A Toast to the Constitution

We are now well into the observance of America's 250^th birthday celebration marked by the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. Though our Constitution was not signed by the framers in Philadelphia until September 17, 1787, and ratified by the required nine states until May 1790, it, rightfully, is central to our birthday commemoration.

 

Here, between Veterans Day and Thanksgiving, and in the spirit of our nation's year-long celebration, I want to offer a toast to the Constitution. While there's not a time when toasting the Constitution would not be in order, it seems especially fitting to do so between those two special national holidays.

 

This toast is not my own, but a truly noteworthy and memorable one offered by my good friend Leonard Leo, the Co-Chairman of the Federalist Society, at the Society's recent 2025 National Lawyers Convention.

 

But first a bit of historical backdrop.

 

During Lafayette's 1824 farewell tour of America, he visited both Monticello and Montpelier, the homes of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. During one notable celebration commemorating his return to America, Lafayette, Jefferson, and Madison were all present for an elegant dinner held at the nearby Orange Court House. At the dinner, Madison praised Lafayette, and thirteen ceremonial toasts were made, including one honoring Madison himself, already known as the "Father of the Constitution."

 

Madison’s toast praised Lafayette’s devotion to the principles of the American Revolution, and he also offered his own "toast to the Constitution."

 

Now, here is Leonard Leo's "Toast to the Constitution" delivered at the Federalist Society's Antonin Scalia Memorial Dinner on November 6, 2025.

 

"May it endure as a source of awe and joy, reminding us of how fortunate we are to live in this great country.

 

May it endure as a source of wisdom and understanding, instructing us about the relationship between the dignity and worth of a person and the limits on government power.

 

May it endure as a source of self-restraint and prudence, admonishing both our leaders to respect the limits of authority and the voters to demand that respect.

 

May it endure as an example of what can be achieved when leaders unite the virtues of wisdom, justice, courage, and temperance.

 

And may it endure as a charter of self-government that binds the American people together in the mutual pursuit of that which is good and just."

 

Leonard Leo's toast is surely worthy of committing to memory as we celebrate America's 250 Birthday!

2025 Will Be a Big Year for the FCC in the Courts

On December 16, the Federalist Society hosted a webinar panel event, "Is FTC Administrative Litigation Unconstitutional?" The webinar's panelists discussed the future of Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) litigation and enforcement in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC (2023) and SEC v. Jarkesy (2024) as well as in light of the Court's openness to revisit the contours of administrative power as reflected by decisions such as West Virginia v. EPA (2022) and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024).

In Jarkesy, the Court held that the Seventh Amendment entitles a defendant to a jury trial when the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeks civil penalties for securities fraud. The Court determined that the SEC's antifraud provisions replicate common law fraud claims that must be heard by a jury. 

 

Although the Supreme Court's holding in Jarkesy was limited to the Seventh Amendment, the FedSoc webinar panel's discussion touched on two facets of the Fifth Circuit's holding in an earlier stage of the case. The Fifth Circuit held that Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the SEC by failing to provide an intelligible principle by which the SEC would exercise delegated power, thereby violating the U.S. Constitution's Article I Legislative Vesting Clause. Additionally, the Fifth Circuit held that statutory removal restrictions on SEC Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) violate the Take Care Clause of Article II. Shortly, the Supreme Court will likely tackle nondelegation claims, presidential removal power claims, and other claims brought in other cases against the FTC or other agencies – including the FCC.

 

Indeed, in 2025, the Supreme Court will review the Fifth Circuit's July 2024 en banc decision in Consumers' Research v. FCC. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the universal service contribution system violates the Article I Legislative Vesting Clause. The Court's grant of a writ of certiorari in Consumers' Research v. FCC is noted briefly in my blog post from November 26, 2024. The lower court's decision in the case, which was based on nondelegation principles and precedents, is the subject of my August 2024 Perspectives from FSF Perspectives, "Fifth Circuit Rules USF Contribution Scheme Violates Legislative Vesting Clause."

 

Furthermore, lower courts are likely to weigh in next year on Jarkesy implications for the FCC's enforcement authority. In April 2024, the FCC fined the three nationwide wireless providers for the sale of consumer location-related information. Legal challenges to the Commission's authority to levy those fines are now pending before the D.C. Circuit, the Second Circuit, and the Fifth Circuit. 

