In this Federalist Society America250 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.In 2022, the Supreme Court overruled the "Lemon Test" for interpreting the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, holding that the Clause must instead be interpreted by reference to "historical practices and understandings." To do this, the Court suggested it would look to certain historical "hallmarks of religious establishments the framers sought to prohibit when they adopted the First Amendment." This has kicked off a vigorous debate, in both caselaw and scholarship, about what constituted "an establishment of religion" at the time of the Founding, and how that history should inform interpretation of the Establishment Clause today. Join a gathering of the foremost scholars and litigators of the Establishment Clause to discuss the Clause's historical meaning both as a matter of originalist theory and in its application to current church-state controversies, such as displays of the Ten Commandments in public schools.Featuring:Joe Davis, Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious LibertyDouglas Laycock, Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Virginia; Alice McKean Young Regents Chair in Law Emeritus, University of TexasMichael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Stanford Law School(Moderator) Hon. Ryan D. Nelson, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

This week, the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a Texas law requiring public schools to display a copy of the Ten Commandments in classrooms does not violate the First Amendment's Establishment or Free Exercise Clauses. The court explained that Stone v. Graham, which relied upon the now-defunct Lemon test to invalidate a similar Kentucky law decades ago, is no longer controlling. In the place of Lemon and its progeny, the en banc court explained, courts must ask whether a challenged law resembles a founding-era religious establishment. The court also held the challengers here failed to show the law substantially burdened their free exercise. Join us for a litigation update breaking down this ruling and what it may hold for Establishment and Free Exercise cases in the future. Featuring: Prof. Stephanie Barclay, Professor of Law and Faculty Director for the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, Georgetown University Law Center Prof. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law (Moderator) Joe Davis, Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

The First Amendment’s church autonomy doctrine sets a structural constitutional barrier keeping the State from interfering in certain matters of a church. While the doctrine’s roots go deeper than even the nation’s Founding, how exactly it protects churches has recently and sharply divided courts. Some courts say it provides broad protections for matters falling within its scope—barring not only liability for removing a wayward minister, but also entangling and distracting litigation into the merits of that minister’s claims. But other courts—over a chorus of dissenting colleagues—have narrowed church autonomy to barring liability only. This has many important implications, including whether there can be a right of appeal when trial courts deny church autonomy defenses and send cases to entangling merits adjudication. The Supreme Court has been asked to clarify the contours of this doctrine in a case stemming from a class action lawsuit against the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that challenges how the Catholic Church has described and used Peter's Pence, an offering that has been given to the Pope for over 1,000 years. Join us as a panel of experts explore the future of the church autonomy doctrine and what may unfold if the Supreme Court takes up the pending case concerning Peter's Pence. Featuring:Branton Nestor, Associate Attorney, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPProf. Lael Weinberger, Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University(Moderator) Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law and Faculty Director, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School

Originalism has quickly become the leading approach to interpreting the U.S. Constitution, drawing from the work of Justice Antonin Scalia and others over the past three decades. But what place does originalism have in the states? State constitutions often contain unique provisions that have no federal analogue. Take Alaska's unique constitutional provision empowering grand juries to investigate matters of public welfare and safety and to issue reports. This power falls outside the traditional role grand juries play and raises interesting questions. Recent scholarship published by the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy explores the text, history, and tradition behind this provision, offering a window into how originalism might operate differently at the state level. What lessons can be drawn about the similarities between originalist interpretation of state constitutions and the federal constitution? Does originalism look different from state to state and between state and federal governments? How might judges and scholars take up the originalist mantle and shed light on other underexplored state constitutional provisions? Join our panel of experts as they explore how originalism is playing out in the states. Featuring:Dr. Nicholas Cole, Senior Research Fellow, Pembroke College, University of Oxford; Director, the Quill ProjectHon. Stephen Cox, Attorney General, AlaskaProf. Richard Garnett, Paul J. Schierl Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolSavannah Shoffner, J.D. Candidate, Notre Dame Law School(Moderator) Hon. John D. Couriel, Justice, Florida Supreme Court(Introducer) Sean-Michael Pigeon, Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy

With the growth of the administrative state over the last half-century, an equal expansion has occurred in the number of actions committable by individual citizens that can be prosecuted as crimes. At President Trump’s direction, the U.S. Department of Justice has initiated a new round of reforms aimed at ending “over-criminalization” of the Nation’s complex web of regulatory laws and standards. Most recently, DOJ announced that it was exercising enforcement discretion to dismiss several Biden-era prosecutions of individuals charged with violating the Clean Air Act who were alleged to have tampered with emissions-related diagnostic systems on cars and trucks. Supporters of the Biden-era policies and critics of this new policy argue that such emissions control deliver considerable benefits to the owner in the form of better fuel efficiency, and to society, in the form of cleaner air, and that this is a step backwards in environmental enforcement. This panel will discuss DOJ’s traditional approaches to criminal enforcement of administrative laws and regulations and offer viewpoints on recent reforms and changes to criminal enforcement in the current administration. Discussion will focus, in particular, on the DOJ’s decision to end criminal prosecutions of individuals for vehicle tampering cases under the Clean Air Act.Featuring:Granta Nakayama, Partner, King & Spalding LLPJustin Savage, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP(Moderator) John Irving, Partner, Secil Law

