Traditionally, education has been seen as instilling the common shared civic values that Americans have held for since the nation’s founding. As the educational establishment has become increasingly more progressive, many states have begun to offer alternatives to traditional public-school education, particularly in the wake of the Covid pandemic when many schools were shut down. This has included laws that allow for educational savings accounts, charter schools, and home-schooling. However, these proposals have met fierce opposition from the educational establishment, legislatures, and education unions. At the heart of this opposition is access to funding and the degree to which parents have the right to make educational decisions for their children. Will education choice laws restore balance to American education? How does this battle affect the trust in America’s educational system? Are there proposals that all sides agree upon that can restore a sense of shared civic values? How do these battles affect local school board races and what does that mean for representative government? Panelists will answer these questions as well as address some of the key educational questions affecting the Western States.Featuring:Hon. Clint Bolick Moderator, Justice, Arizona Supreme CourtCara Fitzpatrick, Story Editor, Chalkbeat NationalTim Keller, Executive Director, The Institute for Justice Arizona ChapterErin Valdez, Policy Director, Next Generation Texas

From the 1960s onward, election lawyers on the political left focused on securing and expanding voting access. Lawyers on the political right focused on ensuring the integrity and accuracy of the voting process. Now, most academic literature suggests that there's fairly little disenfranchisement and fairly little voter fraud. Despite this evidence, the voting process has become increasingly controversial in recent years, with increasing attacks on election integrity and voting access. This rhetoric has all led to decreased voter trust in the process. Headed into another presidential election year, panelists will consider whether recent developments in mail-in voting, voter ID, and voter harvesting laws, among other issues, merit the decreased trust voters have in the process and how election lawyers should respond.Featuring:Audrey Perry Martin, Partner, Gober GroupHon. Michael T. Liburdi Moderator, Judge, United States District Court, District of ArizonaStephen I. Richer, County Recorder, Maricopa CountyBradley Schrager, Attorney, Bravo Schrager LLP

All levels of the judiciary have faced increased attacks on their independence in recent years. Even trial court judges have faced increased scrutiny, particularly those in single-judge districts and those who have granted nationwide injunctions. “Reform” proposals such as adding justices, term limits, ethics codes, abolishing blue slips, and limiting the Court’s jurisdiction have been proposed by critics to limit the power of the courts. However, these proposals are nothing new: in decades past, when the ideological balance of the Court was different, similar proposals were floated by those who sought to limit the role and influence of the courts. What’s changed? What is the role of the organized bar, if any, in defending judicial independence? How, if at all, has the increased politicization of the judicial confirmation process affected judicial independence? What does all of this mean for trust in the judiciary? And are there changes that should be considered that are both constitutional and would receive bipartisan support? Should conservatives be more aggressive in defending attacks against the judiciary? Panelists will discuss these and other questions in considering judicial independence and the people’s trust in the judiciary.Featuring:Hon. Carlos T. Bea Moderator, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth CircuitBenjamin M. Flowers, Partner, Ashbrook Byrne Kresge LLC; Former Solicitor General, State of OhioProf. Michael D. Ramsey, Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation, Professor of Law; Director, International & Comparative Law Programs, University of San Diego School of LawProf. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of LawDebra Wong Yang, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

Join the DC Young Lawyers Chapter and the George Mason Student Chapter for an evening conversation and reception. Featuring:Prof. Jennifer Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law and Co-Executive Director, C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityThomas McCarthy, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC; Adjunct Professor, George Mason University Scalia LawProf. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityDoors open at 6 with the program to begin promptly at 6:30. A reception will follow. This event is free to attend.

On Wednesday, November 29, the Harvard Student Chapter held a conversation, produced in partnership with the Harvard Alumni for Free Speech, featuring Prof. Randall Kennedy and Prof. Nadine Strossen to commemorate the 164th anniversary of Frederick Douglass's "Plea for Free Speech in Boston."Featuring:Prof. Randall Kennedy, Michael R. Klein Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law Emerita, New York Law School; Former President, American Civil Liberties Union