 

Added to all of these pending cases are anticipated judicial decisions about the legal fate of the FCC's Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet Order regulating broadband Internet services as public utilities and the Commission'sDigital Discrimination Order subjecting broadband providers to liability for unintentional disparate impacts. Oral arguments in those respective cases have been held before the Sixth Circuit and the Eighth Circuit. 

 

In all, it looks like 2025 will be a big year for the FCC in the courts.   

Webinar Panel Weighs FCC's Proposed AI Political Ad Regulation

On October 7, Free State Foundation President Randolph May moderated a webinar, "The FCC's Proposal to Regulate Political Ads Using Artificial Intelligence." Video of the webinar is now available online. The Federalist Society-hosted webinar featured a panel discussion on the Commission's proposed rulemaking that would require radio and TV broadcasters as well as cable and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) operators to include a disclaimer on all political candidate and political issue ads that contain content generated using artificial intelligence (AI). The proposed rulemaking also would require notice filings in online political files regarding ad usage of AI, and impose obligations on broadcasters (and cable and DBS operators) to act when informed by "credible third parties" that the ads being transmitted contain AI-generate content. 

The FCC's novel regulation of political ads with AI-generated content raises important questions about the scope of the agency's authority and the policy merits of the proposal. Those topics are ably tackled by the webinar panel, consisting of FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, Public Knowledge President Christopher Lewis, as well as Prof. Bradley Smith, a former FEC Chairman. To learn more, check out the webinar video. 

On September 19, the Free State Foundation filed initial comments in the FCC's novel AI political ad regulation proceeding. And FSF filed reply comments on October 7. text

Video and Audio Available for Webinar on FCC's Digital Discrimination Rulemaking

On June 23, the Federalist Society hosted a webinar titled "The FCC's Digital Discrimination Rulemaking: Facilitating Equal Access to Broadband Services." Video and audio of the event are now available for streaming and download:

Free State Foundation President Randolph May moderated the discussion amongst panel participants Harold Feld of Public Knowledge, Clint Odom of T-Mobile, and myself. The webinar included discussion of the FCC's authority under Section 60506 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021. Does Section 60506 confer authority on the agency to adopt rules that would impose liability on broadband providers based only on a showing of unintentional disparate impact? Or does the statute require evidence of intentional discrimination. And what effect might disparate impact liability have on efforts to ensure equal access to broadband Internet services? Check out the online video or listen to the podcast to hear thoughtful insights on these and related matters. 

 

In public comments and reply comments filed with the FCC in its digital discrimination rulemaking proceeding, FSF President Randy May and I concluded that Section 60506 of the Infrastructure Act contains an intent-based standard for rules prohibiting digital discrimination, and that the text of statute does not support the imposition of unintentional disparate impact liability on broadband Internet service providers. During the webinar event, I emphasized that Section 60506 contains specific language that calls for an intent-based anti-discrimination rules and that the statute does not contain hallmark catchall terms that courts have identified as authorizing or permitting unintentional disparate impact claims. For discussion about that issue more, check out the webinar.

Register Now: The FCC's Digital Discrimination Rulemaking: Facilitating Equal Access to Broadband Services

On Friday, June 23 at Noon Eastern Standard Time, the Federalist Society will be hosting a webinar titled "The FCC's Digital Discrimination Rulemaking: Facilitating Equal Access to Broadband Services." Registration for the virtual event is now open.

The webinar will be moderated by Free State Foundation President Randolph May, and it will feature a panel that includes Dr. Harold Feld of Public Knowledge, Clint Odom of T-Mobile and Seth Cooper of the Free State Foundation. The Federalist Society's webpage for the event describes what will be in store for the webinar: 

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, signed into law on November 15, 2021, requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), within two years, to promulgate rules to facilitate equal access to broadband internet services and to prevent "digital discrimination of access based on income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin." Significantly, the statute also requires that the rules take into account "issues of technical and economic feasibility." The FCC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on December 22, 2022, and comments and reply comments have now been submitted.

 

Given the importance of widespread access to broadband services, the "Digital Discrimination" proceeding is one of the most important items on the FCC's agenda. The panelists, from a diversity of perspectives, will discuss key legal and policy issues presented in the rulemaking, including the following: Does the agency have authority to adopt rules that would impose liability on broadband providers based only on a showing of unintentional disparate impact or is evidence of intentional discrimination required? In considering liability, how should the agency take into account claims relating to the technical and economic feasibility of making available access? What impact will the rules have on investment and innovation under various scenarios? What type of process should the Commission employ in considering complaints of digital discrimination?