America has historically led the way in intangible property rights. We were the first country to recognize copyright and patents in our constitution and became the first to recognize trade secrets as protectable assets in 1868. Property rules assume that the rights-holder has superior knowledge about how to use the property— when to share, when to exclude, and when to sell—and would do so without causing significant problems for others. Some see IP as a barrier to the free dissemination of ideas, art and inventions. Others argue that IP rights ensure control and appropriate returns for creators while unleashing an economic and creative engine that delivers trillions of dollars in value, high-quality jobs, life-saving medicines, and breathtaking works of beauty and ingenuity that wouldn’t otherwise exist.As modern debates swirl around everything from whether using copyrighted works to train generative AI should count as ‘fair use’, to whether medical diagnostic methods, business models and other abstract ideas should be patentable as they are overseas, to whether we should adopt European-style rules that treat privacy and data as a quasi-proprietary right or extend “rights of publicity” in the era of AI, this gathering of astute legal minds will return to first principles to explore a deceptively simple-sounding question: when should we recognize something as a property right? Join us for a deep dive into history, philosophy, and economics to understand some of the legal and policy dilemmas of our time, and whether and when expanding property rights is the answer.Featuring:Alden F. Abbott, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University; Former General Counsel at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)Prof. Jane Bambauer, Professor of Law and Journalism, University of FloridaJeffrey E. Depp, Senior Counsel for Law and Policy, Committee for Justice(Moderator) Satya Marar, Postgraduate Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University

The Trump Administration has been exploring new ways to tighten requirements for direct-to-consumer advertisements for prescription drugs. In its recent budget proposal, the Food and Drug Administration is asking Congress for new powers to deem drugs misbranded if they lack "fair balance" or create a "misleading impression" about a drug's approved uses or efficacy. In recent months, FDA has sent letters to Novo Nordisk, Argenx, and Sobi concerning ads it termed false or misleading. While some argue that banning drug ads on TV and online will lower drug prices and address overprescription, critics point out these increased efforts may violate the First Amendment's protection of commercial speech. The Supreme Court held in 1976 that prescription drug advertisements are protected by the Constitution and it reaffirmed this principle again in 2011, underscoring that the government may not ban truthful, non-misleading ads. Is the FDA trying to regulate away ads that it can't outright ban? How do these efforts implicate patients and their access to healthcare information? Join a panel of experts as they explore the constitutional and policy questions raised by the FDA's crack down on direct-to-consumer drug ads. Featuring:Paul Avelar, Senior Attorney, Institute for JusticeJeff Stier, Policy Advisor, Heartland Institute(Moderator) Dan Troy, Managing Director, Berkeley Research Group

In First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, 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.After federal courts dismissed the case as “unripe” and directed it to state court, the Third Circuit affirmed. On April 29, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding that First Choice had demonstrated a present injury sufficient to establish Article III standing based on its First Amendment claims.Join us to discuss the ruling and its implications for donor privacy and constitutional protections.Featuring: Prof. Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of LawCasey Mattox, Vice President for Legal Strategy, Stand Together

In Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana's congressional map, holding that the state had unconstitutionally relied on race in drawing district lines. The state's first map following the 2020 census contained one majority-black district, but the state redrew the map after a district court suggested that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act required the state to create two majority-black districts.The redrawn map was itself challenged, however, as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 6 - 3 decision ruling striking down the map. Louisiana had defended the map by arguing that it was required to consider race in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act, but the Court held that the VRA did not in fact require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district. Accordingly, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating the congressional map. Join us for a discussion of the decision and its implications going forward. Featuring:Bradley A. Benbrook, Founding Partner, Benbrook Law GroupProf. Michael R. Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School

In this Federalist Society America250 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.During the constitutional convention, Alexander Hamilton raised the idea of a presidential pardon power, borrowing from the British monarchy’s prerogative of mercy. Hamilton’s proposal ultimately resulted in Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the president the authority to pardon individuals convicted of a federal crime.The first presidential pardon was exercised by George Washington in 1795, when he granted amnesty to individuals who participated in Pennsylvania’s Whiskey Rebellion. Since then, there have been more than 14,000 instances of presidential pardons. From Andrew Johnson’s pardon of Jefferson Davis to Gerald Ford’s preemptive pardon of Richard Nixon to more recent instances including Joe Biden’s preemptive pardon of Hunter Biden and Donald Trump’s January 6th pardons, presidents’ use – and sometimes purported abuse – of the power has been a controversial and fiercely debated executive authority throughout our nation’s history.Join our panel of experts as they explore the Founders’ views of the pardon power and place recent use in context with the founding generation. Featuring:Paul J. Larkin, Senior Legal Fellow, Advancing American FreedomAndrew McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National Review Institute; Contributing Editor, National ReviewJames Trusty, Member, Ifrah Law(Moderator) Jeffrey DeSousa, Florida Office of the Attorney General