FedSoc Events

Featuring:Prof. Sadie Blanchard, "Adjudicating ESG Reputation," Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Benjamin Chen, "What are Linguistic Canons for?," Associate Professor, University of Hong Kong Faculty of LawProf. Robert Leider, "The Individual Right to Bear Arms for Common Defense," Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. Tyler Lindley, "Reconstructing Section 1983," Associate Professor, Brigham Young University, J. Reuben Clark Law SchoolMr. Luke Schumacher, “A Council of Grand Strategists: The Original Hope, Fear, and Intent of the U.S. Senate in Foreign Affairs,” J.D. Candidate, Stanford Law School and Ph.D Candidate, University of Virginia Department of PoliticsCommenter: Prof. Jud Campbell, Professor of Law, Stanford Law SchoolCommenter: Prof. Tara Leigh Grove, Vinson & Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas at Austin School of LawCommenter: Prof. Robert Miller, F. Arnold Daum Chair in Corporate Finance and Law, University of Iowa College of LawCommenter: Prof. Brian Slocum, Stearns Weaver Miller Professor, Florida State University College of LawCommenter: Prof. Keith Whittington, David Boies Professor of Law, Yale Law SchoolModerator: Prof. Christina Mulligan, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School

This panel will explore the Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright as well as its major questions cases. What impact will overturning Chevron deference have on the major questions doctrine? How do the two doctrinal developments relate? How do they connect to the non-delegation doctrine? These and related questions will be examined.Featuring:Prof. Eric Bolinder, Assisant Professor of Law, Liberty University School of LawProf. Tara Leigh Grove, Vinson & Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas at Austin School of LawProf. Brian Slocum, Stearns Weaver Miller Professor, Florida State University College of LawModerator: Prof. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School

Featuring:Prof. Stephanie Barclay, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law CenterDean Rachel Rebouché, Kean Family Dean and Peter J. Liacouras Professor of Law, Temple University School of LawProf. Stephen Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Mary Ziegler, Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, UC Davis Law SchoolModerator: Sherif Girgis, Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School

Opaque algorithms shape what news stories you see on social media, dictate how artificial intelligence answers prompts, and can even decide whether applicants get a mortgage or a job interview. Amidst claims of algorithmic race, gender, and viewpoint discrimination, more and more individuals of all political affiliations are calling for greater government regulation of algorithms, while regulatory skeptics worry that government intervention will impede important technological innovation. This panel will explore the wisdom of efforts to regulate algorithms and how best to frame concerns about algorithmic errors and bias.Featuring:Prof. Gregory Dickinson, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Nebraska–Lincoln College of LawMr. Dhruva Krishna, Visiting Jurist, University of California Los Angeles School of LawProf. Christina Mulligan, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law SchoolProf. Eugene Volokh, Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution and Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California Los Angeles School of Law Moderator: Prof. Saurabh Vishnubhakat, Professor of Law & Director, Intellectual Property and Information Law Program, Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Featuring:Prof. Sam Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Public Law, New York University School of LawProf. Chimène Keitner, Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, University of California Davis School of LawModerator: Hon. David Stras, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard was the most important decision on affirmative action in generations, banning preferential treatment based on race in higher education admissions. How are colleges and universities complying with SFFA? What else will be necessary in order to ensure compliance? What does the next generation of cases look like? Outside of higher education, what will be the effect of SFFA? Does it apply to employment and contracting? Does it apply to gender as well as race? What does it say about disparate impact?Featuring:Prof. Peter Arcidiacono, William Henry Glasson Professor of Economics, Duke UniversityProf. David Bernstein, University Professor of Law; Executive Director, Liberty & Law Center, George Mason University Prof. Kyle Rozema, Professor of Law, Co-Director of the JD/PhD Program and Academic Placement, Northwestern Pritzker School of LawProf. Sonja Starr, Julius Kreeger Professor of Law & Criminology, University of Chicago Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Lisa Branch, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

