Professor Stephanie Barclay and Professor Marty Lederman join Chief Judge Daniel Domenico of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado for a debate over St. Mary Parish v. Roy and the future of the Free Exercise Clause.

The case asks whether Catholic preschools participating in Colorado’s universal preschool program are constitutionally entitled to an exemption from a requirement that participating schools agree not to discriminate on the basis of, among other things, sexual orientation and gender identity.

The discussion explores the history of religious exemptions, Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court’s recent Free Exercise cases, public-benefit conditions, neutrality and general applicability, permissive religious accommodations, and the practical question of how much of Smith remains after decades of doctrinal carveouts.

Barclay argues that religious exemptions are deeply rooted in American history and that Smith is increasingly an outlier in modern Free Exercise doctrine. Lederman defends a more limited constitutional right to exemptions while emphasizing the distinction between constitutionally required accommodations and accommodations governments may choose to provide. Judge Domenico moderates the discussion and brings the perspective of a lower-court judge applying an increasingly complicated body of Supreme Court precedent.

Recorded October 14, 2026, at Georgetown University Law Center as part of the Daniel Webster Debate Series, in cooperation with the Georgetown Center for the Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Josh Divine joins the Georgetown Law Federalist Society to discuss how the First Amendment applies to social media platforms and the rapidly evolving law governing online speech.

Judge Divine traces the modern content-moderation debate from accusations of political bias by major technology companies through the state laws challenged in NetChoice. He examines the competing First Amendment theories adopted by the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits, the Supreme Court’s treatment of platform editorial discretion, and whether competition and antitrust law might offer an alternative way to address concentrated control over online speech.

The discussion also turns to Section 230 and the growing tension between platforms’ claims that their recommendation algorithms constitute protected speech and their arguments that they should not be treated as publishers of the content those algorithms promote. Judge Divine discusses recent litigation involving product design, algorithmic recommendations, and social-media liability, as well as emerging approaches to giving users greater control over the algorithms that shape what they see online.

Recorded October 13, 2026, at Georgetown University Law Center.

William K. Lane III, General Counsel of the Department of the Air Force, joins the Georgetown Law Federalist Society to discuss what it means to serve as a lawyer for the federal government.

Lane reflects on how his military service shaped his approach to leadership, explains who the “client” is for a government lawyer, and discusses the challenge of advising policymakers without becoming a policymaker himself. He also describes coordinating with the Department of Justice, the JAG Corps, the Department of War, and the White House; working with career attorneys; and the importance of finding ways to help clients achieve their objectives.

The conversation also covers the distinct roles of Air Force and Space Force counsel, defense acquisition and bid protests, the growing role of artificial intelligence in the Department of War, and Lane’s unusual additional role as administrator of Wake Island. Lane closes by discussing his work on Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation and offering advice to students interested in judicial clerkships.

Recorded October 6, 2026, at Georgetown University Law Center.