FedSoc Forums

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 GroupStephanie L. Freudenberg, Counsel, Schaerr Jaffe LLPJacob H. Huebert, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties AllianceRyan 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

In National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) the Court is set to consider “whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with "party coordinated communications" as defined in 11 C.F.R. § 109.37.”.The case kicked off in 2022 when two Republican party committees brought suit against the FEC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. They contended the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) imposed unconstitutional restrictions on their capacity to coordinate campaign advertising with candidates, and that FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) which had upheld the restrictions as constitutional, had been made unsound by developments in law, facts, and precedent in the intervening time.As required by FECA for constitutional challenges, the district court certified the legal question to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc which upheld FECA. The Supreme Court granted cert. and Oral Argument is set to be heard on December 9, 2025.Join us for an expert breakdown of oral arguments.Featuring:Brett Nolan, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech

On June 27, 2025, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire challenging President Trump's Executive Order No. 14,160, which denies birthright citizenship to children born after February 19th, 2025 to parents who are either illegally present in or temporary residents of the United States. On July 10th, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction barring the execution of the order, and, in September, the Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari before judgment. The Court granted cert and will hear oral arguments in early 2026.The case hinges on the question of whether children born to illegal or temporary residents of the United States are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and thus entitled to citizenship under the 14th amendment. Join us for this timely discussion on a case with immense implications for immigration enforcement, our understanding of the 14th amendment, and the meaning of birthright citizenship.Featuring:Trent McCotter, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLCProf. Michael Ramsey, Warren Distinguished Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of LawProf. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School(Moderator) Prof. Randy Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center

The Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in Learning Resources v. Trump, a case examining the scope of presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and its use to impose tariffs. This program will break down the argument, highlight how the Justices probed IEEPA’s limits, and discuss what the Court’s decision may mean for executive power, trade policy, and the future deployment of emergency economic tools. Featuring:Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law, William & Mary Law SchoolAdam White, Laurence H. Silberman Chair in Constitutional Governance and Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Co-Director, Antonin Scalia Law School's C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State

On April 1, 2025, the Texas Association of Money Services Businesses filed suit in the Western District of Texas challenging a Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) order that lowered the cash-transaction reporting threshold from $10,000 to $200 for money-services businesses in certain Texas border ZIP codes, arguing the rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act and constitutional protections.Should the government be allowed to surveil your financial transactions? Where is the line drawn between protecting privacy and conducting legal investigations? What happens when regulators set standards that can't be met? Join us for a webinar examining Texas Association of Money Services Businesses v. Bondi. On this FedSoc forum, Robert Johnson and Nicholas Anthony will discuss the status of the case, its implications for the future, and the wider landscape of financial surveillance.Featuring:Nicholas Anthony, Policy Analyst, Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, Cato Institute(Moderator) Robert Johnson, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice

Humphrey's Executor v. United States, decided in 1935, upheld the Federal Trade Commission Act, declaring that a president can remove an FTC commissioner only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In March 2025, FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter was notified of her removal by President Trump, who stated in a letter that for her to remain an FTC commissioner was “inconsistent with [the] Administration’s priorities.” Slaughter won in district court, which ordered her reinstatement. After the D.C. Court of Appeals denied the government’s request for a stay, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and stayed the lower court’s ruling. Join us for a discussion of oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter and the questions it presents about separation of powers, for-cause removal, and the future of Humphrey's Executor. Featuring:Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP(Moderator) Bilal Sayyed, Counsel, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Gabriel Olivier is an evangelical Christian who often shares his faith in public. In May 2021, when sharing his faith near an amphitheater in a public park in Brandon, Mississippi, the city’s chief of police confronted Olivier with a recently amended city ordinance requiring “protests” to occur in a designated area. Olivier repositioned himself but soon returned when the designated area proved remote and isolating. The city charged Olivier for violating the ordinance, and he pled nolo contendere and agreed to pay a fine. Olivier then challenged the ordinance under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, seeking an injunction prohibiting future enforcement of the law against his expressive activity. The district court barred Olivier’s request for injunctive relief, applying the preclusion doctrine from Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). As a result, Olivier cannot challenge the ordinance, even though he alleges that it continues to restrict his speech and risks future penalties. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, splitting from the Ninth and Tenth Circuits and deepening a circuit split on whether Heck applies to noncustodial plaintiffs who cannot access habeas relief. The Fifth Circuit denied rehearing en banc by one vote, over dissents arguing Olivier’s plea should not bar future constitutional protection. In July, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.Join us for an expert breakdown of oral arguments.Featuring:Nathan Kellum, Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute(Moderator) Steven Burnett, Clinical Instructional Fellow, Religious Freedom Clinic, Harvard Law School

