Civil Rights. § 1983. Prison Litigation Reform Act. Legal experts discuss the Supreme Court's analysis of language that confers individual rights in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and the requirement of a jury finding when there is a factual dispute over exhaustion of remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act in Perttu v. Richards.

Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; Tara Grove, Vinson and Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas, Austin, School of Law; and Jim Chance, Senior Education Attorney, Judicial and Legal Education, Federal Judicial Center.

Civil Rights. § 1983. Prison Litigation Reform Act. Legal experts discuss the Supreme Court's analysis of language that confers individual rights in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and the requirement of a jury finding when there is a factual dispute over exhaustion of remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act in Perttu v. Richards.

Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; Tara Grove, Vinson and Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas, Austin, School of Law; and Jim Chance, Senior Education Attorney, Judicial and Legal Education, Federal Judicial Center.

Equal Protection. Title VII. Experts discuss the Supreme Court's application of rational basis review to restrictions on transgender medical care for minors in United States v. Skrmetti, and in Ames v. Ohio, the application of the same evidentiary standard to all protected classes under Title VII.

Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; Tara Grove, Vinson and Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas, Austin, School of Law; and Jim Chance, Senior Education Attorney, Judicial and Legal Education, Federal Judicial Center.

Equal Protection. Title VII. Experts discuss the Supreme Court's application of rational basis review to restrictions on transgender medical care for minors in United States v. Skrmetti, and in Ames v. Ohio, the application of the same evidentiary standard to all protected classes under Title VII.

Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; Tara Grove, Vinson and Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas, Austin, School of Law; and Jim Chance, Senior Education Attorney, Judicial and Legal Education, Federal Judicial Center.

Criminal Law and Procedure. Experts discuss Supreme Court clarifications of the redressability standard when analyzing standing in Gutierrez v. Saenz, and how clearly established law is determined in the context of the admission of prejudicial evidence in Andrew v. White.

Participants. Laurie Levenson, Professor of Law and David W. Burcham Chair in Ethical Advocacy at Loyola Law School; Evan Lee, Emeritus Professor at UC Law, San Francisco; and Jim Chance, Senior Judicial Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.

Criminal Law and Procedure. Experts discuss Supreme Court clarifications of the redressability standard when analyzing standing in Gutierrez v. Saenz, and how clearly established law is determined in the context of the admission of prejudicial evidence in Andrew v. White.

Participants. Laurie Levenson, Professor of Law and David W. Burcham Chair in Ethical Advocacy at Loyola Law School; Evan Lee, Emeritus Professor at UC Law, San Francisco; and Jim Chance, Senior Judicial Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.

Criminal Law and Procedure. Experts discuss how the Supreme Court's decision in Glossip v. Oklahoma defined the duty to correct false testimony, and how the Court's decision in Barnes v. Felix requires excessive force analysis to consider the totality of the circumstances.

Participants. Laurie Levenson, Professor of Law and David W. Burcham Chair in Ethical Advocacy at Loyola Law School; Evan Lee, Emeritus Professor at UC Law, San Francisco; and Jim Chance, Senior Judicial Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.

Criminal Law and Procedure. Experts discuss how the Supreme Court's decision in Glossip v. Oklahoma defined the duty to correct false testimony, and how the Court's decision in Barnes v. Felix requires excessive force analysis to consider the totality of the circumstances.

Participants. Laurie Levenson, Professor of Law and David W. Burcham Chair in Ethical Advocacy at Loyola Law School; Evan Lee, Emeritus Professor at UC Law, San Francisco; and Jim Chance, Senior Judicial Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.

Universal Injunctions. Experts discuss Supreme Court limitations on lower court issuance of Universal Injunctions and the remedies that may remain available to them.

Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; Tara Grove, Vinson and Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas, Austin, School of Law.

Universal Injunctions. Experts discuss the Supreme Court limitations on lower court issuance of Universal Injunctions and the remedies that may remain available to them.

Participants. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; Tara Grove, Vinson and Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas, Austin, School of Law.