The 2024 National Lawyers Convention will take place November 14-16, 2024 at the Washington Hilton in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference is "Group Identity and the Law." The conference will conclude with the annual Hon. Robert H. Bork Memorial Lecture, featuring remarks by Prof. Stephen Sachs.Featuring:Prof. Stephen Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law School

RESOLVED: That Congress Can Ban TikTokFeaturing:Mr. Miguel Estrada, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP Mr. Patrick Philbin, Partner, Torridon Law PLLCModerator: Prof. Eugene Volokh, Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution; Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Distinguished Research Professor, UCLA School of Law

Artificial Intelligence is now part of daily life. AI has improved efficiency, predicted outcomes with accuracy, and even created innovations. At the same time, however, AI and its capabilities are evolving faster than the laws and regulations governing its use. AI presents new challenges to intellectual property—from inventorship and authorship issues to liability. This panel will explore the intersection of AI and Intellectual Property rights. In the copyright context, it must be determined who is the owner of AI-generated works to whether it is fair use to train AI models using copyrighted works. In the patent context, it must be determined whether AI can be an inventor and whether AI can or should be used to assist in the drafting of patents. It is also not settled who has the power to regulate AI—the USPTO and other federal agencies, or only Congress? These are all questions that will eventually be answered by the courts or legislation. This panel will explore these questions and more as it looks to try and answer how we can move forward in a world filled with AI while ensuring the protection of intellectual property rights.Featuring:Mr. Jordan Gimbel, Associate General Counsel, MicrosoftHon. Melissa Holyoak, Commissioner, Federal Trade CommissionHon. Darrell Issa, United States Representative (CA 48th District)Hon. Paul Redmond Michel, Former Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitModerator: Hon. Ryan T. Holte, United States Court of Federal Claims & Jurist-In-Residence Professor of Law, The University of Akron School of Law

In the twentieth century, state supreme courts and legislatures limited the practice of law to licensed law school graduates and prevented nonlawyers from investing in law firms. This regulatory structure has not yielded a sufficient supply of affordable legal services to keep pace with demand: despite government and charitable funding and pro bono work, over 90% of the basic civil legal needs of low-income Americans now go unmet.As lawyers have taken an interest in regulatory reform in this century, some have begun to scrutinize our own profession and explore whether innovative structural changes can help close this justice gap. The experts on this panel will equip attendees to consider reform in their states by examining the pros and cons of three such changes: (1) licensing legal paraprofessionals to perform limited legal services; (2) allowing nonlawyers to invest in legal service providers; and (3) reforming legal education and licensure to increase the supply of lawyers, especially in underserved geographic and practice areas.Featuring:Hon. Clint Bolick, Justice, Supreme Court of ArizonaHon. Charles Canady, Chief Justice, Florida Supreme CourtMs. Danielle Hirsch, Managing Director, Court Consulting Division, National Center for State CourtsMs. Lucy Ricca, Executive Director, Deborah L. Rhode Center on the Legal Profession, Stanford Law SchoolModerator: Hon. J. Brett Busby, Justice, Texas Supreme Court

Featuring:Ms. Rebecca Dormon, Labor Consultant, People ResultsMr. Pepper Crutcher, Partner, Balch & Bingham LLPMr. Bradford J. Kelley, Shareholder, LittlerModerator: Hon. Chad A. Readler, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Last term, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Rahimi, which built upon the text-first, history-second methodology articulated by the Supreme Court in Heller and reaffirmed in Bruen. Many hot button Second Amendment issues are percolating through the lower courts and are likely to reach this Supreme Court in the coming terms. This panel will discuss Rahimi's impact on the text and history methodology as applied to legal challenges to "gun free zones", bans on semi-automatic rifles and "high capacity" magazines, age restrictions, and restrictions on misdemeanants. The panel will also discuss several important methodological issues that are common to many Second Amendment litigations, including the debate whether 1791 or 1868 is the correct time to determine the meaning of the Second Amendment.Featuring:Prof. William Merkel, Associate Professor, Charleston School of LawMr. Mark W. Smith, Senior Fellow, Ave Maria School of Law and Host of the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment ChannelMr. David Thompson, Partner, Cooper & KirkModerator: Hon. Amul Thapar, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

