The Council of the ABA's Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar has long been the only federally recognized accreditor for law schools. In that role, it is able to direct what law schools teach and determine what constitutes sufficient coursework for law students. Over the past several years, the ABA has faced several challenges to proposed directives for law schools, including a recent proposal to increase the requirement of clinical hours (which has since been withdrawn) and various policies that have been labeled DEI initiatives. Some have lauded those efforts, while others have expressed concern that they mistake the purpose of law schools. In light of skepticism about the ABA, some state bars, particularly Florida and Texas, have opted to no longer require students to have attended an ABA-accredited law school in order to sit for their bar exams. In light of these and other efforts, voices from across the political spectrum have debated not just the value of the particular ABA policy directives, but the appropriate role of the ABA as an accreditor. Our panel will dive into those arguments around the ABA.

Featuring:

Prof. Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Daniel B. Rodriguez, Harold Washington Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
Daniel R. Thies, Shareholder, Webber & Thies PC
(Moderator) Prof. Michael S. McGinniss, Professor of Law and J. Philip Johnson Faculty Fellow, University of North Dakota School of Law

Last session saw no shortage of proposals in Congress for labor-law reform. In the Senate, lawmakers introduced proposals ranging from mandatory interest arbitration to bans on organizing undocumented workers. In the House, representatives proposed a range of union-democracy reforms, including a requirement for unions to poll their members before endorsing a candidate for president. And in between, scholars and practitioners offered their own ideas, including a proposal to transform the National Labor Relations Board into an article I court.
The ideas are abundant, but are any of them viable? Which ones can thread the needle in Congress? And more importantly, how would they change the way employees, employers, and unions conduct their business? Join us as our expert panel breaks them down.
Featuring:

Thomas Beck, Senior Adviser, Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.
G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, CHRO Association
F. Vincent Vernuccio, President, Institute for the American Worker
(Moderator) Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair of the Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.

Join us for a webinar examining the Third Circuit’s ongoing review of a decision holding that publishing ASTM standards—which are funded by licenses to use the standards—is a noninfringing fair use under US copyright law. This session will present arguments from both sides, analyzing the tension between a private entity’s right to protect its investments in developing copyrighted technical standards, and the public’s right to access the laws which incorporate those standards. With the Third Circuit poised to issue a decision in ASTM v. UpCodes soon, this webinar aims to provide informative insight on the regulatory and intellectual property policies that will soon be implicated.
Featuring:

Prof. Emily Bremer, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law
(Moderator) Hon. Stephen Vaden, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture

CLE credit for this event will be available at On-Demand CLE. Anticipated availability date: March 15th.
This webinar brings together current and former General Counsels from the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of War (Defense), and the Department of the Navy. Drawing on their experience, practice, and diverse career paths, the panel will explore the practice of law within the Department of War and the individual services; the opportunities, challenges, and rewards of this dynamic field of law and policy; the skills and competencies critical to success both within government service and beyond; and how this unique area of practice broadens Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs) as attorneys and equips them for successful transitions to civilian practice.
This program serves as the inaugural webinar of the Armed Services Legal Network. To learn more about this new initiative of the Federalist Society, click here. If you are currently a JAG or a veteran practicing law and are interested in participating in the Network, please contact us at [email protected].
CLE Info
Featuring:

Hon. James Baehr, General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs; Lieutenant Colonel, USMC Reserve; Former Military Judge
Hon. Paul C. Ney, Former General Counsel of the Department of Defense and currently Partner, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
Hon. Robert J. Sander, Former General Counsel of the Department of the Navy, Former Acting General Counsel of the Army, and currently Founding Partner, The Sander Group, PLLC
(Moderator) Toby Curto, Colonel, U.S. Army

The Federal Judicial Center describes itself as “the research and education agency of the judicial branch of the United States Government.” Yet it has recently come under scrutiny for its release of a new Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, which critics argue departs from the judiciary’s traditional role as a neutral arbiter. In particular, the Manual’s inclusion of a “climate science” section which advances an ideological narrative rather than provide neutral guidance.Is the Center’s Report putting a thumb on the scale by taking sides on contested climate science questions and, through official manuals and guidance materials, attempting to shape how judges are instructed to evaluate disputed questions before cases are even heard? And is the Report compatible with the judge’s duty to say what the law is, not what it should be?

