Professors Ilya Somin and Chad Squitieri debate whether the Supreme Court’s Major Questions Doctrine can be reconciled with textualism in the latest installment of the Georgetown Law Federalist Society’s Daniel Webster Debate Series.

Somin defends the doctrine as both an ordinary tool of textual interpretation and an important safeguard against executive assertions of sweeping power without clear congressional authorization. Drawing on recent disputes involving tariffs, student-loan forgiveness, environmental regulation, and pandemic measures, he argues that major grants of authority should require correspondingly clear statutory language.

Squitieri challenges the leading textualist defenses of the doctrine, arguing that they insufficiently account for the President’s constitutional role in the federal lawmaking process. He contends that the doctrine improperly privileges Congress when statutes are ordinarily the product of both Congress and the President, while suggesting that a reinvigorated nondelegation doctrine may offer a more coherent way to police executive lawmaking.

The discussion also examines Justice Barrett’s “babysitter” analogy, Justice Gorsuch’s separation-of-powers theory, the relationship between the Major Questions and nondelegation doctrines, presidential influence over legislation, and whether courts should alter their interpretive approach based on the political or economic significance of a case.

Recorded October 21, 2026, at Georgetown University Law Center as part of the Daniel Webster Debate Series, in cooperation with the Georgetown Center for the Constitution.

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.

As artificial intelligence transforms legal research, could it also replace corpus linguistics as a tool for interpreting statutes and the Constitution?

In the latest installment of the Georgetown Law Federalist Society's Daniel Webster Debate Series, Jack Kieffaber, founder of Garner Ink, and James Heilpern, counsel at Schaerr Jaffe, debate the future of legal interpretation, moderated by Georgetown Law Professor Randy E. Barnett.

The discussion explores the use of large language models in textualism and originalism, the transparency and replicability of corpus linguistics, AI's potential to automate linguistic analysis, and the implications of increasingly sophisticated AI for judicial decision-making. The speakers also consider whether specialized AI models trained on curated historical texts could combine the capabilities of both approaches.

Recorded September 23, 2026, at Georgetown University Law Center. Presented by the Georgetown Law Federalist Society as part of the Daniel Webster Debate Series, in cooperation with the Georgetown Center for the Constitution.

Recorded at Georgetown Law Federalist Society on March 31, Jamil N. Jaffer—Founder and Executive Director of the National Security Institute at George Mason’s Antonin Scalia Law School, former Chief Counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and former senior national security official at the Department of Justice and the White House—dives into the fast-moving intersection of artificial intelligence and national security. Drawing on his experience overseeing intelligence programs, drafting AUMFs, and helping lead a cybersecurity company through rapid growth and a public listing, Jaffer unpacks Anthropic’s role in defense, the Pentagon’s evolving strategy, and current conflict with Iran.