The 1964 Civil Rights Act outlaws discrimination on the basis of sex in employment. In addition, in 1972, The Higher Education Act was amended to prohibit the exclusion of any person from any federally funded educational program or activity on the basis of sex. These seemingly simple prohibitions have recently been the focus of considerable attention. How, for example, do they apply to individuals whose gender identity is seemingly at odds with their biological sex? What does the Bostock decision say about their situation? Is a federally funded school required to assign bathrooms, showers, changing rooms, and sleeping quarters based on gender identity? Is an employer required to do so? If not required, is it permissible for these entities to do so under the law? What about athletics? What about prisons? And quite apart from what the law is now, what should it be? What about what is often called “gender affirming” treatment? Should a parent be able to obtain such treatment for a child? Should a parent be able to refuse it? What is the role of schools? Should the government be obligated to fund “gender affirming” care for prisoners or individuals on relief? Finally, does or should the law require others to accept a person’s preferred gender identity—at work, at school, elsewhere—and/or adjust their speech to reflect that identity?Featuring:Prof. Doriane Coleman, Thomas L. Perkins Distinguished Professor of Law, Duke Law School Ms. Erin Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending FreedomHon. Andrea Lucas, Commissioner, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionProf. Sarath Sanga, Professor of Law & Co-Director, Center for the Study of Corporate Law, Yale Law SchoolMr. D. John Sauer, Principle, James Otis Law Group LLC; Former Solicitor General, MissouriModerator: Ms. Jennifer Braceras, Founder, Independent Women’s Law Center; Former Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

(Ticketed event)On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society believes that it is most fitting to dedicate an annual lecture on limited government and the spirit of freedom to the memory of Barbara Olson. She had a deep commitment to the rule of law and understood well the relationship between respecting limits on government power and the preservation of freedom. And, significantly, Barbara Olson was an individual who never took freedom for granted in her own life, even in her final terrifying moments-her inspiring and energetic human spirit is a testament to what one can achieve in a world that places a premium on human freedom. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals.Featuring:Prof. Jonathan R. Turley, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law; Director of the Environmental Law Advocacy Center; Executive Director, Project for Older Prisoners, The George Washington University Law School

Theories of nuisance, market-share, and consumer protection liability have become increasingly popular among plaintiffs who cannot trace an alleged harm to any specific defendant. Recently, states and local governments have sought to impose market-share liability on companies based on allegedly misleading statements (or silence) about the potential effects of their products. These cases raise difficult legal issues that remain underdeveloped because the risk of a crippling damages award often pressures companies to settle claims early in litigation.Featuring:Mr. Theodore J. Boutrous, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLPMr. Elbert Lin, Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLPMr. Oramel H. Skinner, III, Executive Director, Alliance For ConsumersModerator: Hon. William H. Pryor, Jr., Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Much has been made of the promise and concerns around AI technical advances, and guardrails that might be considered to reduce the downside of opaque quasi-algorithmic outcomes associated with current large language model approaches. This panel will examine the current AI regulatory debate and explore how current and proposed corporate and governmental AI is being shaped and normed to provide outputs that reinforce “mainstream” economic, ideological and operational norms, with the risk of vested interests defining such norms. From national security applications, autonomous vehicle safety decisions, economic predictions, pareto-optimal and social benefit determinations, and health care deployment, to how you are entertained and educated, can we control what most of us can’t understand?Featuring:Mr. Stewart A. Baker, Of Counsel, Steptoe & Johnson LLPMr. Christopher Ekren, Global Technology Counsel, Sony Corporation of AmericaMs. Victoria Luxardo Jeffries, Director, United States Public Policy, MetaProf. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Visiting Fellow, Hoover InstitutionModerator: Hon. Stephen Alexander Vaden, Judge, United States Court of International Trade

Over the past year, college campuses have been filled with student protests and demonstrations. A large number of these protests involved students camping out on campus for weeks, taking over administrative and academic buildings, harassing and threatening other students and faculty members, and destruction of property. Many administrators have refused to discipline students or enforce their policies because of First Amendment concerns. Instead, they contend the First Amendment prohibited them from punishing the students or enforcing their policies because the students were engaged in protected speech. When it comes to protests and demonstrations, what does the First Amendment protect? When does protected speech cross the line into unprotected conduct? What duties does a public university have to protect its students from harassment and intimidation? How does a university determine what speech is likely to incite imminent violence?This panel will examine the scope and limits of the First Amendment, especially as it relates to public colleges and universities.Featuring:Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under LawDean Thomas J. Miles, Dean & Clifton R. Musser Professor of Law and Economics, The University of Chicago Law SchoolProf. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, Emerita, New York Law School; Former President, American Civil Liberties UnionProf. Eugene Volokh, Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution; Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Distinguished Research Professor, UCLA School of LawModerator: Hon. David R. Stras, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

As international courts have addressed issues arising from the Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Hamas wars, we will explore whether engagement with the ICC and ICJ institutions is beneficial or harmful to the United States and how U.S. policymakers should approach these courts.Feature:Hon. Charles Brower, Judge, Iran-United States Claims Tribunal and Arbitrator Member, Twenty Essex ChambersProf. Diane Desierto, Professor of Law and Global Affairs, Notre Dame Law School; Faculty Director, LL.M. in International Human Rights Law; Global Director, Notre Dame Law School Global Human Rights ClinicProf. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law; Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University LawProf. Michael A. Newton, Professor of the Practice of Law and Professor of the Practice of Political Science, Vanderbilt Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Featuring a conversation addressing regulation of artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, tech platform regulation, privacy, spectrum policy, broadband funding and other government spending, and consumer protection issues.Featuring:Ms. Robin Colwell, Principal, BGR Government Affairs, LLCMr. Scott Blake Harris, Co-Founder and Managing Partner, Crest Hill AdvisorsMr. Umair Javed, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, CTIAProf. Mario Loyola, Research Assistant Professor, Florida International University; Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage FoundationModerator: Hon. Michael H. Park, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Critics have raised concerns about the inadequacy of the consumer welfare standard for the 21st century, while others defend the standard as a proven and manageable test. Has the focus on consumer welfare led to under-enforcement? Is there an objective and administrable alternative to replace it? This panel will discuss which approach to antitrust is best and ways forward to increase U.S. competitiveness and economic growth.Featuring:Mr. Adam Cella, Chief Counsel for the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust, House Committee on the Judiciary Mr. Thomas DeMatteo, General Counsel, Senate Judiciary CommitteeMr. Michael Kades, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice Mr. Christopher Mufarrige, Chief of Staff and Attorney Advisor, FTC Commissioner Melissa HolyoakMr. Alex Okuliar, Co-Chair of Morrison Foerster’s Global Antitrust Law Practice Group, Morrison FoersterModerator: Hon. Jennifer Walker Elrod, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

The Supreme Court's latest term was one of its most significant for administrative law. The Court ended Chevron deference, declared a right to a jury trial in securities fraud adjudications at the Securities and Exchange Commission, and expanded the statute of limitations to challenge agency decisions. Other leading cases included a challenge to a major Trump-era rulemaking on guns and a challenge to a significant federal environmental implementation plan. The Court's opinions have raised important questions about the separation of powers, the role of Congress, and the future of regulatory governance in America. Now that the Court has issued its rulings, the panel considers: What comes next for the regulated public, Congress, executive branch agencies, and the States?FeaturingHon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLCProf. Cary Coglianese, Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science; Director, Penn Program on Regulation, Penn Carey Law, University of Pennsylvania Prof. Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolHon. Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, Judge, United States District Court, Middle District of FloridaModerator: Hon. Neomi Rao, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Featuring:Hon. Eric Schmitt, United States Senator, MissouriModerator: Mr. Elbert Lin, Former Solicitor General, West Virginia; Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

