Uploaded May 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Since September 2025, California, Washington, and Oregon have barred federal agents from wearing masks. Other states are considering similar bills. At the same time, twenty-three states and the District of Columbia restrict masks in public, and states have used those laws against campus protesters opposing Israel’s actions in Gaza. Both sets of laws leave major constitutional and policy questions unsettled. State limits on masking by federal agents raise Supremacy Clause and preemption issues and prompt hard tradeoffs around officer safety, accountability, and operational security. Mask bans for protesters test whether the First Amendment protects anonymous protest. Join our panel of experts to examine how these fights could unfold in legislatures and courts—and what to watch next.
Featuring:
Prof. Ashutosh Bhagwat, Boochever and Bird Distinguished Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law
Bill Maurer, Managing Attorney of the Washington Office, Institute for Justice
(Moderator) Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Institute for the Rule of Law, Advancing American Freedom
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Since September 2025, California, Washington, and Oregon have barred federal agents from wearing masks. Other states are considering similar bills. At the same time, twenty-three states and the District of Columbia restrict masks in public, and states have used those laws against campus protesters opposing Israel’s actions in Gaza. Both sets of laws leave major constitutional and policy questions unsettled. State limits on masking by federal agents raise Supremacy Clause and preemption issues and prompt hard tradeoffs around officer safety, accountability, and operational security. Mask bans for protesters test whether the First Amendment protects anonymous protest. Join our panel of experts to examine how these fights could unfold in legislatures and courts—and what to watch next.
Featuring:
Prof. Ashutosh Bhagwat, Boochever and Bird Distinguished Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law
Bill Maurer, Managing Attorney of the Washington Office, Institute for Justice
(Moderator) Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Institute for the Rule of Law, Advancing American Freedom
* * * * *
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] Are Secret Gender Transition Policies Unconstitutional? Mirabelli v. Bonta & Parental Rights](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/g_Ypb8saAXM/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] Are Secret Gender Transition Policies Unconstitutional? Mirabelli v. Bonta & Parental Rights
Parental rights advocates celebrate the recent victory in Mirabelli v. Bonta, where the Supreme Court granted emergency relief to parents challenging a school district policy and California law requiring school officials to hide a students gender identity information from their parents. The majority in a 6-3 per curiam opinion found that the parents were likely to ultimately succeed on their claim that California’s policies violated their rights to freely exercise their religion and direct the upbringing and education of their children. The Court relied heavily on its 2025 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor that disallowing parents from opting kids out of LGBTQ-inclusive instruction unconstitutionally burdened their right to direct their childrens religious upbringing.
Mirabelli concerned specific California policies, but the decision will necessarily impact secret transition policies nationwide. Does the outcome signal the Supreme Courts willingness to take similar cases in the future? Did the court stray from its Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization rationale regarding substantive due process in Mirabelli, or can both decisions be reconciled, despite Justice Kagans dissenting opinion to the contrary? Are the Free Exercise Clause and substantive due process the most effective mechanisms for enforcing parental rights, or are there more suitable alternatives? Join us for a discussion with a panel of experts on what this case signals for the future of parental rights.
Featuring:
• Peter Breen, Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation, Thomas More Society; One of the Attorneys for the Mirabelli Plantiffs
• John Bursch, Senior Counsel and Vice President of Appellate Advocacy, Alliance Defending Freedom
• Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Senior Legal Fellow, Defending Education
• (Moderator) Eric Rassbach, Vice President and Senior Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/are-secret-gender-transition-policies-unconstitutional-mirabelli-v-bonta-and-the-new-frontier-in-parental-rights
* * * * *
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 Jurisprudence](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gk54ZKKjq9I/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] Justice Alitos Jurisprudence
This panel will examine Justice Samuel Alito’s jurisprudence as a whole, with particular attention to the principles and methodologies that have guided his judicial analysis and decision-making. Panelists will discuss Justice Alito’s approach to constitutional interpretation, precedent, and judicial restraint, as well as his views on the proper role of courts within the constitutional structure.
Featuring:
• Prof. J. Joel Alicea, Of Counsel to Cooper & Kirk and St. Robert Bellarmine Professor of Law at the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law
• Prof. Sherif Girgis, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
• Prof. E. Garrett West, Associate Professor of Law, Yale Law School
• Hon. Michael H. Park, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
• Moderator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
* * * * *
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] Did the Constitution Lay the Groundwork for Abolition?](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/iBx0JWFGE8Q/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] Did the Constitution Lay the Groundwork for Abolition?
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 the Constitution 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 Institute
• Prof. 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
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/did-the-constitution-lay-the-groundwork-for-abolition
* * * * *
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] Originalism and State Constitutions](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/iZFvV6XJQ4s/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] Originalism and State Constitutions
Originalism has quickly become the leading approach to interpreting the U.S. Constitution, drawing from the work of Justice Antonin Scalia and others over the past three decades. But what place does originalism have in the states?
State constitutions often contain unique provisions that have no federal analogue. Take Alaskas unique constitutional provision empowering grand juries to investigate matters of public welfare and safety and to issue reports. This power falls outside the traditional role grand juries play and raises interesting questions. Recent scholarship published by the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy explores the text, history, and tradition behind this provision, offering a window into how originalism might operate differently at the state level.
What lessons can be drawn about the similarities between originalist interpretation of state constitutions and the federal constitution? Does originalism look different from state to state and between state and federal governments? How might judges and scholars take up the originalist mantle and shed light on other underexplored state constitutional provisions? Join our panel of experts as they explore how originalism is playing out in the states.
Featuring:
• Dr. Nicholas Cole, Senior Research Fellow, Pembroke College, University of Oxford; Director, the Quill Project
• Hon. Stephen Cox, Attorney General, Alaska
• Prof. Richard Garnett, Paul J. Schierl Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
• Savannah Shoffner, J.D. Candidate, Notre Dame Law School
• (Moderator) Hon. John D. Couriel, Justice, Florida Supreme Court
• (Introducer) Sean-Michael Pigeon, Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/originalism-and-state-constitutions
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.")
