Uploaded July 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Unlike most nations, the United States eschews centralized control over its system of higher education in favor of a more decentralized “regulatory triad” of accreditation agencies, state licensing authorities, and certification by the U.S. Department of Education to participate in federal student aid programs. To qualify for federal student loans and grants, colleges and universities must be institutionally accredited by an Education Department-recognized accrediting agency. As gatekeepers of federal financial aid, accreditors have great sway over their institutions. President Trump issued an executive order on "Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education," and the Education Department recently commenced negotiated rulemaking on new accreditation regulations and intends to publish a final rule by November 1, 2026.
But what is the purpose of accreditation, and how much power do accreditors hold? What is the connection to federal funding, and how are determinations of "academic quality" made? Do the current accreditation processes and recognized agencies meet their aims? What is the role of the Department’s National Advisory Committee for Institutional Quality and Integrity in this process? What can the public expect to see in the Department’s new accreditation regulations? To what extent, if at all, can the Department use its recognition authority over accreditors effectively to address such topics as campus free speech, academic freedom, DEI, and other controversial issues?
Join us for a discussion on the nuts and bolts of accreditation and what the current process means for the state of higher education in America today.
Featuring:
Robert S. Eitel, Co-Founder and President, Defense of Freedom Institute
Jonathan Helwink, Principal, Helwink Legal Group, PLLC
Adam Kissel, Visiting Lecturer in Formal Organizations, Trinity College
(Moderator) Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Senior Legal Fellow, Defending Education
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Unlike most nations, the United States eschews centralized control over its system of higher education in favor of a more decentralized “regulatory triad” of accreditation agencies, state licensing authorities, and certification by the U.S. Department of Education to participate in federal student aid programs. To qualify for federal student loans and grants, colleges and universities must be institutionally accredited by an Education Department-recognized accrediting agency. As gatekeepers of federal financial aid, accreditors have great sway over their institutions. President Trump issued an executive order on "Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education," and the Education Department recently commenced negotiated rulemaking on new accreditation regulations and intends to publish a final rule by November 1, 2026.
But what is the purpose of accreditation, and how much power do accreditors hold? What is the connection to federal funding, and how are determinations of "academic quality" made? Do the current accreditation processes and recognized agencies meet their aims? What is the role of the Department’s National Advisory Committee for Institutional Quality and Integrity in this process? What can the public expect to see in the Department’s new accreditation regulations? To what extent, if at all, can the Department use its recognition authority over accreditors effectively to address such topics as campus free speech, academic freedom, DEI, and other controversial issues?
Join us for a discussion on the nuts and bolts of accreditation and what the current process means for the state of higher education in America today.
Featuring:
Robert S. Eitel, Co-Founder and President, Defense of Freedom Institute
Jonathan Helwink, Principal, Helwink Legal Group, PLLC
Adam Kissel, Visiting Lecturer in Formal Organizations, Trinity College
(Moderator) Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Senior Legal Fellow, Defending Education
* * * * *
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 Were the Founders Views of Citizenship? The Founders Gave Us the Tools Series](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/uVBNAZFa22U/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] What Were the Founders Views of Citizenship? The Founders Gave Us the Tools Series
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.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara and consider the contours of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, join us for a panel discussion looking back to the Founding Era to ask: What were the Founders views of citizenship?
American citizenship is a priceless gift, but what does it entail? Who can be a citizen? What rights and responsibilities flow from citizenship? And how did the Founders’ answers to these questions differ from contemporary practice? Join us for this discussion exploring how the community that framed the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution understood the rights and duties of citizenship in the American republic, and the implications of that understanding for current debates over immigration.
Featuring:
• Richard Brookhiser, Senior Editor, National Review; Historian and Author of What Would the Founders Do?: Our Questions, Their Answers
• Prof. Jud Campbell, Professor of Law and Helen L. Crocker Faculty Scholar, Stanford Law School; Author of General Citizenship Rights, Yale Law Journal
• Prof. Thomas Lee, Leitner Family Professor of International Law, Fordham School of Law; Author of Natural Born Citizen, American University Law Review
• (Moderator) Elle Rogers Bernstein, General Counsel, U.S. Senator Jim Banks
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/what-were-the-founders-views-of-citizenship
* * * * *
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] Justice Alitos Impact on Statutory Interpretation](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/uaqwrn24c20/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] Justice Alitos Impact on Statutory Interpretation
Justice Alito’s statutory interpretation jurisprudence reflects a sustained commitment to textual analysis, structural coherence, and due respect for legislative prerogatives. This panel will assess his approach to interpreting federal statutes, including his treatment of statutory text, legislative history, and administrative deference. Through an examination of significant cases, panelists will explore how Justice Alito’s methodology has shaped outcomes across a range of substantive areas and contributed to broader debates over the judiciary’s role in construing and applying enacted law.
Featuring:
• Hon. Charles J. Cooper, Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC; Former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice
• Hon. Gregory Katsas, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
• Eric M. Palmer, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
• Moderator: Prof. Robert George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University
* * * * *
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] The End of ESG Collusion? A Conversation on the Vanguard Case](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/v_tsKjQ-hRQ/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] The End of ESG Collusion? A Conversation on the Vanguard Case
This week, investment fund manager The Vanguard Group committed to ending its ESG-driven investment initiatives, ceasing any efforts to influence portfolio companies’ business strategies toward carbon-emissions reductions, enhancing disclosure of its proxy voting activities, and producing records related to its participation in climate-related organizations. The multi-state suit, led by Texas, asserted that Vanguard and other investment managers engaged in a coordinated effort to drive up the price of coal and misrepresented the nature of their funds to investors. In this landmark settlement agreement, Vanguard has agreed to make the strongest passivity commitments in the industry and empower investors with proxy voting. What are the implications of this settlement for future federal and state action against coordinated ESG-driven market manipulation? Join us for a timely discussion as experts unpack the details of the Vanguard settlement.
Featuring:
• Will Hild, Executive Director, Consumers Research
• Brent Webster, First Assistant Attorney General of Texas
• (Moderator) Paul N. Watkins, Partner, Fusion Law
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/the-end-of-esg-collusion-a-conversation-on-the-vanguard-case
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.")
![This or That - National Student Symposium Edition [Ep.4]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/wNn5qdd3ahc/mqdefault.jpg "This or That - National Student Symposium Edition [Ep.4]
This or that? Student Symposium edition! 🤔
Share your answers with us in the comments!")
