The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order.
Washington, D.C.
- Tweets 28,349
- Following 13,051
- Followers 73,304
- Likes 2,195
Pinned Tweet
Hon. Kyle Duncan’s message for students navigating today’s campus climate during the Federalist Society’s recent webinar “Shouted Down: When Protest Becomes Censorship:”
“Stick up for yourself, if you’re at a school that disrespects you because you're a quote on quote conservative or you believe in something about something… demand in a respectful way to be treated the same as everybody else. You belong there, you deserve to be there, you don’t deserve to be shunned or shouted down, or ostracized certainly not by the professors and the administration.”
Watch the full discussion:
piped.video/watch?v=INy__bgt…
19
33
159
33,056
During today's webinar, John Yoo, Prof. Linda Denno, Eric Wessan (@EWess92 ) and Will Randolph discuss potential next steps following the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Barbara.
1
5
1,033
.@EWess92, Solicitor General for the Iowa Attorney General, on the avenues Congress can pursue to restrict birthright citizenship post-Barbara v. Trump:
“If I were a legislator that was interested in this, I would definitely look at what Barbara allows and work at trying to find ways to poke holes into the judgment. I might focus on birth tourism and the foreign terrorist, alien enemy aspects of it, because I think that it is less clear to me that you’ll be able to keep five justices together to say that Congress, for example, cannot remove children of terrorists who are on American soil citizenship. If they want to rule that way, they can, but I think that that would be much more difficult.”
1
435
John Yoo, Professor of Law at UC Berkeley and Senior Research Fellow at the University of Texas at Austin, on how President Trump could challenge SCOTUS’s decision in Trump v. Barbara:
“I mean that I actually think that a broader scope for a challenge to Barbara, although I don’t expect the Trump administration to do so, would be from the executive branch. If President Trump really wanted to be aggressive, he could adopt President Lincoln’s approach to Dred Scott and say, I’m allowed to have my own interpretation of the Constitution. I’m allowed to implement it through the execution of my constitutional duties, which is executing the law, and I could try to deny birthright citizenship to everybody in my executive order and then, if the Supreme Court wants to hold my executive order unconstitutional, they are going to have to do it in every single case of every single citizenship denial that I’m going to issue for every child born to birthright tourism schemes… And I think it would be consistent with the way I think Lincoln and Jackson and Jefferson, even Washington, maybe, interpreted their authority under the Constitution to interpret the law.”
388
.@EWess92, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney General, explains what he thinks Trump v. Barbara settled:
“I think Barbara settled one question in the near term, and that’s the president cannot, by executive order, revoke citizenship from parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present. Five justices got there through the Constitution, Justice Kavanaugh got there through statute… Presidential unilateral action is out, but I think there’s room for innovative legislation to, again, kind of poke around the edges.”
2
18
5,464
John Yoo, Professor of Law at UC Berkeley and Senior Research Fellow at the University of Texas at Austin, on Trump v. Barbara:
“It’s settled that Wong Kim Ark was still governing precedent, that there were no serious changes that were going to occur to immigration law... I think that Trump v. Barbara was fairly straightforward in resolving a conflict that we often see in constitutional law. You often see in classes, which is, you have a settled precedent, long-time doctrine. Do you have enough historical evidence from the original understanding that would justify overruling it? And I think that in Trump v. Barbara, the Court said there’s not enough.”
14
2,286
Thank you to everyone who joined us in Lexington yesterday for the 2026 Kentucky Chapters Conference!
Throughout the day, attendees explored timely questions, from the enduring principles of ordered liberty and the rule of law to election law and the Second Amendment. The conference also featured a keynote discussion with Hon. Chad Meredith and Michael Fragoso (@mike_frags).
Thank you to our speakers, moderators, and attendees who helped make this year’s conference a success!
2
6
1,165
At FedSoc’s inaugural AI and the Law Initiative summit earlier this year, Deputy Secretary of Energy James Danly argued that growing demand from AI data centers could help lower utility rates when matched by increased energy supply.
Now, as states consider data centers, Mississippi Gov. @tatereeves joins us on September 30th at 12PM ET in Washington, D.C. to discuss the state’s growing “Digital Delta” and the policies shaping data center development.
More info below. ⬇️
1
1
5
1,172
[LIVE] The Future of Birthright Citizenship: What’s Next After Trump v. Barbara (Part Two)
nitter.net/i/broadcasts/1kJzDPNVm…
1
1,026
🚨Registration closes Monday, September 28 for the 2026 North Carolina Chapters Conference!
Join us October 2 for a day of engaging conversations on the Supreme Court, election law, education, separation of powers, and more!
Register:
fedsoc.org/conferences/2026-…
3
1,040
During yesterday's webinar, Michael A. Carvin, former partner at Jones Day, discusses the impact of the Louisiana v. Callais decision:
“I think it is very hopeful in American society. I mean, in 2026, it’s 72 years since Brown, 60 years since the Civil Rights Act. At some point, we really have to stop making important decisions about who represents us, who gets into college, etc., based on skin color. And I think we have grown well past that. I think continuing to inject race into these questions is really injecting racism into where there is none to begin with.”
12
2,689
TODAY at 12:00 PM ET: Join us for part two of our webinar series examining the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Barbara—its impact, the legal questions it raises, and what comes next.
Ft. Prof. Linda Denno. Eric Wessan (@EWess92), John Yoo, and Will Randolph
1
3
2,831
Happy Federal Courts Day! ⚖️
Today marks the anniversary of the Judiciary Act of 1789. Derek Muller highlights the significance of the day, and the origins of the federal courts, in the post below. 👇
Happy Federal Courts Day!
Today we celebrate Article III, the "least dangerous branch."
On this date, September 24, 1789, the Judiciary Act was enacted, which created the structure & jurisdiction of the federal courts & much of which remains with us today.
3
4
14
7,756
On this day in 1789, President George Washington signed the Judiciary Act, establishing the first federal court system under the new Constitution.
So what did the first federal court look like? 🧵
1
1
23
2,046
The system established in 1789 proved remarkably durable.
According to the National Archives, the federal judicial system remained essentially as established by the Judiciary Act for nearly a century, with major changes coming only after the nation expanded and the Civil War.
1
2
403