 

Please join the panel of experts for a lively discussion of these and other questions as the FCC prepares to adopt final rules in the digital discrimination proceeding.

Be sure to register for this timely event online.

White Paper by IP Scholars Reject State-Level Regulation of Copyright Licensing

On February 13, the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project released a white paper titled "State Mandates for Digital Book Licenses to Libraries are Unconstitutional and Undermine the Free Market." The white paper's distinguished co-authors are Alden Abbott, Adam Mossoff, Kristen Osenga, and Zvi Rosen. Among Prof. Mossoff's many distinctions, he is a Member of the Free State Foundation's Board of Academic Advisors.

The white paper persuasively explains why legislation introduced in several states that would require authors and book distributors to license e-books to public libraries according to rates and other terms set by state law is preempted by U.S. copyright law. Moreover: "The proponents for these bills present a distorted view of the market for copyrighted works in order to rationalize unprecedented government intervention into the longstanding and fundamental rights of copyright owners to determine prices and other contractual terms in the market." And the white paper states that "these bills will undermine the very goal that their supporters seek—easy and affordable access to e-books."

 

Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I analyzed the legal defects of state compulsory licensing of ebooks to public libraries in our March 2022 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "State Laws Forcing Publishers to License Ebooks to Libraries Are Unlawful." And in a May 2022 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "State Restrictions on Ebook License Prices Are Preempted by Federal Law," I explained why state-level rate controls of ebook licensing also run afoul of federal copyright law. 

 

The Constitution and the Copyright Act establish a uniform nationwide system for copyright protection that ensures that creators have financial opportunity to seek returns on their creative labors. But any state laws that seek to regulate the exclusive rights of copyright owners in their creative works – whether movies, TV shows, sound recordings, or literary publications – would conflict with that system and undermine incentives for creative enterprise. States should be mindful of preemption principles and not seek to mandate the licensing or licensing rates for copyrighted works.

Panel Discusses Gonzalez v. Google and the Future of Section 230 Immunity

For an incisive debate and discussion about legal immunity for editorial, publishing, and distribution decisions by major online platforms, tune in to the video or audio of the January 24 webinar hosted by the Federalist Society titled "Section 230 Goes to Court: Gonzalez v. Google and the Future of the Electronic Town Square."  

The webinar was moderated by Boyd Garriott and it featured panelists Ashkhen Kazaryan, Joel Thayer, and Free State Foundation President Randolph May. The webinar expert panel discussed the meaning and scope of immunity conferred on online platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, particularly in light of the case of Gonzalez v. Google. The issue in focus in the case is whether immunity under Section 230(c)(1) applies when online platforms make targeted recommendations of content to viewers. The U.S. Supreme Court has schedule oral argument in the case for February 21. 

 

FSF President May wrote about Gonzalez v. Google in his August 2022 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "Thinking Clearly and Speaking Freely – Part 13: A Reasonableness Standard for Fixing Section 230." 

Panelists Tackle Major Questions About the Future of Administrative Law

The Federalist Society held its 2022 National Lawyers Convention on November 10 through November 12. The Convention panel videos are now available online, including one titled "Major Questions Doctrine: West Virginia v. EPA?" The panel, moderated by Judge Edith Jones of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, features Professors Jennifer Mascott and Thomas Merrill, as well as top-notch litigators Ian Gershengorn and Yaakov Roth. Like other events featuring commentary and analysis of the Supreme Court's 2020 decision in West Virginia v. EPA, the panelists discussed the case as a matter of textual interpretation and interpretative canons, in light of the non-delegation doctrine, in view of Chevron doctrine, and also in connection with the court's application of Chevron deference to agency determinations about the scope of their own jurisdiction in its 2013 decision in City of Arlington v. FCC.  

One interesting point made by Mr. Gershengorn about 51-52 minutes into the panel and again at about the 1 hour 21 minute mark was that net neutrality regulation constitutes "the easiest major doctrines case you're going to see" because then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh decided that net neutrality is a major question in the D.C. Circuit in U.S. Telecom v. FCC. 

 

FSF President Randolph May addressed the implications of West Virginia v. EPA for net neturality regulation in his July 2022 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "A Major Ruling on Major Questions." And he pointed out that the court's opinion in West Virginina v. EPA actually quoted then-Judge Kavanaugh's 2017 opinion dissenting from denial of en banc review in U.S. Telecom v. FCC. 