Accomplishing anything of significance in this political environment requires courage. The legal industry has a few well-trodden pathways: law school, clerkship, large law firm, and perhaps a brief stint in government. Yet without courage, there is little potential for lasting impact along these pathways. While prior administrations may have emphasized conventional career paths and credentials in their selection process, there is an emerging interest in selecting for courage, independent thought, and sound judgment.But what paths best equip future leaders to accomplish great things in public service? Does the pressure to keep the option to return to a large law firm hinder one from accomplishing great things? What should we be doing to support people who demonstrate courage - including those who make the courageous choice to balance their careers with responsibilities to family and children?Featuring:Ms. Libby Locke, Partner, Clare Locke LLPHon. Jonathan Mitchell, Principal, Mitchell Law PLLCHon. Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General, TennesseeMs. Annie Donaldson Talley, Partner, Luther Strange & AssociatesMODERATOR: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Most would agree that all of these [tribalism, polarization, racism, religious enmity, and antisemitism] are bad for society. They are perhaps a particular threat in a democracy like ours, which is predicated on the idea that people of very different backgrounds and ideas can coexist peacefully. Following decades of improvement in all these areas, they seem to be resurgent in the United States. What role have the law, the courts, and the culture played in contributing to this state of affairs? How can law best be deployed to combat it and what is the role of civil society vs. law?Featuring:Mr. Jay Edelson, Founder & CEO, Edelson PCProf. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law SchoolProf. David M. Schizer, Harvey R. Miller Professor of Law and Economics and Dean Emeritus, Columbia Law SchoolMr. Matt Stoller, Director of Research, American Economic LibertieModerator: Hon. Steven J. Menashi, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

In recent years, the legal profession has increasingly prioritized diversity in law firm hiring and litigation leadership, driven by demands from corporate clients, alumni, and judges. Efforts to increase the representation of women and non-white lawyers have become so integral that they are now reflected in proposed formal rules, such as the FRCP 16.1, which would require judges to consider identity characteristics when selecting leadership teams for multidistrict litigation (MDL). This potential codification raises important questions about the legality and implications of identity-based preferences in the legal profession. How should client preferences for diversity be balanced with Title VII commitments, and what role should diversity of background play in law firm hiring and the selection of MDL legal teams? This panel will explore these issues, examining both the legal and policy arguments surrounding identity-based preferencing in legal employment.Featuring:Dean andré douglas pond cummings, Dean and Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law SchoolProf. Darrell D. Jackson, Winston Howard Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Wyoming College of LawMr. Roger Severino, Vice President, Domestic Policy & The Joseph C. and Elizabeth A. Anderlik Fellow, The Heritage FoundationMs. Tobi Young, Senior Vice President Legal & Chief Corporate Affairs Officer, Cognizant; Board of Directors, HalliburtonModerator: Hon. Patrick J. Bumatay, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

State and federal laws in a wide variety of settings tend to support gender transition in children. This has given rise to religious liberty and parental rights lawsuits. Conflicts include parental objections to gender ideology in public school curricula, secret gender transitions in public schools, state conversion therapy bans, denials of parental custody, foster care, and adoption, and gender transition treatment in the healthcare context. This panel will explore the intersection of the transgender legal movement, religious freedom, and parental rights.Featuring:Prof. Ira Lupu, F. Elwood and Eleanor Davis Professor Emeritus of Law, The George Washington University Law SchoolHon. Jason Miyares, Attorney General, VirginiaProf. Melissa Moschella, Professor of the Practice, Philosophy, McGrath Institute, University of Notre DameProf. Steve Sanders, Associate Dean and Professor of Law, Indiana University Maurer School of LawModerator: Hon. Kyle Duncan, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

It has been almost ten years since the advent of the ‘progressive prosecutor,’ local elected district attorneys and attorneys general throughout the country who ran on and then implemented a revolutionary new model of public prosecution. If states are the “laboratories of democracy” then there plainly has been a series of bold experiments testing the efficacy of this new model of law enforcement. Was it a success, or a failure? Has public safety and order been promoted, or jeopardized? Or is it all simply too soon to tell? Please join us as we present a panel of distinguished current and former elected officials, academics, and other experts in the field as they discuss all facets of these important questions of law, order, and the public interest.Featuring:Hon. John Creuzot, District Attorney, DallasProf. Carissa Byrne Hessick, Anne Shea Ransdell and William Garland "Buck" Ransdell, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of LawMr. Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage FoundationHon. Ray Tierney, District Attorney, Suffolk County, New YorkModerator: Hon. Kevin C. Newsom, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Recent times have seen growing criticism of the Supreme Court's legitimacy, with some claiming that the Supreme Court has amassed too much governmental and political power. Such critics have proposed judicial reform to even out this perceived imbalance, suggesting changes like term limits for justices and a binding code of ethics. Opponents say, however, that these changes could undermine the authority of the Supreme Court and upset the delicate system of checks and balances between the branches of government put in place by our Constitution. These debates have led to increased polarization within the legal profession. What is the real purpose and importance of preserving an independent judiciary? How can one engage with the Court's decisions without undermining its authority? Can we champion the integrity of the Court while fostering respectful and constructive dialogue within the legal community?Featuring:Prof. Daniel Epps, Professor of Law, Washington University in St. LouisHon. Edith H. Jones, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth CircuitMr. Kannon K. Shanmugam, Partner, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLPProf. Stephen I. Vladeck, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law CenterModerator: Hon. James C. Ho, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

In 2022, the ABA updated its Standard 303, Curriculum which relates to “cross-cultural competency” and “professional identity.” Because the ABA’s Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar is responsible for law school accreditation through an appointment from the U.S. Department of Education (and the agreement of State Bars), this change and the ways it can be implemented could have widespread implications.This panel will discuss the nature of the obligations the revised Standard places on law schools and the scope of such terms as "cross-cultural competency" and "racism." Do these new standards require new courses or course changes? Will the new courses displace any of the old ones? Will the implementation turn out to be education or training? Does this standard create any tension with later developments in law including Students for Fair Admissions v. UNC (2023)? What role does the Department of Education and State Bars have in scrutinizing and altering the effects of this new standard?Featuring:Dean Michael F. Barry, Professor of Law and Former President and Dean, South Texas College of Law HoustonDr. Dayna Bowen Matthew, Dean & Harold H. Greene Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law SchoolMs. Jennifer L. Rosato Perea, Managing Director, Accreditation and Legal Education, ABAHon. Nels Peterson, Justice, Supreme Court of GeorgiaModerator: Hon. Carlos T. Bea, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

This year, in a pair of decisions known as Loper Bright, the Supreme Court overruled the Chevron doctrine. As courts begin to apply the principles announced in Loper Bright, important changes are expected to occur within the federal government and its relationship to the states. For example, Congress may begin to write federal statutes with increasing specificity, courts may begin to apply their own reasoned judgment instead of deferring to agency experts in litigation involving the Administrative Procedure Act, and the states may have greater success in asserting their authority over important legal matters within their domain.These developments in administrative law will likely have a large effect on the realm of environmental and energy regulation. If courts can no longer presume that statutory ambiguities are implicit delegations by Congress to the Executive Branch, how ought Congress, federal agencies, and the states respond to a post-Chevron world?Featuring:Prof. Todd Aagaard, Professor of Law, Charles Widger School Of Law, Villanova UniversityHon. Lindsay See, Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionHon. Andrew Wheeler, Partner and Head of Federal Affairs, Holland & Hart; Former EPA AdministratorModerator: Hon. Thomas M. Hardiman, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

The importance of judicial selection and confirmation is now a point of emphasis for all presidential administrations. In 2025 and going forward, what principles and considerations will govern judicial selection (and confirmation) in a new administration, with a new Senate majority. These and other important Article III issues will be considered by our panel of experts.Featuring:Mr. Michael Fragoso, Chief Counsel, Office of the Republican Minority LeaderMr. David Lat, Founder, Above the LawProf. Robert Luther III, Distinguished Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. Carl Tobias, Williams Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of LawModerator: Hon. Michael B. Brennan, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

