![[LIVE] Litigation Finance: Access to Justice, Lawfare, and Foreign Influence @TheFederalistSociety](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ao2jelmHHJQ/maxresdefault.jpg)
Uploaded June 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Third-party litigation funding has grown into a major part of modern civil litigation. Supporters argue it expands access to justice and helps under-resourced plaintiffs challenge powerful defendants. Critics argue it can distort litigation incentives, empower foreign or opaque funders, and undermine attorney-client control of litigation. As state legislatures and Congress consider restrictions and disclosure requirements, how should policymakers balance transparency, donor privacy, access to courts, national security, and attorney ethics? Is third-party litigation funding a threat to the integrity of the civil justice system that conservatives should rein in, or a market mechanism that conservatives should protect as a counterweight to institutional lawfare? Can the foreign-adversary money problem be severed from the broader regulatory question?
Join us for a discussion of these and other issues surrounding the financing of litigation.
Featuring:
• Oramel H. Skinner, III, Executive Director, Alliance For Consumers
• Gene P. Hamilton, President, America First Legal Foundation
• Phil Goldberg, Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP
• [Moderator] Jim Wedeking, Counsel, Boyden Gray PLLC
Register for the live webinar at fedsoc.org/events/litigation-finance-access-to-justice-lawfare-and-foreign-influence
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Third-party litigation funding has grown into a major part of modern civil litigation. Supporters argue it expands access to justice and helps under-resourced plaintiffs challenge powerful defendants. Critics argue it can distort litigation incentives, empower foreign or opaque funders, and undermine attorney-client control of litigation. As state legislatures and Congress consider restrictions and disclosure requirements, how should policymakers balance transparency, donor privacy, access to courts, national security, and attorney ethics? Is third-party litigation funding a threat to the integrity of the civil justice system that conservatives should rein in, or a market mechanism that conservatives should protect as a counterweight to institutional lawfare? Can the foreign-adversary money problem be severed from the broader regulatory question?
Join us for a discussion of these and other issues surrounding the financing of litigation.
Featuring:
• Oramel H. Skinner, III, Executive Director, Alliance For Consumers
• Gene P. Hamilton, President, America First Legal Foundation
• Phil Goldberg, Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP
• [Moderator] Jim Wedeking, Counsel, Boyden Gray PLLC
Register for the live webinar at fedsoc.org/events/litigation-finance-access-to-justice-lawfare-and-foreign-influence
* * * * *
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] Litigation Finance: Access to Justice, Lawfare, and Foreign Influence](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ao2jelmHHJQ/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] Litigation Finance: Access to Justice, Lawfare, and Foreign Influence
Third-party litigation funding has grown into a major part of modern civil litigation. Supporters argue it expands access to justice and helps under-resourced plaintiffs challenge powerful defendants. Critics argue it can distort litigation incentives, empower foreign or opaque funders, and undermine attorney-client control of litigation. As state legislatures and Congress consider restrictions and disclosure requirements, how should policymakers balance transparency, donor privacy, access to courts, national security, and attorney ethics? Is third-party litigation funding a threat to the integrity of the civil justice system that conservatives should rein in, or a market mechanism that conservatives should protect as a counterweight to institutional lawfare? Can the foreign-adversary money problem be severed from the broader regulatory question?
Join us for a discussion of these and other issues surrounding the financing of litigation.
Featuring:
• Oramel H. Skinner, III, Executive Director, Alliance For Consumers
• Gene P. Hamilton, President, America First Legal Foundation
• Phil Goldberg, Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP
• [Moderator] Jim Wedeking, Counsel, Boyden Gray PLLC
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/litigation-finance-access-to-justice-lawfare-and-foreign-influence
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.")
![Shaped Docuseries [Ep.3] - Who Should Decide the Rules for AI?](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cb27rAonjwU/mqdefault.jpg "Shaped Docuseries [Ep.3] - Who Should Decide the Rules for AI?
Shaped Docuseries [Ep.3] - Who Should Decide the Rules for AI?")
![[LIVE] From the Courthouse Steps: Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/dL-iQ8dodEs/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] From the Courthouse Steps: Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook
In Trump v. Slaughter, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the Federal Trade Commissions (FTC) statutory for-cause removal protection violates the separation of powers, overruling Humphreys Executor. The Court reasoned that subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Thus, because the FTC exercises executive power, its Commissioners must be removable by the President at will.
Yet in Trump v. Cook, the Court, 5-4, denied the government’s request to stay an injunction blocking the removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. The Court held that a president’s asserted “for cause” statutory basis for removing a Federal Reserve governor is judicially reviewable and that Cook was entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond before removal. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts reasoned that the statute was enacted against the backdrop of the common law, and that any definition of “cause” in this context must reflect the Federal Reserve’s unique historical status and role.
Join us for a webinar breaking down both decisions, the separate opinions, and what they may mean for presidential removal power, independent agencies, the Federal Reserve, and the future of the administrative state.
Featuring:
• Adam White, Laurence H. Silberman Chair in Constitutional Governance and Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Co-Director, Antonin Scalia Law School’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State
• Erin M. Hawley, Supreme Court & Appellate Litigation Chair, Lex Politica; Of Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/from-the-courthouse-steps-trump-v-slaughter-and-trump-v-cook
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.")