Jonathan Turley Comes to the Defense of Free Speech

The July 2022 issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy features an incisive article by George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley titled "Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States." In his 132-page article, Professor Turley looks at the growing and regrettably successful anti-free speech movement spearheaded by academics, politicians, and major corporations – particularly "Big Tech" companies. He examines and critiques the rising anti-free speech movement's "harm principle" for rationalizing crass censorship and the suppression of opposing viewpoints in public venues – including universities and the Internet – where freedom of speech previously has been widely affirmed as good in itself and vital to a free society of free people.  

Professor Hurley proposes ways to protect free speech through legislation. He writes: "There is a role for the government in reinforcing traditional enclaves for the exercise of the freedom of expression in our society. Indeed, with the rise of massive private systems of censorship, free speech may now depend on the government more than at any time in our history." Regarding physical marketplaces, Professor Turley's recommendations include legislation to protect public political expression from violent threats and actions by third parties that intend to prevent their exercise of free speech by incentivizing engagement by state law enforcement – or perhaps by federal law enforcement in the event that local law enforcement fail to arrest or prosecute third parties that engage in such violence. 

As for virtual marketplaces, Professor Turley observes the significant extent to which online companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (Google) have embraced suppression of speech on the Internet. According to Professor Turley: "The expansive view of harmful speech on the Internet has led to one of the largest censorship systems in history." This rings true for anyone who has been paying attention to the behavior of major social media platforms and it should be disturbing to anyone who has valued freedom of speech on the Internet. To address the problem of online censorship and overt bias by dominant social media platforms, he recommends legislation to recognize some form of public forum protections for users of those platforms –perhaps by tying legal immunity protections for content moderation to case law protecting speech from government restrictions or by establishing a basic viewpoint neutrality requirement.

Underlying Prof. Turley's thoughtful approach is a close reading of First Amendment decisions –such as Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (1974), Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston (1995) Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc. (2006) – from which he draws a distinction between government improperly "compelling" private speakers to speak messages with which they disagree from government permissibly "coercing" free speech forums of content neutrality and protection. Writes Professor Turley: 

The focus should be on preserving neutral forums on the Internet such as social media sites rather than forcing companies to publish a balance of views. This is the difference between a focus on limiting viewpoint censorship and the compulsion of viewpoint expression.

Notably, in NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton (2022), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit deduced from Tornillo, Hurley, Rumsfeld, and several other First Amendment decisions the same basic distinction identified by Professor Turley. In NetChoice, the court wrote that "the State may not force a private speaker to speak someone else's message… [b]ut the State can regulate conduct in a way that requires that private entities to host, transmit, or otherwise facilitate speech." (Free State Foundation President Randolph May offered his view of the Fifth Circuit's decision in his September 28 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "Thinking Clearly and Speaking Freely – Part 12: Shining a Spotlight on Big Tech's Section 230 Immunity.")

If the reading of First Amendment case law by Professor Turley and by the Fifth Circuit hold, federal or state legislation establishing public forum protections for users of major social media platforms likely will pass constitutional muster so long as social media platforms are not compelled to speak and legislation focuses on promoting the speech of their users. Indeed, the viability of the distinction between compelling and facilitating speech may come down to a future decision by the Supreme Court, should it end up reviewing the Fifth Circuit's decision in NetChoice and the Eleventh Circuit's decision regarding Florida's law regulating social media. 

Law professors should be among the first ranks in defending the First Amendment as well as the freedom to speak without bullying by angry mobs or social media companies. After all, their vocation vitally depends on the ability to freely speak and publish. One should hope and expect that years spent dedicated to the study of law would lead legal academics to treasure the freedom of speech as a pillar of American constitutionalism and as a blessing to the people of America. Yet genuine affirmations of the importance of freedom of speech and rebukes against censorship seem to be rare. Thankfully, Professor Turley has stepped up to call out the dangers from the anti-speech movement and posit some constructive proposals for protecting the freedom of speech. 

