Uploaded March 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
On March 14, 2026, the Federalist Society presented the Joseph Story Award to Prof. J. Joel Alicea of the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America.
Given annually, the award recognizes a young academic who has demonstrated excellence in legal scholarship, a commitment to teaching, a concern for students, and who has made a significant public impact in a manner that advances the rule of law in a free society.
Learn more about the Joseph Story Award:
fedsoc.org/joseph-story-award
Learn more about Prof. J. Joel Alicea:
https://www.law.edu/about-us/faculty-and-staff/directory/expert-faculty/alicea-joel/index.html
00:24 - Aaron Clamage Photography © American Enterprise Institute
2:19 - Aaron Clamage Photography © American Enterprise Institute
3:13 - Aaron Clamage Photography © American Enterprise Institute
3:17 - Rui Barros Photography
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
On March 14, 2026, the Federalist Society presented the Joseph Story Award to Prof. J. Joel Alicea of the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America.
Given annually, the award recognizes a young academic who has demonstrated excellence in legal scholarship, a commitment to teaching, a concern for students, and who has made a significant public impact in a manner that advances the rule of law in a free society.
Learn more about the Joseph Story Award:
fedsoc.org/joseph-story-award
Learn more about Prof. J. Joel Alicea:
https://www.law.edu/about-us/faculty-and-staff/directory/expert-faculty/alicea-joel/index.html
00:24 - Aaron Clamage Photography © American Enterprise Institute
2:19 - Aaron Clamage Photography © American Enterprise Institute
3:13 - Aaron Clamage Photography © American Enterprise Institute
3:17 - Rui Barros Photography
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
![[LIVE] From Pork Producers to Suncor: Extraterritoriality and Our Constitutional Structure](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/m5fyrgam8DM/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] From Pork Producers to Suncor: Extraterritoriality and Our Constitutional Structure
How far can states go in regulating conduct that has effects outside their borders?
At the Founding, the states entered a constitutional union in part because the Articles of Confederation proved incapable of managing interstate conflicts and preventing individual states from imposing burdens on their neighbors. At the same time, many of the Framers grew concerned that unchecked state legislatures, driven by local interests and factional pressures, threatened both individual rights and the stability of the Union. The Constitution created a framework designed to preserve both state sovereignty and a functioning union. Today, some commentators argue that climate litigation presents a modern version of those same concerns.
In a case currently pending before the Supreme Court, Suncor Energy v. Boulder County, Colorado local governments are seeking massive financial damages under state tort law for global climate-related harms.
Supporters of the energy companies contend that climate regulation is an inherently national and international issue, and therefore cannot be governed through a patchwork of state tort regimes or localized litigation. On the other side, the local governments argue that these suits involve traditional exercises of state police power–including nuisance, fraud, and consumer-protection law. While proponents frame these suits as localized consumer-protection disputes, critics argue they represent a dangerous breakdown of our constitutional architecture.
Notably, many of the amicus briefs filed in Suncor frame the dispute not merely as a question of statutory preemption, but as a broader debate over the structural Constitution itself—including the proper allocation of authority among Congress, courts, and the states. Is this case an example of the Constitution imposing structural limits to prevent individual states from effectively regulating the nation through litigation? Or does it embody the principle that states retain broad sovereign authority absent clear federal displacement? And what does the structural Constitution require of Congress, courts, and the states in resolving those conflicts?
More broadly, what are the constitutional limits on states regulations that impact activities outside their borders and what is the source for those limits? Three years ago, the Supreme Court made clear in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross that such restrictions are not found in the Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine. Does the structural Constitution answer that question, or is the answer found in one or more particular provisions of the Constitution?
Join us for a discussion examining these questions.
Featuring:
• Prof. Michael Greve, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
• Prof. Daniel Rodriguez, Harold Washington Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
• O.H. Skinner, Executive Director, Alliance For Consumers
• Michael Williams, Solicitor General, West Virginia
• (Moderator) Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/from-pork-producers-to-suncor-extraterritoriality-and-our-constitutional-structure
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.")
![[LIVE] What Was an Establishment of Religion at the Founding?](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/nVaBKoBRuJQ/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] What Was an Establishment of Religion at the Founding?
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 Clauses 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 Liberty
• Douglas Laycock, Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Virginia; Alice McKean Young Regents Chair in Law Emeritus, University of Texas
• Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
• (Moderator) Hon. Ryan D. Nelson, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/what-was-an-establishment-of-religion-at-the-founding
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.")
![[LIVE] A Seat at the Sitting: The February Docket in 90 Minutes or Less](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/qH5H8qXjJ34/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] A Seat at the Sitting: The February Docket in 90 Minutes or Less
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.
• Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, (February 23) - International Law, LIBERTAD Act; Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff under Title III of the LIBERTAD Act must prove that the defendant trafficked in property confiscated by the Cuban government as to which the plaintiff owns a claim, or instead that the defendant trafficked in property that the plaintiff would have continued to own at the time of trafficking in a counterfactual world as if there had been no expropriation.
• Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A. (February 23) - International Law, FISA; Issue(s): Whether the Helms-Burton Act abrogates foreign sovereign immunity in cases against Cuban instrumentalities, or whether parties proceeding under that act must also satisfy an exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
• Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel (February 24) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether district courts have the authority to excuse the 30-day procedural time limit for removal in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).
• Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan (February 25) - Property Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment when the compensation is based on the artificially depressed auction sale price rather than the property’s fair market value; and (2) whether the forfeiture of real property worth far more than needed to satisfy a tax debt but sold for a fraction of its real value constitutes an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, particularly when the debt was never actually owed.
• United States v. Hemani (March 2) - 2nd Amendment, Criminal Law; Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent.
• Hunter v. United States (March 3) - Criminal Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether the only permissible exceptions to a general appeal waiver are for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum; and (2) whether an appeal waiver applies when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to appeal and the government does not object.
• Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC (March 4) - Labor and Employment Law; Issue(s): Whether a federal statute, 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c), preempts a state common-law claim against a broker for negligently selecting a motor carrier or driver.
Featuring:
• Jay R. Carson, Senior Litigator, The Buckeye Institute
• Jeffrey S. Hobday, Assistant Attorney General, Opinions Unit, Ohio Attorney General’s Office
• Mary E. Miller, Partner, Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP
• Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage Foundation
• Jordan Von Bokern, Senior Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center
• (Moderator) Sam Gedge, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/a-seat-at-the-sitting-february-2026
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.")
