Uploaded March 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Half a century ago, as the United States prepared to celebrate its bicentennial, the Supreme Court was asked to reckon with the fruits of Watergate. In response to that scandal, Congress had imposed systematic restrictions on the raising and spending of funds in federal campaigns and invited—indeed, commanded—the Court’s review. The result, Buckley v. Valeo, is the central precedent governing the Constitution’s application to political speech and association.
Buckley has remained a durable pillar of First Amendment jurisprudence, but it remains controversial across the political spectrum. Attacked as both too restrictive and too permissive, can it survive to the nation’s tricentennial?
Please join the Federalist Society for a luncheon discussion of Buckley’s half-century legacy and possible future.
Featuring:
- Remarks from Keynote speaker, Professor Joel M. Gora, Counsel for the ACLU in Buckley v. Valeo
- Hon. Bradley A. Smith, Founder & Chairman, Institute for Free Speech; Former Chairman, Federal Election Commission
- Hon. Allen J. Dickerson, Partner, BakerHostetler; Former Chairman, Federal Election Commission
- Mr. Adav Noti, Executive Director, Campaign Legal Center; Former Associate General Counsel, Federal Election Commission
-(Moderator) Lindsey Melody Specht, Of Counsel, Dickinson Wright PLLC
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Half a century ago, as the United States prepared to celebrate its bicentennial, the Supreme Court was asked to reckon with the fruits of Watergate. In response to that scandal, Congress had imposed systematic restrictions on the raising and spending of funds in federal campaigns and invited—indeed, commanded—the Court’s review. The result, Buckley v. Valeo, is the central precedent governing the Constitution’s application to political speech and association.
Buckley has remained a durable pillar of First Amendment jurisprudence, but it remains controversial across the political spectrum. Attacked as both too restrictive and too permissive, can it survive to the nation’s tricentennial?
Please join the Federalist Society for a luncheon discussion of Buckley’s half-century legacy and possible future.
Featuring:
- Remarks from Keynote speaker, Professor Joel M. Gora, Counsel for the ACLU in Buckley v. Valeo
- Hon. Bradley A. Smith, Founder & Chairman, Institute for Free Speech; Former Chairman, Federal Election Commission
- Hon. Allen J. Dickerson, Partner, BakerHostetler; Former Chairman, Federal Election Commission
- Mr. Adav Noti, Executive Director, Campaign Legal Center; Former Associate General Counsel, Federal Election Commission
-(Moderator) Lindsey Melody Specht, Of Counsel, Dickinson Wright PLLC
* * * * *
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] Civil Rights in the Second Trump Administration: A Whole-of-Government Shift](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/zASIvgg-vWk/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] Civil Rights in the Second Trump Administration: A Whole-of-Government Shift
Shortly after retaking office, President Trump signed executive orders reorienting the federal government’s approach to civil rights. Those orders directed agencies to identify and eliminate unlawful diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and other practices involving race- or sex-based discrimination, while emphasizing equal treatment, individual merit, and nondiscrimination. In April of last year, Executive Order 14281 (Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy) went further, announcing a policy to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible — placing renewed focus on one of the oldest and most consequential debates in antidiscrimination law.
Join us for a webinar that examines how the administration’s civil rights agenda is being implemented across the federal government.
Featuring:
Hon. Brittany Bull Panuccio, Commissioner, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Hon. Craig Trainor, Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Hon. Devon Westhill, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Agriculture
(Moderator) Hon. Ken Marcus, Founder, Chairman, and CEO, The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/civil-rights-in-the-second-trump-administration-a-whole-of-government-shift
* * * * *
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 Would the Founders Think of the War in Iran?](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/znJWip58stE/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] What Would the Founders Think of the War in Iran?
In this Federalist Society America 250 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.
The Founders drew their understanding of international law — known at the time as the law of nations — from 18th Century classical texts. Hamilton, Madison, Jay, Jefferson, and others all studied the edition of Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations, released on the eve of the American Revolution. Its precepts were analyzed in The Federalist Papers, debated in the Constitutional Convention, and resulted in a few basic principles. First, along with the Constitution and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, all Treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme Law of the Land. Second, the Define and Punish Clause gives Congress the power to define and punish . . . Offenses against the Law of Nations.” The Founders viewed the right of self-defense as a fundamental, inherent natural right of nations. They recognized the right of preemptive use of force in anticipatory self defense. This right had an expansive interpretation, allowing actions against credible threats without awaiting an actual first strike. There was room for argument on how “imminent” the threat must be. Current international law on this issue consists of the UN Charter and contemporary understandings and interpretations of customary international law.
This Forum will bring together two foremost scholars, each expert in both the Founders’ understanding and the current understanding of international law, for a conversation about the historic and contemporary interpretations of the propriety of our current war against Iran and related matters.
Featuring:
• Prof. Martin S. Flaherty, Charles and Marie Robertson Visiting Professor, School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University
• Prof. Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor Emeritus of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
• (Moderator) Dr. Sohan Dasgupta,Assistant Secretary for Trade and Economic Security, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (former) | Political Head, Millennium Challenge Corporation (former) | Managing Director, Berkeley Research Group (BRG)
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/what-would-the-founders-think-of-the-war-in-iran
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.")
