Uploaded May 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Over 60 years after Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School District the free speech rights of secondary school students remains unclear. Although the Court has said that students do not surrender their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate, it has often allowed schools to get away with punishing “inappropriate” or “offensive” speech that would be clearly protected outside of school.
Two pending petitions at the Supreme Court could produce needed clarity.
In D.A. ex rel. B.A. v. Tri-County Area Schools, both a federal district court and a divided (2–1) federal appeals court determined that because the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon” carries a “profane double meaning,” school officials could reasonably bar students from wearing clothing displaying the message. In March 2026, the petitioners (represented by FIRE), filed for certiorari, asking the Supreme Court to review the Sixth Circuit’s ruling. The school district’s response is due on May 1.
In E.D. v. Noblesville School District, the Seventh Circuit held that an Indiana school district could prevent a pro-life student group from posting flyers about the group because they included pictures of group members holding signs calling for defunding of Planned Parenthood. The school deemed this speech “too political” and ultimately derecognized the student group altogether. The student group, represented by ADF, has asked the Supreme Court to take the case.
Join us for a discussion of the cases, the First Amendment questions both raise, and the broader implications for First Amendment rights on and off campus.
Featuring:
Conor Fitzpatrick, Supervising Senior Attorney, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
Tyson Langhofer, Senior Counsel, Director of the Center for Academic Freedom, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal Strategy, Stand Together
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Over 60 years after Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School District the free speech rights of secondary school students remains unclear. Although the Court has said that students do not surrender their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate, it has often allowed schools to get away with punishing “inappropriate” or “offensive” speech that would be clearly protected outside of school.
Two pending petitions at the Supreme Court could produce needed clarity.
In D.A. ex rel. B.A. v. Tri-County Area Schools, both a federal district court and a divided (2–1) federal appeals court determined that because the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon” carries a “profane double meaning,” school officials could reasonably bar students from wearing clothing displaying the message. In March 2026, the petitioners (represented by FIRE), filed for certiorari, asking the Supreme Court to review the Sixth Circuit’s ruling. The school district’s response is due on May 1.
In E.D. v. Noblesville School District, the Seventh Circuit held that an Indiana school district could prevent a pro-life student group from posting flyers about the group because they included pictures of group members holding signs calling for defunding of Planned Parenthood. The school deemed this speech “too political” and ultimately derecognized the student group altogether. The student group, represented by ADF, has asked the Supreme Court to take the case.
Join us for a discussion of the cases, the First Amendment questions both raise, and the broader implications for First Amendment rights on and off campus.
Featuring:
Conor Fitzpatrick, Supervising Senior Attorney, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
Tyson Langhofer, Senior Counsel, Director of the Center for Academic Freedom, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal Strategy, Stand Together
* * * * *
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.")