Featuring:

Michael Fragoso, Partner, Torridon Law PLCC; former Chief Counsel to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell
Carrie Campbell Severino, President, Judicial Crisis Network (JCN)
Michael R. Williams, Solicitor General, West Virginia

School choice has come more to the fore of public awareness in the past several years. This recent increase in attention may be evidenced by the inclusion of the Federal Tax Credit Scholarship Program in 2025's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which, among other things, created a federally funded tax credit scholarship program for elementary and secondary education.
This panel will discuss the current state of educational choice and school choice programs across the nation, and the potential impact of the Federal Tax Credit Scholarship Program.
Featuring:

Jim Blew, Co-Founder, Defense of Freedom Institute
Leslie Hiner, Vice President of Legal Policy, EdChoice
Shaka Mitchell, Senior Fellow, the American Federation for Children
(Moderator) Gene Schaerr, Schaerr Jaffe LLP

Who controls your financial data and who decides how it can be used? As Americans increasingly rely on digital banking, apps, and financial technology tools, that question has moved to the forefront of a policy debate that may come to a head in the coming months.
Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act is currently under review by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, prompting renewed debate over how consumers should access their own financial information and decide how it is shared. Translating that principle into practice, raises significant legal and policy questions about whether current regulatory and market structures truly empower consumers or instead concentrate control over data into the hands of banks
This webinar will examine open banking through a consumer-centered legal lens, focusing on how rules governing data access, privacy, and consent impact real-world choice. Panelists will discuss how bank-centric approaches may prioritize institutional preferences over consumer autonomy, potentially limiting Americans’ ability to use innovative financial tools that rely on secure, authorized data sharing.
Throughout the program, panelists will evaluate the CFPB’s Section 1033 rulemaking and consider whether a consumer-directed approach to financial data can both defend consumer’s right to their own data and foster innovation.
Featuring:

Paul Watkins, Managing Partner, Fusion Law PLLC
Prof. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
(Moderator) Will Hild, Executive Director, Consumers Research

Ellingburg v. United States concerned whether forced restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA), was a civil remedy or a criminal penalty. The MVRA requires defendants who are convicted of some types of federal crimes to pay monetary restitution to the victims. Holsey Ellingburg committed a robbery in 1995. Then, during the course of his trial, the MVRA was passed. When sentenced, he was given both a prison sentence and ordered to pay mandatory restitution under the MVRA. Ellingburg eventually challenged the forced restitution, arguing that the application of the MVRA to him violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Eighth Circuit ruled against Ellingburg, holding that MVRA restitution is a civil remedy. Ellingburg petitioned the Supreme Court for review, which held the MVRA is "plainly criminal punishment" and thus its application to Ellingburg violated the Ex Post Facto clause.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze the decision and what its impacts may be.
Featuring:

Matthew P. Cavedon, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute
(Moderator) Sarah Field, Chief Counsel, Legal Policy, Koch Capabilities, LLC

Last year was a tumultuous one for labor law. Not only was the National Labor Relations Board stalled by the firing of then-Member Gwynne Wilcox, but the Board itself came under fire in lawsuits challenging its current structure. Perceiving a gap, lawmakers in California and New York stepped in, authorizing local agencies to take up much of the Board’s work. Those laws, however, have each been blocked by federal district courts. In separate decisions, these courts found federal law preempted the state laws, despite the Board’s tribulations.
Were those decisions right? Will they hold? And if they do, what do they mean for the future of federal–state relations? Join our panel as they look forward to the next chapter of American labor law.
Featuring:

Prof. Benjamin I. Sachs, Kestnbaum Professor of Labor and Industry, Harvard Law School
Aaron B. Solem, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Foundation
(Moderator) Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair, Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.

The panel will discuss the questions left open—or raised—by the Supreme Court’s decisions in FCC v. Consumers' Research and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, about the proper approach to statutory construction and the role that the nondelegation doctrine should play as a background principle in statutory analysis in cases where an agency has claimed broad authority to weigh competing public values when promulgating legislative rules. The discussion might address such subtopics as:

Whether the Supreme Court’s rejection of an “extravagant” interpretation of FCC’s statutory authority in Consumers’ Research tells us anything about how courts should approach statutory cases where an agency is asserting an expansive view of its statutory authorities—given that the Court appeared to say that the dissent’s (supposedly “extravagant”) interpretation would present a nondelegation problem.
What role nondelegation concerns should play under the avoidance canon in cases where an agency seeks to stretch nebulous or expressly open-ended delegations to achieve whatever policy objective the Executive Branch deems fit from one administration to the next.
Whether these kinds of concerns can be dealt with by expanding clear statement rules—like that the Court has begun to develop with the major questions doctrine.
Whether and to what extent legitimate nondelegation concerns arise in cases where Congress has expressly said that an issue is vested to agency discretion—as was contemplated in Loper Bright for certain kinds of rules for which the Court said the agency gets to decide.

Featuring:

Prof. Jonathan Adler, Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law and William H. Cabell Research Professor, William & Mary Law School; Senior Fellow, Property and Environment Research Center
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School
(Moderator) Adam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Director, Scalia Law's C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State