In First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin, 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.First Choice filed an action in federal court, but the district court twice dismissed the case, finding it "unripe" and requiring that the constitutional issues first be adjudicated in state court. The Third Circuit affirmed this decision.The Supreme Court will consider whether, when the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, a federal court in a first-filed action is deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court. This case addresses broader issues, including the power of state officials and the role of federal courts in protecting First Amendment rights from chilling effects caused by state action.Join us for an expert breakdown of oral arguments.Featuring:Christopher E. Mills, Principal, Spero Law LLC(Moderator) Christopher Bates, Shareholder, Kirton McConkie

Damon Landor, a state prisoner and practicing Rastafarian, refused to cut his hair as an expression of his faith. After prison officials forcibly restrained and shaved him, Landor sued under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which prohibits governments from imposing unnecessary “substantial burdens” on inmates’ religious exercise. The district court, and later the Fifth Circuit, rejected his claim, holding that monetary damages were not an available form of “appropriate relief” under the statute.The Supreme Court has granted certiorari to decide whether RLUIPA allows prisoners to seek damages against government officials in their personal capacities for violations of religious rights. Oral argument is set for November 10, 2025.Featuring:Meredith Holland Kessler, Managing Attorney, Lindsay and Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic and Term Teaching Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School(Moderator) Joshua C. McDaniel, Assistant Clinical Professor of Law & Director, Religious Freedom Clinic, Harvard Law School

What does the district court’s recent decision in FTC v. Meta portend for the future of the technology sector, free expression, and modern antitrust enforcement? After years of litigation, Judge James Boasberg concluded that the FTC had not established that Meta possesses monopoly power in the relevant social-media market, foreclosing the agency’s bid to unwind Meta’s long-standing acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.The ruling has prompted vigorous commentary, including renewed debate over the proper role of courts in reviewing ambitious agency theories of market power and competitive harm.Join our panel, featuring former FTC officials and veterans of the Trump Administration, for a timely discussion of the opinion, the critiques, and what this moment may signal for the trajectory of federal competition policy.Featuring: Jennifer Huddleston, Senior Fellow, Technology Policy, Cato InstituteBilal Sayyed, Counsel, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLPDaniel Suhr, President, Center for American Rights(Moderator) Asheesh Agarwal, Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce

In Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, the Supreme Court is set to determine whether an internet service provider can be held liable—and deemed to have acted willfully—for copyright infringement based solely on its knowledge of user misconduct and its failure to terminate those users’ access. Sony Music and a group of music publishers sued Cox, alleging that its subscribers illegally downloaded copyrighted works through Cox’s network. The Supreme Court will review a 4th Circuit ruling holding that an internet service provider could be liable for vast copyright damages because it took insufficient steps to disconnect IP addresses accused of downloading copyrighted material. Oral argument is set for December 1. 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: Devlin Hartline, Senior Fellow, Forum for Intellectual Property, Hudson Institute (Moderator) Prof. Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law

Join us for a timely webinar examining the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Revision to Rules of Practice Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,” which proposes significant changes to how inter partes review (IPR) petitions are instituted. This session will present arguments from both sides while covering how the proposed rules aim to curb serial and duplicative challenges, shift institution discretion, and bolster patent­holder certainty, while also covering concerns about limiting access to review and adverse impacts on operating companies. With the official public comment deadline extended to December 2, 2025, this webinar aims to provide informative insight before the comment window closes. Don’t miss this chance to hear competing views on one of the most consequential patent-policy debates of the year. Featuring: Hon. Andrei Iancu, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLPDavid Jones, Executive Director, High Tech Inventors AllianceJoseph Matal, Principal, Clear IP, LLCBrian O'Shaughnessy, Partner, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP(Moderator) Robert Rando, Partner, Patrick Doerr

