Uploaded August 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
In 2022, Florida enacted the Stop WOKE (Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees) Act, prohibiting indoctrination of race and gender ideology in a variety of educational and employment contexts. The law’s K-12 provisions remain in effect, but addressing a challenge to its higher education provisions, an Eleventh Circuit panel recently held “if the First Amendment offers any boundary of protection at all for public university classrooms, this statute crosses it.”
What is “academic freedom?” Whose right is it? What role do taxpayers and the lawmakers working on their behalf have in funding and setting curricular decisions for state universities? How might other decisions prohibiting compelled use by faculty of preferred pronouns or preventing adverse employment actions against conservative faculty members inform the discussion? Join our panel of experts as they explore the intersection of academic freedom, free speech, and the First Amendment.
Featuring:
Joe Cohn, Research Scholar in Law and Executive Director, Center for Academic Freedom and Free Speech, Yale Law School
Tyson Langhofer, Senior Counsel, Director of Center for Academic Freedom, Alliance Defending Freedom
May Mailman, Founder, MPL Strategies
(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal Strategy, Stand Together
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
In 2022, Florida enacted the Stop WOKE (Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees) Act, prohibiting indoctrination of race and gender ideology in a variety of educational and employment contexts. The law’s K-12 provisions remain in effect, but addressing a challenge to its higher education provisions, an Eleventh Circuit panel recently held “if the First Amendment offers any boundary of protection at all for public university classrooms, this statute crosses it.”
What is “academic freedom?” Whose right is it? What role do taxpayers and the lawmakers working on their behalf have in funding and setting curricular decisions for state universities? How might other decisions prohibiting compelled use by faculty of preferred pronouns or preventing adverse employment actions against conservative faculty members inform the discussion? Join our panel of experts as they explore the intersection of academic freedom, free speech, and the First Amendment.
Featuring:
Joe Cohn, Research Scholar in Law and Executive Director, Center for Academic Freedom and Free Speech, Yale Law School
Tyson Langhofer, Senior Counsel, Director of Center for Academic Freedom, Alliance Defending Freedom
May Mailman, Founder, MPL Strategies
(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal Strategy, Stand Together
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
![Shaped Docuseries [Ep.3] - Who Should Decide the Rules for AI?](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cb27rAonjwU/mqdefault.jpg "Shaped Docuseries [Ep.3] - Who Should Decide the Rules for AI?
Shaped Docuseries [Ep.3] - Who Should Decide the Rules for AI?")
![[LIVE] From the Courthouse Steps: Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/dL-iQ8dodEs/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] From the Courthouse Steps: Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook
In Trump v. Slaughter, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the Federal Trade Commissions (FTC) statutory for-cause removal protection violates the separation of powers, overruling Humphreys Executor. The Court reasoned that subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Thus, because the FTC exercises executive power, its Commissioners must be removable by the President at will.
Yet in Trump v. Cook, the Court, 5-4, denied the government’s request to stay an injunction blocking the removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. The Court held that a president’s asserted “for cause” statutory basis for removing a Federal Reserve governor is judicially reviewable and that Cook was entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond before removal. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts reasoned that the statute was enacted against the backdrop of the common law, and that any definition of “cause” in this context must reflect the Federal Reserve’s unique historical status and role.
Join us for a webinar breaking down both decisions, the separate opinions, and what they may mean for presidential removal power, independent agencies, the Federal Reserve, and the future of the administrative state.
Featuring:
• Adam 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
• Erin M. Hawley, Supreme Court & Appellate Litigation Chair, Lex Politica; Of Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/from-the-courthouse-steps-trump-v-slaughter-and-trump-v-cook
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.")
