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, Dallas
Prof. Carissa Byrne Hessick, Anne Shea Ransdell and William Garland "Buck" Ransdell, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law
Mr. Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage Foundation
Hon. Ray Tierney, District Attorney, Suffolk County, New York
Moderator: 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. Louis
Hon. Edith H. Jones, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Mr. Kannon K. Shanmugam, Partner, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
Prof. Stephen I. Vladeck, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Moderator: 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 Houston
Dr. Dayna Bowen Matthew, Dean & Harold H. Greene Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School
Ms. Jennifer L. Rosato Perea, Managing Director, Accreditation and Legal Education, ABA
Hon. Nels Peterson, Justice, Supreme Court of Georgia
Moderator: 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 University
Hon. Lindsay See, Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Hon. Andrew Wheeler, Partner and Head of Federal Affairs, Holland & Hart; Former EPA Administrator
Moderator: 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 Leader
Mr. David Lat, Founder, Above the Law
Prof. Robert Luther III, Distinguished Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Prof. Carl Tobias, Williams Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of Law
Moderator: 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 Project
Mr. Joshua P. Thompson, Director of Equality and Opportunity Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation
Hon. Jenny R. Yang, Adjunct Professor of Law, New York University School of Law
Moderator: 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 Institute
Mr. Will Hild, Executive Director, Consumers’ Research
Prof. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Moderator: Hon. Ryan D. Nelson, 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, Iowa
Mr. Martine Cicconi, Partner, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
Mr. Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
Moderator: 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, Ohio
Mr. Eric Olson, Former Solicitor General of Colorado; Partner, Olson Grimsley
Hon. Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General, Tennessee
Moderator: 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 PLLC
Prof. Tyler Austin Harper, Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies, Bates College
Hon. Gail L. Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law
Prof. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law
Ms. Heather Mac Donald, Thomas W. Smith Fellow, Manhattan Institute; Contributing Editor, City Journal
Moderator: Hon. Paul Matey, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit