Jurisdictions increasingly require attorneys to complete CLE credits addressing bias, diversity, and inclusion in the legal profession. These requirements are often justified as tools to help lawyers reduce bias and ensure competent representation of clients from varied backgrounds. But these mandatory programs also raise significant and unsettled questions about how the profession may regulate bias in a manner consistent with federal law. When does a required course permissibly educate lawyers about bias, discriminatory conduct, barriers to access to justice, or cultural competency in legal practice? And when might mandatory training cross the line into compelled speech, viewpoint discrimination, or race- or sex-conscious practices that conflict with constitutional principles or civil-rights statutes?
Join us for a CLE program examining the boundaries of these mandatory CLE requirements, including how such rules and programs can be structured to help lawyers recognize and mitigate bias in the legal profession while remaining consistent with constitutional and statutory limits.
Featuring:

Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
Prof. William Jacobson, Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School
Daniel Lennington, Deputy Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty
(Moderator) Prof. Michael S. McGinniss, Professor of Law and J. Philip Johnson Faculty Fellow, University of North Dakota School of Law


CLE
This event has been approved for
1.00 Total CLE Hours
Approved specialty credit (DEI, Ethics, etc.) is included on the State Approval Status chart below.
State Approval Status

In order to receive CLE credit for this webinar, attendees must attend the Zoom Webinar and have access to the chat box. This event's accreditation is highly predicated upon interactivity and verification measures that are only available via the webinar.
If you join via audio, calling in, SIP, or H.323, you will not be eligible to receive CLE Credit.
CLE Materials

Questions? Check out our CLE FAQ page.

Shortly after retaking office, President Trump signed executive orders reorienting the federal government’s approach to civil rights. Those orders directed agencies to identify and eliminate unlawful diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and other practices involving race- or sex-based discrimination, while emphasizing equal treatment, individual merit, and nondiscrimination. In April of last year, Executive Order 14281 (Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy) went further, announcing a policy to "eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible" — placing renewed focus on one of the oldest and most consequential debates in antidiscrimination law.Join us for a webinar that examines how the administration’s civil rights agenda is being implemented across the federal government.Featuring:

Hon. Brittany Bull Panuccio, Commissioner, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Hon. Craig Trainor, Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Hon. Devon Westhill, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Agriculture
(Moderator) Hon. Ken Marcus, Founder, Chairman, and CEO, The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

In this Federalist Society America 250 series, experts analyze modern legal and policy debates through the lens of the Founding generation. The Founders gave us the tools to answer many contemporary questions; join us as we explore those answers.
American lawyers have long been defined by a commitment to represent even the most unpopular clients—a tradition that traces back to the Founding. When John Adams defended the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre, he did so in the face of intense public hostility, underscoring a simple but enduring principle: the right to counsel does not turn on public approval. This webinar revisits that moment to examine the lawyer’s role in an adversarial system—not as an endorsement of a client’s conduct, but as a safeguard of the legal system itself.
That principle has been under strain in recent decades. Lawyers representing controversial clients or causes have faced increasing public backlash and, in some cases, professional consequences. Similar pressures surfaced during the Red Scare, when attorneys representing alleged subversives were themselves subject to suspicion. As criticism shifts from clients to the lawyers who represent them, the question becomes harder to ignore: what happens to the legal system when representation itself is treated as suspect? Join our panel as they discuss what the Founding-era commitment to principled representation means for lawyers today.
Featuring:

William Creeley, Legal Director, The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
Erin E. Murphy, Partner, Clement & Murphy PLLC
Prof. Richard Samuelson, Associate Professor of Government, Hillsdale College, Washington, D.C. Campus
(Moderator) Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One


CLE
This event has been approved for
1.00 Total CLE Hours
Approved specialty credit (DEI, Civility, Ethics, etc.) is included on the State Approval Status chart below.
State Approval Status

In order to receive CLE credit for this webinar, attendees must attend the Zoom Webinar and have access to the chat box. This event's accreditation is highly predicated upon interactivity and verification measures that are only available via the webinar.
If you join via audio, calling in, SIP, or H.323, you will not be eligible to receive CLE Credit.
CLE Materials

Questions? Check out our CLE FAQ page.