Discussing Chevron Deference After West Virginia v. EPA

As Free State Foundation President Randolph May wrote in his July 2022 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "A Major Ruling on Major Questions": "There are aspects of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in West Virginia v. EPA that will be studied and debated by scholars—and, indeed, by judges, lawyers, and executive branch officials—for years to come." Indeed, some the implications of that decision were discussed in the Federalist Society's August 1 online panel event, "The Future of Chevron Deference at the Supreme Court." The panel features Columbia Law School Prof. Thomas Merrill, Jones Day attorney Yaakov M. Roth, and moderator Eli Nachmany. Prof. Merrill and Mr. Roth offer their insights into what the role of the Chevron doctrine may be going forward and how it will relate to the major questions doctrine. One interesting matter that was discussed during the event is whether courts will apply the major questions doctrine as a threshold inquiry prior to any application of Chevron's two-step inquiry – or whether the major questions doctrine will be subsumed into Chevron's first step, which has to do with whether Congress clearly spoke to the matter at hand. 

For more on West Virginia v. EPA, check out FSF President May's press release from June 30 of this year responding to the decision as well as his July 2022 Perspectives.  

Debating the Constitutionality of the Universal Service System

For thoughtful discussion and debate about the constitutionality of the universal service's contribution system as currently operated by the FCC, consider checking out the July 19 webinar hosted by the Federalist Society, titled "Consumers' Research v. FCC and the Legality of the Universal Service Fund Contribution Regime." Video and audio of the event are both available online. The event features a very knowledgeable and experienced panel that ably present their cases. Although the webinar is focused on constitutional arguments about USF raised by the Consumers Research v. FCC case, including the non-delegation issue raised by Section 254 of the Communications Act, the panel discussion also touches on USF contribution policy reform.

As noted in an April 19 blog post, the Free State Foundation and FSF President Randolph May joined an amicus brief that was filed by Competitive Enterprise institute in the Consumers' Research case.  

FSF President Randy May also addressed constitutional issues regarding USF in his November 2021 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "A Nondelegation Doctrine Challenge to the FCC's Universal Service Regime." Also check out our April 2021 Perspectives, "Congress Should Put Universal Service on a Firmer Constitutional Foundation." Also, I addressed USF contribution reform in my June 2022 Perspectives, "Congress Should Require Major Web Platforms to Support Universal Service."

Federalist Society Podcast Panelists Tackles NFIB v. OSHA and Non-Delegation

The Federalist Society-hosted "Regulatory Transparency Project's Fourth Branch Podcast" features an episode from January 20 on "The Vaccine Mandate Cases and the Future of Administrative Law." The podcast episode featured a panel discussion about the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions released January 13 in NFIB v. OSHA and Biden v. Missouri. The panelists addressed the Court's reasoning in those cases regarding statutory authority and legal doctrines such as non-delegation, major questions, and constitutional avoidance.

One of the panelists for the podcast episode was Law Professor Ilan Wurman, a member of the Free State Foundation's Board of Academic Advisors. Prof. Wurman's 2021 article in the Yale Law Journal on "Non-Delegation at the Founding" was cited by Justice Neil Gorsuch's concurring opinion in NFIB v. OSHA. During the panel discussion, Prof. Wurman offered sharp insights into the differences between non-delegation, major questions, and constitutional avoidance. Listeners will benefit from the contributions of all of the episode's participants regarding the import of NFIB v. OSHA for the future of the administrative state. 

For additional insights on these topics, check out Free State Foundation President Randolph May's Perspectives from FSF Scholars titled "NFIB v. OSHA: Nondelegation, Major Questions, and Chevron's No Show." 

Federalist Society Series Tackles Legal Issue Posed by Online Free Speech Suppression and Public Policy Responses

For an interesting discussion of legal issues posed by Big Tech censorship of content posted by users of social media, be sure to check out the Federalist Society's six part-series hosted by D.C. Circuit Judge Gregory Kastas. The six-part series addresses online speech suppression as well as legal attempts to address it in light of the First Amendment, federal preemption, state action, common carriage, antitrust, and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Each part features distinguished panelists who bring their distinct views to the table. The Federalist Society should be commended for bringing putting this thoughtful and incisive series together. The last two parts of the recently concluded series are below:

Parts one, two, three, and four also can be found on the Federalist Society's website. 

FSF President Randolph May Moderates Federalist Society Teleforum on Broadband Featuring Commissioner Carr

On June 15, Free State Foundation President Randolph J. May moderated a teleforum hosted by The Federalist Society featuring FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr.

Their conversation touched on a wide range of topics, including broadband infrastructure, legislative and regulatory efforts to close remaining digital divides, and Commissioner Carr's thought-provoking proposal to require that Big Tech companies contribute their fair share to government broadband subsidy programs.

Audio versions of "Closing the Digital Divide: The Future of Broadband Access" are available here.

Federalist Society Webinar Panel Weighs in on the Biden Broadband Infrastructure Plan

On May 25, the Federalist Society held a webinar on the Biden Administration's broadband infrastructure plan. David Redl moderated the webinar's panel, which included Prof. Christopher Yoo -- a member of the Free State Foundation's Board of Academic Advisors, Kate O'Connor, and Tony Clark. The panelists offered their views on matters such as subsidies for unserved areas, subsidy preferences government-owned networks, rate regulation, and wireless infrastructure siting policy. An audio version of the webinar panel also is available on the Federalist Society's website for streaming or download. 

In recent publications, FSF scholars have critiqued the Biden Administration's broadband infrastructure plan and offered alternatives. For example, on June 2, FSF President Randolph May and Senior Fellow Andrew Long published a Perspectives from FSF Scholars paper titled "Biden Broadband Plan: Transparency and Accuracy Required for Sound Policy." Additionally, on June 8, FSF President May and I published a Perspectives paper that touches on important reform opportunities that the Biden Plan overlooks. That paper is titled "Wireless Infrastructure Reforms Rest on Solid Constitutional Foundations: Congress Should Preempt Local Obstacles to 5G Deployment."

Catch the Teleforum on Chairman Pai's Tenure at the FCC

On Thursday, December 17 at noon Eastern time, the Federalist Society will host a teleforum event: "Chairman Ajit Pai's Tenure at the FCC: Fireside Chat and Panel Discussion." The chat with Chairman Pai will be followed by a discussion by panel members, including Free State Foundation President Randolph May. Be sure to call in on Thursday the 17th and listen to what likely will be a wide-ranging exchange reviewing the FCC's accomplishments during Pai's chairmanship as well as the future of federal communications policy. Information about the upcoming teleforum can be found on the Federalist Society's website.

UPDATE: Audio of the teleforum is now available here. 

Audio of Conversation on the FCC, Broadcast Journalism, and the First Amendment

Audio is now available for Free State Foundation President Randolph J. May's Federalist Society teleforum conversation with FCC General Counsel Thomas M. Johnson, Jr. on broadcast journalism and the First Amendment. In the teleforum, they discuss the agency's response to the emergency petition filed by Free Press that sought to investigate and censor broadcasters covering presidential press conferences and offering commentary on COVID-19. Tune in to hear an insightful exchange regarding First Amerndment principles and the FCC's approach to free speech issues. The audio is available for streaming and for download at the Federalist Society's website.

Chairman Pai Talks Rapid Responses to COVID-19 and More in New Teleforum

On April 3, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai participated in a "Capital Conversations" teleforum hosted by the Federalist Society on "The FCC and the COVID-19 Pandemic." Audio of that teleforum is now available to stream or download from the Federalist Society's website. In the teleforum, Chairman Pai gives a quick overview of the FCC's activities in responding to the flu pandemic, including the Commission's Keep Americans Connected Pledge and COVID-19 Telehealth Program. During the question-and-answer portion, Chairman Pai also addresses current communications policy topics ranging from the Restoring Internet Freedom Order and Mozilla v. FCC remand to spectrum proceedings such as C-Band, L-Band, and 6 GHZ. 

Teleforum on Modernizing Copyright Law - Audio Available

On March 31, Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I participated in a Federalist Society teleforum to discuss themes from our new book Modernizing Copyright Law for the Digital Age – Constitutional Foundations for Reform. The discussion ranged from DMCA reform, small copyright claims relief, AM/FM terrestrial radio's exemption, and the natural rights basis for copyrights. Audio for that teleforum can now be downloaded or streamed from the Federalist Society's website. Our thanks go to the Federalist Society, to moderator Prof. Adam Mossoff, and to teleforum participant Vice Dean and Prof. Michael Risch. Our new book is now available for purchase at Amazon and at Carolina Academic Press. 

Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I will be participating in a Federalist Society teleforum to discuss themes from our new book Modernizing Copyright Law for the Digital Age – Constitutional Foundations for Reform. The book is available for purchase at Amazon and at Carolina Academic Press. 

The teleforum will take place on March 31 at 12 p.m. EDT. We are honored that Professors Adam Mossoff and Michael Risch will be joining us for the teleforum. Additional information is available at the Federalist Society's website. Call in and listen, and feel free to offer your own questions on copyright modernization reform to the teleforum panelists.