The “disparate impact” approach to civil rights enforcement makes it presumptively illegal to use selection criteria that result in statistical disparities based on, inter alia, race or ethnicity. It is no defense that the use of a challenged criterion had no discriminatory motive; the only defense is if its use meets some “necessity” standard. The inevitable result is to encourage race-based decision-making when selection criteria are chosen and implemented. Yet using this approach is widespread and found in numerous statutes and regulations. Given the Supreme Court’s decision striking down racial preferences in SFFA v. Harvard, what impact will this have on the disparate-impact approach?Featuring:Mr. Dan Morenoff, Executive Director & Secretary, American Civil Rights ProjectMr. Joshua P. Thompson, Director of Equality and Opportunity Litigation, Pacific Legal FoundationHon. Jenny R. Yang, Adjunct Professor of Law, New York University School of LawModerator: Hon. John B. Nalbandian, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

The future of the national bank system is increasingly uncertain as federal regulators have incorporated DEI and ESG into bank supervision, creating tensions with some states. Several states have responded by attempting to ban such practices, potentially creating conflicting legal duties for banks. Meanwhile, other states are challenging interest rate exportation and other aspects of state preemption, which arguably undermines the value of national charters and hampers the ability of banks and fintechs to scale nationwide. The Supreme Court's recent overruling of the Chevron doctrine adds another layer of uncertainty as federal regulators will receive reduced deference. Do these conflicts signal the end of national bank charters, and are we headed toward a red-state/blue-state banking system? This panel will explore these questions.Featuring:Mr. John Court, Executive Vice President, General Counsel & COO, Bank Policy InstituteMr. Will Hild, Executive Director, Consumers’ ResearchProf. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityModerator: Hon. Ryan D. Nelson, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

The Supreme Court’s most recent term was one of significance with respect to the separation of powers. The Court held that the President is immune from criminal prosecution for most official acts. The Court also overturned the Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright v. Raimondo and determined that administrative agencies typically cannot impose civil penalties against individuals without a jury trial in SEC v. Jarkesy. These cases followed not long after the Supreme Court’s express recognition of the major-questions doctrine in West Virginia v. EPA. Yet the Supreme Court also upheld the CFPB’s novel funding method in the face of an Appropriation Clause challenge, issued an important opinion bearing on facial challenges in Moody v. NetChoice, and rejected a petition asking that it reconsider the nondelegation doctrine. What is driving these decisions—originalism, history, or pragmatic concerns? What issues might be ripe for further development or reexamination—nondelegation, removal restrictions on officers, the major questions doctrine, or something else? And how should advocates think about separation of powers challenges moving forward, in the context of both strategic and corporate litigation?FeaturingMr. Russell Balikian, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPMs. Zhonette Brown, General Counsel and Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties AllianceMr. Roman Martinez, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLPMr. Luke McCloud, Partner, Williams & ConnollyModerator: Hon. Daniel Bress, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

By the time of the National Lawyers Convention, the American electorate will have decided on a new president and, with him or her, a new administration. What will a Donald Trump or Kamala Harris administration mean for American business? How will the new administration handle corporate tax, federal regulations, agency guidance, antitrust questions, and helming the administrative state in a post-Chevron world? How should American companies, and their in-house counsels, prepare for the next four years?Featuring:Hon. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, IowaMr. Martine Cicconi, Partner, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLPMr. Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLPModerator: Hon. Rachel Brand, Executive Vice President of Global Governance, Chief Legal Officer & Corporate Secretary, Walmart Inc.