In 2022, Florida enacted the Stop WOKE (Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees) Act, prohibiting indoctrination of race and gender ideology in a variety of educational and employment contexts. The law’s K-12 provisions remain in effect, but addressing a challenge to its higher education provisions, an Eleventh Circuit panel recently held “if the First Amendment offers any boundary of protection at all for public university classrooms, this statute crosses it.”What is “academic freedom?” Whose right is it? What role do taxpayers and the lawmakers working on their behalf have in funding and setting curricular decisions for state universities? How might other decisions prohibiting compelled use by faculty of preferred pronouns or preventing adverse employment actions against conservative faculty members inform the discussion? Join our panel of experts as they explore the intersection of academic freedom, free speech, and the First Amendment.
Featuring:

Joe Cohn, Research Scholar in Law and Executive Director, Center for Academic Freedom and Free Speech, Yale Law School
Tyson Langhofer, Senior Counsel, Director of Center for Academic Freedom, Alliance Defending Freedom
May Mailman, Founder, MPL Strategies
(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal Strategy, Stand Together

Public schools across the country are increasingly the site of debates over the role of parents in their children’s education. The public school system in Loudoun County, Virginia has become one of the most visible examples, drawing national attention over disputes involving curriculum, student privacy, and gender identity policies.
Join us for a panel discussion focusing on Loudoun County as a case study exploring the tension between parents and educators in public schools.
Featuring:

Tyson Langhofer, Senior Counsel, Director of Center for Academic Freedom, Alliance Defending Freedom
Ian Prior, Senior Advisor, America First Legal
(Moderator) Roger Severino, Vice President of Domestic and Economic Policy, The Heritage Foundation

This summer, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Faster Labor Contracts Act, a bill that would transform how unions and employers negotiate their first agreements. It would impose quick deadlines for negotiations, after which it would send the parties to mediation and eventually binding arbitration, where a panel of arbitrators would hear evidence and write the agreement themselves. Supporters call the bill a needed corrective to slow, sometimes futile negotiations; opponents say it will destroy the country’s voluntary approach to collective bargaining. Yet despite the elevated rhetoric, the bill has attracted supporters from both sides of the political aisle.Why has the bill attracted such attention? And why do its supports and critics see it in such stark terms? Our panel of experts will break it down.
Featuring:

Thomas Beck, Member, Federal Service Impasses Panel, Federal Labor Relations Authority
Prof. Sharon Block, Professor of Practice and Executive Director, Center for Labor and a Just Economy, Harvard Law School
G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, CHRO Association
Daniel Kishi, Senior Policy Advisor, American Compass
(Moderator) Alex MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair of the Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.

Assisted suicide is a contested issue in American law and medicine, raising questions over individual autonomy, patient rights, medical ethics, and government interests in protecting life. Federal law prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for services intended to cause or assist a death, but this prohibition does not apply to ordinary palliative care.
With several states legalizing physician-assisted suicide and more considering doing the same, the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) requested information in a recent proposed rule on the overlap between “medical aid in dying” (MAID) and Medicare-funded hospice care. CMS sought information about how it can ensure compliance with federal law, promote program integrity, and safeguard against fraud in states where assisted suicide is legal.
This raises broader questions, including about how policymakers distinguish between comfort care at the end of life and practices intended to hasten death. Join us for a panel examining the current legal and regulatory landscape surrounding assisted suicide in the United States.
Featuring:

Alexander Raikin, Visiting Fellow in Bioethics, Ethics and Public Policy Center
Dr. Jeffrey A. Singer, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute
(Moderator) Dan Troy, Managing Director, Berkeley Research Group

How far can states go in regulating conduct that has effects outside their borders?At the Founding, the states entered a constitutional union in part because the Articles of Confederation proved incapable of managing interstate conflicts and preventing individual states from imposing burdens on their neighbors. At the same time, many of the Framers grew concerned that unchecked state legislatures, driven by local interests and factional pressures, threatened both individual rights and the stability of the Union. The Constitution created a framework designed to preserve both state sovereignty and a functioning union. Today, some commentators argue that climate litigation presents a modern version of those same concerns.In a case currently pending before the Supreme Court, Suncor Energy v. Boulder County, Colorado local governments are seeking massive financial damages under state tort law for global climate-related harms.Supporters of the energy companies contend that climate regulation is an inherently national and international issue, and therefore cannot be governed through a patchwork of state tort regimes or localized litigation. On the other side, the local governments argue that these suits involve traditional exercises of state police power–including nuisance, fraud, and consumer-protection law. While proponents frame these suits as localized consumer-protection disputes, critics argue they represent a dangerous breakdown of our constitutional architecture.Notably, many of the amicus briefs filed in Suncor frame the dispute not merely as a question of statutory preemption, but as a broader debate over the structural Constitution itself—including the proper allocation of authority among Congress, courts, and the states. Is this case an example of the Constitution imposing structural limits to prevent individual states from effectively regulating the nation through litigation? Or does it embody the principle that states retain broad sovereign authority absent clear federal displacement? And what does the structural Constitution require of Congress, courts, and the states in resolving those conflicts?More broadly, what are the constitutional limits on states regulations that impact activities outside their borders and what is the source for those limits? Three years ago, the Supreme Court made clear in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross that such restrictions are not found in the Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine. Does the structural Constitution answer that question, or is the answer found in one or more particular provisions of the Constitution?Join us for a discussion examining these questions.Featuring:

Prof. Michael Greve, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Prof. Daniel Rodriguez, Harold Washington Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
O.H. Skinner, Executive Director, Alliance For Consumers
Michael Williams, Solicitor General, West Virginia
(Moderator) Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

The National Labor Relations Board is responsible for developing national labor policy, but it has historically accomplished its mission through case-by-case decision making rather than through rulemaking. And while that approach has been criticized over the years, it remains the Board’s customary approach and official policy.
But that may be changing. Vacancies at its highest levels have have left the Board unable to reverse its own decisions, and it has been bombarded by requests from businesses to do more rulemaking. A decision from the Sixth Circuit, Brown Forman v. NLRB, has called into question whether it even can develop policy through adjudication—or at least, not in the way it usually does. Will the Board give in to these pressures and write more rules? Should it? And if it does, what will that change mean for businesses and workers? Our expert panel will break it down.
Featuring:

Prof. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law Director, Center for Labor and Employment Law Co-Director, Institute of Judicial Administration, NYU School of Law
Brian E. Hayes, Shareholder, Ogletree Deakins
Marvin Kaplan, Principal, JacksonLewis
(Moderator) Alex MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair of the Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.

The Supreme Court's Second Amendment jurisprudence continues to evolve. This past Term, the Court issued significant decisions in Wolford v. Lopez and United States v. Hemani, further defining the contours of the right to keep and bear arms in the wake of its landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. At the same time, the Court has signaled that its work in this area is far from complete. The Justices have agreed to hear a closely watched challenge to state prohibitions on AR-15-style rifles and other commonly owned firearms, setting the stage for what could become one of the most consequential Second Amendment decisions since Bruen. The upcoming Term also raises broader questions about how the Court will continue to shape Second Amendment doctrine and whether a more comprehensive framework for evaluating firearm regulations is beginning to emerge.Join us for a discussion with legal experts as they reflect on the Court's recent decisions, assess the state of Second Amendment jurisprudence after Bruen, and preview the major firearms cases awaiting the Court in the upcoming Term.Featuring:

Prof. Haley Proctor, Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
Michael Williams, General Counsel, American Suppressor Association
(Moderator) Amy Swearer, Senior Legal Fellow, Advancing American Freedom