Uploaded May 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Hon. Eric Schmitt, U.S. Senator, State of Missouri, on the left's attacks against Supreme Court justices, including leaking the Dobbs decision:
"Look at what they were willing to do. People tried to murder Supreme Court justices. Merrick Garland looked the other way when they were being harassed. When the leak happened after Dobbs, they leaked the decision with the hope that it would change the outcome. That somebody would go soft. And we've got to be unafraid to talk about this stuff, because this is what they're willing to do."
Hon. Eric Schmitt, U.S. Senator, State of Missouri, on the left's attacks against Supreme Court justices, including leaking the Dobbs decision:
"Look at what they were willing to do. People tried to murder Supreme Court justices. Merrick Garland looked the other way when they were being harassed. When the leak happened after Dobbs, they leaked the decision with the hope that it would change the outcome. That somebody would go soft. And we've got to be unafraid to talk about this stuff, because this is what they're willing to do."
![[LIVE] A Seat at the Sitting - April 2026](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/tEg21uQPKbE/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] A Seat at the Sitting - April 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.
• Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission, (April 20) - Corporations & Securities; Issue(s): Whether the SEC may seek equitable disgorgement under 15 U.S.C. 78u(d)(5) and (d)(7) without showing investors suffered pecuniary harm.
• T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp., (April 20) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, Standing; Issue(s): Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents parties who lose in state courts from challenging injuries caused by state-court judgments, can be triggered by a state-court decision that remains subject to further review in state court.
• Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc.,(April 21) - Communications & Technology; Issue(s): Whether the Communications Act of 1934 provisions that govern the Federal Communications Commission’s assessment and enforcement of monetary forfeitures are consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Article III.
• Bondi v. Lau, (April 22) - Immigration Law; Issue(s): Whether, to remove a lawful permanent resident who committed an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) and was subsequently paroled into the United States, the government must prove that it possessed clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of the lawful permanent residents last reentry into the United States.
• Chatrie v. United States, (April 27) - Criminal Law; Issue(s): Whether the execution of a geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.
• Monsanto Company v. Durnell, (April 27) - Energy & Environmental Law; Issue(s): Whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning.
• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I, (April 28) - International Law & Human Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Alien Tort Statute allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting; and (2) whether the Torture Victim Protection Act allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting.
• Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., (April 29) - Patent Law / Intellectual Property Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether, when a generic drug label fully carves out a patented use, allegations that the generic drugmaker calls its product a “generic version” and cites public information about the branded drug (e.g., sales) are enough to plead induced infringement of the patented use; and (2) whether a complaint states a claim for induced infringement of a patented method if it does not allege any instruction or other statement by the defendant that encourages, or even mentions, the patented use.
• Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot, (April 29) - Immigration Law; Issue(s): Whether the Trump administration can end the Temporary Protected Status program for Syrian and Haitian nationals.
Featuring:
• Thomas Berry, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
• James Conde, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC
• James Rogers, Senior Counsel, America First Legal
• Ryan Schermerhorn, Partner, Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP
• [Moderator] Maria Monaghan, Associate Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/a-seat-at-the-sitting-april-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.")
![SCOTUS Short: West Virginia v. B.P.J. [Opinion]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/tS9UY39dCXE/mqdefault.jpg "SCOTUS Short: West Virginia v. B.P.J. [Opinion]
On June 30, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring school athletic participation be based on biological sex, preserving womens and girls sports.
Watch FedSocs updated SCOTUS Short on West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox for a breakdown of the Courts decision and its implications.")
![[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.")