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.Urias-Orellana v. Bondi (December 1) - Immigration; Issue(s): Whether a federal court of appeals must defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals' judgment that a given set of undisputed facts does not demonstrate mistreatment severe enough to constitute "persecution" under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entm't (December 1) - Copyright Infringement; Issue(s): (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit erred in holding that a service provider can be held liable for "materially contributing" to copyright infringement merely because it knew that people were using certain accounts to infringe and did not terminate access, without proof that the service provider affirmatively fostered infringement or otherwise intended to promote it; and (2) whether the 4th Circuit erred in holding that mere knowledge of another"s direct infringement suffices to find willfulness under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin (December 2) - First Amendment; Issue(s): Whether, when the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, a federal court in a first-filed action is deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court.Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi (December 3) - Civil Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether this court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey bars claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking purely prospective relief where the plaintiff has been punished before under the law challenged as unconstitutional; and (2) whether Heck v. Humphrey bars Section 1983 claims by plaintiffs even where they never had access to federal habeas relief.Trump v. Slaughter (Independent Agencies) (December 8) - Presidential Removal Powers; Administrative Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States should be overruled. (2) Whether a federal court may prevent a person’s removal from public office, either through relief at equity or at law.National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission (December 9) - Election Law; Issue(s): Whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with "party coordinated communications" as defined in 11 C.F.R. " 109.37.Hamm v. Smith (December 10) - Capital Punishment; Issue(s): Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim.FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. (December 10) - Financial Services; Securities; Issue(s): Whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act creates an implied private right of action. Featuring:David W. Casazza, Associate Attorney, Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher LLPBoyd Garriott, Associate, Wiley Rein LLPCaleb Kruckenberg, Litigation Director, Center for Individual RightsProf. Michael T. Morley, Sheila M. McDevitt Professor of Law & Faculty Director of the Election Law Center, Florida State University College of LawJoel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLPProf. Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law(Moderator) Jill Jacobson, Litigation Associate, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

A recent executive order entitled “Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations” and two congressional proposals: the Count the Crimes to Cut Act and the Mens Rea Reform Act (also known as the default-mens-rea proposal), all have highlighted long-standing discussions on federal overcriminalization. These initiatives were spotlighted during the May 7, 2025 hearing of the House Judiciary Committee. Join us for a panel discussion that will consider whether these reforms can meaningfully address the problem of a sprawling federal criminal code—one that may, in some areas, lack clarity and undermine individual liberty by exposing the public to ill-defined or overly broad criminal liability.Featuring: John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage FoundationShana O’Toole, Founder & President, Due Process InstituteProf. Kenneth W. Simons, Chancellor’s Professor of Law, UC Irvine School of Law(Moderator) Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime

Anna Lange, an employee with the Houston County Sheriff’s Office, sought “male-to-female sex change surgery.” The county’s employer-provided health insurance policy covered some treatments for gender dysphoria, but it excluded drugs, services, and supplies for a “sex-change” (among other categories). Lange sued, claiming the policy discriminated based on sex and transgender status in violation of Title VII. The district court, affirmed by an Eleventh Circuit panel, held that the policy facially violated Title VII under Bostock v. Clayton County. On rehearing en banc, the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that the county’s policy, which drew a line between which treatments it covers, “is not facial discrimination based on protected status.”Lange v. Houston County, decided on September 9, 2025, is one of the first circuit court decisions to apply the Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which held that Tennessee’s law prohibiting healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to transition a minor's gender did not discriminate based on sex or transgender status in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Join Christopher Mills and Rachel Morrison for a discussion of Lange, its application of Skrmetti and Bostock, and its implications for Title VII and insurance coverage.Featuring:Christopher E. Mills, Principal, Spero Law LLC(Moderator) Rachel N. Morrison, Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center

