Uploaded April 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
The Trump Administration has been exploring new ways to tighten requirements for direct-to-consumer advertisements for prescription drugs. In its recent budget proposal, the Food and Drug Administration is asking Congress for new powers to deem drugs misbranded if they lack "fair balance" or create a "misleading impression" about a drug's approved uses or efficacy. In recent months, FDA has sent letters to Novo Nordisk, Argenx, and Sobi concerning ads it termed false or misleading. While some argue that banning drug ads on TV and online will lower drug prices and address overprescription, critics point out these increased efforts may violate the First Amendment's protection of commercial speech. The Supreme Court held in 1976 that prescription drug advertisements are protected by the Constitution and it reaffirmed this principle again in 2011, underscoring that the government may not ban truthful, non-misleading ads. Is the FDA trying to regulate away ads that it can't outright ban? How do these efforts implicate patients and their access to healthcare information? Join a panel of experts as they explore the constitutional and policy questions raised by the FDA's crack down on direct-to-consumer drug ads.
Featuring:
Paul Avelar, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Jeff Stier, Policy Advisor, Heartland Institute
(Moderator) Dan Troy, Managing Director, Berkeley Research Group
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
The Trump Administration has been exploring new ways to tighten requirements for direct-to-consumer advertisements for prescription drugs. In its recent budget proposal, the Food and Drug Administration is asking Congress for new powers to deem drugs misbranded if they lack "fair balance" or create a "misleading impression" about a drug's approved uses or efficacy. In recent months, FDA has sent letters to Novo Nordisk, Argenx, and Sobi concerning ads it termed false or misleading. While some argue that banning drug ads on TV and online will lower drug prices and address overprescription, critics point out these increased efforts may violate the First Amendment's protection of commercial speech. The Supreme Court held in 1976 that prescription drug advertisements are protected by the Constitution and it reaffirmed this principle again in 2011, underscoring that the government may not ban truthful, non-misleading ads. Is the FDA trying to regulate away ads that it can't outright ban? How do these efforts implicate patients and their access to healthcare information? Join a panel of experts as they explore the constitutional and policy questions raised by the FDA's crack down on direct-to-consumer drug ads.
Featuring:
Paul Avelar, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Jeff Stier, Policy Advisor, Heartland Institute
(Moderator) Dan Troy, Managing Director, Berkeley Research Group
* * * * *
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.")
