinguished Visiting Scholar, School of Civic Leadership, University of Texas at Austin; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute