WINSLOW TOWNSHIP REPUBLICAN CLUB

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order effectively ending birthright citizenship for children born to mothers who are unlawfully present or temporary lawful residents in the United States and whose fathers are not lawful permanent residents at the time of the child’s birth. One day later, four states and three individuals challenged this order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, which three days later granted a universal temporary restraining order enjoining the government from implementing this order. Two weeks later, this became a nationwide injunction. Other similar nationwide injunctions have since been issued from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The government has appealed all of these, and the question of whether the Supreme Court should stay the district courts' preliminary injunctions (except as to the individual plaintiffs and identified members of the organizational plaintiffs or states) was argued on May 15. Featuring: Michael R. Williams, Solicitor General, West Virginia Moderator: Elbert Lin, Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order effectively ending birthright citizenship for children born to mothers who are unlawfully present or temporary lawful residents in the United States and whose fathers are not lawful permanent residents at the time of the child’s birth. One day later, four states and three individuals challenged this order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, which three days later granted a universal temporary restraining order enjoining the government from implementing this order. Two weeks later, this became a nationwide injunction. Other similar nationwide injunctions have since been issued from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The government has appealed all of these, and the question of whether the Supreme Court should stay the district courts' preliminary injunctions (except as to the individual plaintiffs and identified members of the organizational plaintiffs or states) was now set to be argued on May 15. Featuring: - Michael R. Williams, Solicitor General, West Virginia - Moderator: Elbert Lin, Partner and Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

In January 2025, President Trump declared a national energy emergency, invoking sweeping executive powers to expand domestic fossil fuel infrastructure and critical mineral development. This panel will examine the legal, regulatory, and policy implications of that declaration: What are the constitutional and statutory limits of presidential authority in this context? How does this use of emergency powers impact domestic and international energy policy? Following a keynote address from Robert L. Levy, a panel of legal scholars, former federal officials, and policy experts across the ideological spectrum will explore the tension between energy security and the rule of law at a pivotal moment for U.S. climate and energy policy. * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Short-term rentals—popularized by Airbnb and Vrbo—have been given modern platforms for the customary alternative to hotels: in-home stays. Yet their rapid growth has prompted a wave of local and state regulations at odds with the practice, driven by lobbying from the hotel industry, concerns about housing affordability, neighborhood character, and other regulatory assertions. While some critics, including city officials and interest groups, support increased oversight, others—including advocates of limited government and individual rights—contend that these services represent an exercise of property rights, expand consumer choice, and note that there is limited evidence of significant impact on the housing market. This panel will explore the constitutional, statutory, historical, and policy implications of short-term rental regulation. Are local governments properly protecting community interests, or are they infringing on fundamental property rights? What legal frameworks govern this space—and what should they be? Join us for a lively discussion featuring the Hon. Paul Clement, Tony Francois, and Ron Klain, moderated by Prof. Donald Kochan, that will examine the intersection of private property, regulatory authority, and economic liberty. Featuring: • Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLC • Tony Francois, Partner, Briscoe Ivester & Bazel • Ron Klain, Chief Legal Officer, Airbnb • [Moderator] Prof. Donald J. Kochan, Professor of Law and Executive Director, Law and Economics Center, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/property-personal-rights-a-discussion-of-short-term-rental-regulations * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

In March 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order scaling back federal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, signaling a major turning point in the national conversation around race-conscious policies in the workplace. The Regulatory Transparency Project’s latest short film revisits American Alliance for Equal Rights v. Fearless Fund, a case challenging a race-based grant program under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Featuring legal scholars, civil rights attorneys, and policy experts from across the ideological spectrum, this documentary explores the origins of DEI policies and asks whether these initiatives are a necessary path to equality—or an obstacle to it. * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Elizabeth Odette is the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division in the Office of the Minnesota Attorney General and the Antitrust Task Force Chair for the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG). Tune in to this conversation to hear about her work, the antitrust enforcement priorities of NAAG, reflections on the current direction of state antitrust enforcement, and more. Featuring: - Elizabeth Odette, Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, Office of the Minnesota Attorney General; and Antitrust Task Force Chair, National Association of Attorneys General - Moderator: John Wiegand, Antitrust Attorney, Federal Trade Commission * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Feliciano v. Department of Transportation the Court was presented with the question of whether a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency. The Federal Circuit had initially held that Nick Feliciano, an air traffic controller with the FAA and reserve officer in the coast guard was not entitled to differential pay for parts of his time when he had been called to active duty during the early and mid-2010s. The Supreme Court heard oral argument on December 9, 2024, and on April 30, 2025 a 5-4 court reversed the decision below. Justice Gorsuch penned the majority opinion, and Justice Thomas wrote the dissent, which was joined by Justices Alito, Kagan, and Jackson. Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program where we broke down and analyzed the decision and the opinions, and discussed the potential ramifications of this case. Featuring: - Prof. Gregory Dolin, Associate Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law - (Moderator) Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates, and Former OFCCP Director ******* * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Moderated by former FTC Chairman Tim Muris and Commissioner Christine Wilson, this discussion will explore FTC priorities and objectives with Federal Trade Commission Competition and Consumer Protection Bureau Directors, Daniel Guarnera and Christopher Mufarrige. * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.