In Born Equal: Remaking America’s Constitution, 1840–1920, Prof. Akhil Reed Amar traces the arc of American constitutional debate from the post-Founding era to the Progressive Era, focusing especially on America’s fundamental question raised originally by our Declaration of Independence: what does it mean to say that all men and women are “created equal”? To explore this question and the broader themes of his book, he will be interviewed by AEI senior fellow Adam White. Featuring: Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale 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

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), created under the America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011, has long been a source of debate. The Supreme Court has reviewed several of its procedures, and Congress has introduced PTAB reform bills in every session since 2017.A core PTAB function is deciding Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions that challenge patent validity. Under new PTO leadership, IPR institution rates have sharply declined, prompting complaints from companies like SAP America and Motorola, which claim they were unfairly harmed by the shift and that the PTO has not provided adequate legal justification. PTO Director John Squires has defended the new direction, announcing he will personally decide all preliminary IPR institutions—a task previously handled by three-judge panels. The PTO has also proposed rules requiring petitioners to waive future prior art challenges to qualify for IPR institution.This webinar will examine the SAP and Motorola petitions, Director Squires’s policy memo, and their implications for PTAB reform, the AIA framework, and the constitutional foundations of U.S. patent law.Featuring: Arthur Gollwitzer, Partner, Jackson Walker LLPJamie Simpson, Chief Policy Officer and Counsel, The Council for Innovation PromotionRobert Taylor, Founder and Owner, RPT Legal Strategies PC[Moderator] Philip Nelson, Partner, Knobbe Martens

While President Trump’s Executive Orders directed at individual law firms drew immediate attention, the administration’s broader enforcement of nondiscrimination employment law in the legal industry has gone comparatively unanalyzed. In March, Acting EEOC Chairman Andrea Lucas wrote letters to 20 large law firms requesting information on their employment practices (at least four of those firms subsequently settled with the Commission). In May, Americans for Equal Opportunity filed an EEOC charge challenging the legality of allegedly discriminatory programs administered by Sponsors for Educational Opportunity and its 44 law-firm partners. These processes are necessarily opaque, leaving the status of EEOC investigations (other than those publicly settled) unclear. As the EEOC appears to continue investigating these varying sets of programs and allegations, we pause to consider the merits of these matters.Featuring:Jonathan A. Segal, Partner, Duane Morris LLP; Managing Principal, Duane Morris InstituteAlison Somin, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation(Moderator) Dan Morenoff, Executive Director & Secretary, American Civil Rights Project; Adjunct Fellow, Manhattan Institute

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. Rico v. U.S. (November 3) - Fugitive-Tolling; Issue(s): Whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release. Hencely v. Fluor Corporation (November 4) - Federal Tort Claims Act;Issue(s): Whether Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. should be extended to allow federal interests emanating from the Federal Tort Claims Act’s combatant-activities exception to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders. The Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist (November 4) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a district court's final judgment as to completely diverse parties must be vacated when an appellate court later determines that it erred by dismissing a non-diverse party at the time of removal. Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited v. Burton (November 5) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (November 5) - Tariffs, IEEPA; Issue (s): Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the president to impose tariffs. The GEO Group v. Menocal (November 10) - Sovereign Immunity; Issue(s): Whether an order denying a government contractor’s claim of derivative sovereign immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine. Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety (November 10) - Civil Rights; Issue(s): Whether an individual may sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. Rutherford v. U.S. (November 12) - First Step Act; Issue(s): Whether a district court may consider disparities created by the First Step Act’s prospective changes in sentencing law when deciding if “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Fernandez v. U.S. (November 12) - Compassionate Release; Issue(s): Whether a combination of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that may warrant a discretionary sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) can include reasons that may also be alleged as grounds for vacatur of a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Featuring: Prof. Thomas C. Berg, James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of Law Zac Morgan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation Prof. Jacob Schuman, Associate Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law Prof. Erica Zunkel, Director of Clinical and Experiential Learning, Clinical Professor of Law, & Director of the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Clinic, University of Chicago Law School (Moderator) Logan Spena, Legal Counsel, Center for Free Speech, Alliance Defending Freedom