Uploaded July 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Controversy has swirled for years over litigation in which a plaintiff sues a friendly government defendant, and the case concludes with a favorable settlement. Critics argue that this practice creates a non-adversarial process that allows aligned litigants and agencies to shape policy and reward political allies outside the normal rulemaking and appropriations procedures. Defenders respond that these settlements generally resolve legitimate claims while conserving judicial resources and taxpayer dollars. The debate intensified during the Obama administration as the practice proliferated, particularly in environmental consent decrees.
The controversy received renewed attention after the district court’s July 13 ruling in Trump v. IRS, concerning the settlement of President Trump's lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. The court concluded that the parties were never genuinely adverse and that there was therefore no Article III case or controversy. Its order went further, however. Reasoning that the suit was brought for an improper purpose, the court imposed sanctions on the plaintiffs and their counsel and directed that the order be transmitted to the bar authorities of senior DOJ officials.
Join us for a discussion of Trump v. IRS, and the broader legal and policy concerns surrounding sue-and-settle litigation.
Featuring:
Anne Austin, Senior Advisor, Burke Law Group
Zhonette M. Brown, General Counsel, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Abhishek Kambli, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC
(Moderator) John Shu, Attorney and Legal Commentator
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Controversy has swirled for years over litigation in which a plaintiff sues a friendly government defendant, and the case concludes with a favorable settlement. Critics argue that this practice creates a non-adversarial process that allows aligned litigants and agencies to shape policy and reward political allies outside the normal rulemaking and appropriations procedures. Defenders respond that these settlements generally resolve legitimate claims while conserving judicial resources and taxpayer dollars. The debate intensified during the Obama administration as the practice proliferated, particularly in environmental consent decrees.
The controversy received renewed attention after the district court’s July 13 ruling in Trump v. IRS, concerning the settlement of President Trump's lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. The court concluded that the parties were never genuinely adverse and that there was therefore no Article III case or controversy. Its order went further, however. Reasoning that the suit was brought for an improper purpose, the court imposed sanctions on the plaintiffs and their counsel and directed that the order be transmitted to the bar authorities of senior DOJ officials.
Join us for a discussion of Trump v. IRS, and the broader legal and policy concerns surrounding sue-and-settle litigation.
Featuring:
Anne Austin, Senior Advisor, Burke Law Group
Zhonette M. Brown, General Counsel, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Abhishek Kambli, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC
(Moderator) John Shu, Attorney and Legal Commentator
* * * * *
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] Trial by Jury or Administrative Adjudication: What Would the Founders Say?](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/NojREJndJdI/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] Trial by Jury or Administrative Adjudication: What Would the Founders Say?
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 regarded trial by jury as an indispensable check on government power, and the Fifth and Seventh Amendments enshrined that guarantee. In recent decades, however, the proliferation of administrative adjudication has steadily displaced the jury from disputes between citizens and the state. While the Supreme Courts decision in SEC v. Jarkesy was a significant step toward restoring the constitutional baseline, much work remains. Lower courts continue to rely on Atlas Roofing Co. v. OSHA to uphold agency adjudication of claims that, at the Founding, would have been tried before a jury. Cases like the recently decided FCC v. AT&T and next terms Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC illustrate just how far modern practice has drifted from constitutional design.
Thomas Jefferson identified the jury as the only anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution. Yet today, Americans routinely face penalties imposed by federal agencies, not juries of their peers. Join us for a Federalist Society America 250 panel discussion looking back to the Founding Era to ask: What has become of the right to a jury trial in actions brought by the federal government?
Featuring:
• Robert E. Johnson, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
• Prof. Renée Lerner, Donald Phillip Rothschild Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School
• Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
• (Moderator) Hon. Jennifer Walker Elrod, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/trial-by-jury-or-administrative-adjudication-what-would-the-founders-say
* * * * *
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] Birthright Citizenship in Context: Law, History, and Contemporary Debate](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PS0F_PNlsSo/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] Birthright Citizenship in Context: Law, History, and Contemporary Debate
As debates over birthright citizenship intensify in legal and public spheres, this webinar will explore the constitutional, historical, and jurisprudential foundations of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Drawing on their recent scholarship in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, our panelists will examine how original meaning, common-law antecedents, and modern legal arguments intersect in today’s birthright citizenship controversy.
Featuring:
• Prof. Keith Whittington, David Boies Professor of Law, Yale Law School
• Prof. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School
• (Moderator) Hon. Steven Menashi, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
• (Introducer) Sean-Michael Pigeon, Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/birthright-citizenship-in-context-law-history-and-contemporary-debate
* * * * *
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 - March 2026](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/RCVhBcYuiME/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] A Seat at the Sitting - March 2026
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.
• Watson v. Republican National Committee, (March 23) - Election Law; Issue(s): Whether the federal election-day statutes, 2 U.S.C. § 7, 2 U.S.C. § 1, and 3 U.S.C. § 1, preempt a state law that allows ballots that are cast by federal election day to be received by election officials after that day.
• Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc., (March 24) - Labor and Employment Law; Issue(s): Whether the doctrine of judicial estoppel can be invoked to bar a plaintiff who fails to disclose a civil claim in bankruptcy filings from pursuing that claim simply because there is a potential motive for nondisclosure, regardless of whether there is evidence that the plaintiff in fact acted in bad faith.
• Noem v. Al Otro Lado, (March 24) - Immigration Law; Issue(s): Whether an alien who is stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.–Mexico border “arrives in the United States” within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., which provides that an alien who “arrives in the United States” may apply for asylum and must be inspected by an immigration officer.
• Flower Foods, Inc. v. Brock, (March 25) - Labor and Employment Law; Issue(s): Whether workers who deliver locally goods that travel in interstate commerce — but who do not transport the goods across borders nor interact with vehicles that cross borders — are “transportation workers” “engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” for purposes of the exemption in Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act.
• Abouammo v. United States, (March 30) - Proper Venue, Criminal Law; Issue(s): Whether venue is proper in a district where no offense conduct took place, so long as the statute’s intent element “contemplates” effects that could occur there.
• Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, (March 30) - Jurisdiction; Issue(s): Whether a federal court that initially exercises jurisdiction and stays a case pending arbitration maintains jurisdiction over a post-arbitration Section 9 or 10 application where jurisdiction would otherwise be lacking.
• Pitchford v. Cain, (March 31) - Criminal Appellate Litigation; Issue(s): Whether, under the standards set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably determined that petitioner waived his right to rebut the prosecutors asserted race-neutral reasons for exercising peremptory strikes against four black jurors.
• Trump v. Barbara, (April 1) - Birthright Citizenship, Fourteenth Amendment; Whether Executive Order No. 14,160 complies on its face with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment and with 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), which codifies that clause.
Featuring:
• Lisa L. Dixon, Executive Director, Center for Election Confidence
• Hon. Mike Hurst, Partner, Phelps Dunbar LLP
• Zac Morgan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation
• Eric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney General
• (Moderator) Oliver Dunford, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/a-seat-at-the-sitting-march-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.")