Over the past four years, state attorneys general have brought many significant lawsuits against the Biden administration. From border enforcement and student loan forgiveness, to Title IX rules and environmental regulations, states have brought the executive branch into court over divisive legal questions. Some of these suits remain active. This panel of experts will recap the most notable cases of the past presidential term and discuss what the recent election could mean for the future.Featuring:Mr. T. Elliot Gaiser, Solicitor General, OhioMr. Eric Olson, Former Solicitor General of Colorado; Partner, Olson GrimsleyHon. Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General, TennesseeModerator: Hon. Britt C. Grant, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

The generation of political leaders that produced the landmark legislation of the Civil Rights Era no doubt saw themselves as working to make one’s race, ethnicity, religion, sex, etc. matter less to one’s future prospects. And in many ways, they clearly succeeded. They would almost certainly be surprised and disappointed to learn how much emphasis those factors are still getting. Why has this happened? Is the problem that our focus on issues of race, ethnicity, sex, religion, gender, etc. has gone too far? Or is the problem that we haven’t yet focused on them enough? To what extent has the law helped create the current state of affairs? How can the law help us move in a better direction?Featuring: Mr. Jonathan Berry, Managing Partner, Boyden Gray PLLCProf. Tyler Austin Harper, Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies, Bates CollegeHon. Gail L. Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of LawProf. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of LawMs. Heather Mac Donald, Thomas W. Smith Fellow, Manhattan Institute; Contributing Editor, City JournalModerator: Hon. Paul Matey, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Last year, the Supreme Court decided the cases of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Student for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (SFFA). The Court held that the admissions programs of Harvard and UNC violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The decision has been interpreted broadly as outlawing race affirmative action in college and university admissions. However, in footnote 4 of the opinion, the Court indicated that its decision “does not address the issue” of race-based admissions programs at the military academies. Shortly after the release of SFFA, Students for Fair Admissions sued both West Point and the Naval Academy to directly challenge their admissions programs. This webinar will provide a litigation update in these cases and explore the ramifications of the exemption to the SFFA holding created by footnote 4 of the opinion.Featuring:John E. McGlothlin, Special Projects Officer, National Guard Bureau, Office of the Inspector General; Adjunct Professor, University of Maryland Global CampusJohn J. Park, Jr., General Counsel, Indigo Energy(Moderator) Devon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity

This year's roll-out of the new Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) has changed postsecondary education for students, institutions, and federal policymakers. This evolving landscape will be explored by Emmanuel Guillory from the American Council on Education, Steve Taylor from the Stand Together Trust, and Diane Auer Jones, a former acting undersecretary of the Department of Education. The informative discussion will be moderated by Jim Blew, a co-founder from the Defense of Freedom Institute.Join us on July 26 at 3 pm EST for a lively discussion on the far reaches of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). Featuring: (Moderator) Jim Blew, Co-Founder, Defense of Freedom InstituteDiane A. Jones, Former principal deputy under secretary, U.S. Department of EducationSteven Taylor, Director and Senior Fellow, Education & Workforce, Stand Together TrustEmmanual Guillory, Senior Director, Government Relations, American Council on Education

Join Webinar On June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court issued their opinion in Murthy v. Missouri. Originally filed as Missouri v. Biden, this case concerns whether federal government officials violated five individuals’ freedom of speech by “coercing” or “significantly encouraging” social media companies to remove or demote particular content from their platforms.Experts discuss and react to this 6-3 ruling.Featuring: Moderator: Brent Skorup, Legal Fellow, Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Insitute Speakers: Corbin K. Barthold, Internet Policy Counsel and Director of Appellate LitigationJosh Divine, Solicitor General, Missouri Attorney General's OfficeJenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

With conflict rising across the globe and a presidential election this year, the United States is positioned to reevaluate its foreign policy approach to current and future challenges. This panel will examine the role the US should play in global affairs. What should American engagement look like today? This discussion will explore whether the US should recalibrate its grand strategy to effectively address emerging conflicts, technological advancements, and global threats.By evaluating past strategies and envisioning future directions, the panel aims to offer insights and opinions on the future of US foreign policy in the 21st century.Featuring: Lt. General (Ret.) Keith Kellogg, Co-Chair, Center for American SecurityDr. Kori Schake, Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, American Enterprise InstituteMatthew R. A. Heiman, Chief Legal & Administrative Officer, Waystar Health

Lunch will be served at 12:00 p.m. with remarks from Prof. Eliot A. Cohen to follow. The address is titled "Can America Remain a Global Power?"