Collegiality and the presumption that opposing counsel work together in good faith are bedrocks of the American legal profession, as well as unpopular ideas and clients being able to obtain competent representation and equal access to justice under the law. In recent years, there has been an increase in disruptive activity in law schools. We have seen law students declare ideas "too harmful" for open debate and try to “cancel” or “shame” anyone who challenges their views. We have also seen instances where law students shout down invited speakers, even federal judges. But today's law students are tomorrow's lawyers. How should the legal profession prepare to deal with these recent trends on campus? What’s the responsibility of faculty and administrators to model and educate on appropriate behavior in an academic community and in the legal profession? Should there be consequences for students that engage in disruptive activity in law school? Should legal employers be concerned how these students will handle representing clients and making arguments that do not align with their own views? Should clients be worried about hiring lawyers that have personally disrupted an event by a judge? Our panel will feature leaders from all the major institutions that will have to answer these important questions: academia, the courts, law firms, and in-house legal departments. Featuring:Robert Ahdeih, Dean and Anthony G. Buzbee Endowed Dean's Chair and Vice President for Professional Schools and Programs, Texas A&M UniversityHon. Jimmy Blacklock, Justice, Supreme Court of Texas Gregg Costa, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPHiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty InstituteJ. Ammon Smartt, General Counsel, North America; Global Lead Counsel, Treasury, WTWModerator: Hon. Reed O’Connor, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas

Litigation and legislation involving complex issues regarding gender identity are at the forefront of public interest. States and other authorities face questions about legality, morality, or advisability of treatment for minors. Courts are being asked to adjudicate who can participate in sex-segregated sporting competitions. Advocates on all sides of these complex gender identity issues portray their position as a matter of fairness. When minors are involved all sides claim to seek to protect the best interest of the child and there is not a clear ideological breakdown in terms of whether states should adopt a parents rights approach, which cautions deference to parents to protect their child’s best interests, versus those who advocate for state intervention to protect the child. In both red and blue states, advocacy for the respective ideological approaches can draw opposing conclusions, wherein, for example, some states are banning medical intervention for minors over parents’ objections and other states are permitting medical intervention for minors over parents’ objections. Our panel today will discuss these and other legal issues facing state governments, parents, and children as they work to navigate these new legal challenges.Featuring:Christiana Kiefer, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending FreedomProf. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of LawShannon Minter, Legal Director, National Center for Lesbian Rights Christopher Mills, Principal, Spero Law, LLCModerator: Hon. Elizabeth Kerr, Justice, Second Court of Appeals, State of Texas

The U.S. Supreme Court’s originalist jurisprudence has been on display in its most recent terms – consider the constitutional analysis in major cases like Bruen and Dobbs. But is the Court’s originalism sound? In his newly released book, Mere Natural Law, Professor Hadley Arkes argues that the Court’s ascendant mode of interpretation insufficiently relies upon the natural moral law. Critics assert that such reliance would be difficult, if not impossible, to moor to objectively discernible standards. This panel brings together several of the most formidable constitutional scholars of a generation to discuss natural law and constitutional conservatism alongside Professor Arkes. Featuring: Prof. Hadley P. Arkes, Founder and Director, James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights and the American Founding & Edward N. Ney Professor in American Institutions Emeritus, Amherst College Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center Hon. Edith H. Jones, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit Moderator: Prof. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence & Director, James Madison Program, Princeton University Overflow: Chinese Room

Is the National Labor Relations Board doing more than any other federal agency to impose broad restrictions on non-coercive speech, based exclusively on whether the speaker is an employer? Under other statutes, speech prohibitions require evidence of actual threats, unlawful retaliation or potential injury to health and safety, and the National Labor Relations Act expressly protects the right to express “views,” “argument” and “opinion” unless the message “contains” an illegal threat or promise. The NLRB General Counsel is prosecuting numerous complaints claiming it is “inherently” coercive and “per se” unlawful for employers to address certain subjects in the workplace. This session will involve diverse views about important questions: Where do these cases leave the First Amendment? Does commerce regulation override the First Amendment? Does the NLRB have authority to prohibit workplace discussions by employers regarding certain subjects? And what role exists in this critical area for the courts? Featuring: Hon. Philip A. Miscimarra, Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Craig Becker, General Counsel, American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations Moderator: Hon. Chad A. Readler, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Featuring: Prof. J. Joel Alicea, Co-Director, Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition, Assistant Professor of Law, Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Founding Director, Georgetown Center for the Constitution Prof. Richard H. Fallon, Story Professor of Law, Harvard Law School Prof. Stephen E. Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law School Moderator: Hon. Neomi Rao, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit