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, AustinEric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney GeneralJohn 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 PLLCRobert 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 ServicesJonathan Fredman, Former Chief Counsel to the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) Counterterrorist Center, Central Intelligence AgencyProf. 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 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