エピソード

  • 2026 Mike Lewis Memorial Forum: Would a Lower Threshold for the Use of Force Under International Law Make the World Safer?

    2026 Mike Lewis Memorial Forum: Would a Lower Threshold for the Use of Force Under International Law Make the World Safer?
    2026/09/23
    The annual Mike Lewis Memorial Forum honors the life and legacy of Mike Lewis, a former naval aviator and leading scholar of international law. Mike wrote and spoke extensively on the use of force and the law of armed conflict and served on the Executive Committee of the Federalist Society’s International & National Security Law Practice Group. Mike passed away from cancer in 2015 at age 50. He was admired across ideological lines for both his scholarship and his generosity of spirit.This year’s Forum will examine the law governing anticipatory self-defense and whether the traditional interpretation of international law adequately accounts for modern threats. This traditional view generally permits anticipatory self-defense only against an “imminent” threat. But that standard took shape in an era when threats moved at the speed of 19th-century naval vessels.
    How should that requirement apply in an era of missiles, cyberattacks, and other threats capable of materializing rapidly? Critics argue that a strict imminence requirement leaves states unable to respond to serious threats before they fully materialize, and that the resulting gap between doctrine and state practice erodes confidence in international law. Defenders of the traditional standard counter that loosening it risks inviting states to invoke self-defense as a pretext for aggression.
    The panel will consider whether international law should permit a broader range of anticipatory action against developing threats, what principles should govern such uses of force, and whether the U.N. Charter itself can be interpreted to accommodate them. More broadly, the discussion will explore how the law governing self-defense can respond to changing technologies and security challenges while continuing to constrain the use of force.
    Featuring:

    Dr. Brian Cox, Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute
    Prof. John Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Senior Research Fellow, School of Civic Leadership, Civitas Institute, University of Texas at Austin; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
    (Moderator) Vincent J. Vitkowsky, Fellow, National Security Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1 時間 1 分
  • California v. EPA: Using the Congressional Review Act to Roll Back State Waivers

    California v. EPA: Using the Congressional Review Act to Roll Back State Waivers
    2026/09/23
    In September 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia preliminarily enjoined the EPA from sending four Clean Air Act waivers to Congress for potential repeal under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). These waivers have allowed California to enact its own vehicle emission standards. Judge Beryl Howell held the CRA's bar on judicial review does not reach an agency's threshold determination that its action is a "rule," and found California had standing to challenge the EPA's June 2026 press release announcing it was transmitting the rules to Congress. What may happen next in this case; and what does this litigation suggest about the limits on using the CRA as a deregulatory tool? Join us for a panel discussing the decision and the broader state of play on CRA issues under the current administration.
    Featuring:

    Michael Buschbacher, Managing Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC
    Andrew Ceonzo, Counsel to U.S. Senator Schmitt and the Senate Judiciary Committee
    (Moderator) Daniel M. Flores, Senior Counsel, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1 時間 1 分
  • Bias, DEI, and CLE: Navigating the Constitutional Limits of Mandatory Training

    Bias, DEI, and CLE: Navigating the Constitutional Limits of Mandatory Training
    2026/09/11
    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.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    58 分
  • Civil Rights in the Second Trump Administration: A Whole-of-Government Shift

    Civil Rights in the Second Trump Administration: A Whole-of-Government Shift
    2026/09/02
    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
    続きを読む 一部表示
    50 分
  • Lessons From John Adams: Defending Unpopular Clients from the Founding Era to the Present

    Lessons From John Adams: Defending Unpopular Clients from the Founding Era to the Present
    2026/09/01
    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.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    53 分
  • Academic Freedom and the First Amendment: Who Decides What Is Taught?

    Academic Freedom and the First Amendment: Who Decides What Is Taught?
    2026/08/27
    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
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1 時間
  • Parental Rights and Public Schools: A Loudoun County Case Study

    Parental Rights and Public Schools: A Loudoun County Case Study
    2026/08/25
    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
    続きを読む 一部表示
    59 分
  • The Faster Labor Contracts Act: What’s at Stake for Collective Bargaining?

    The Faster Labor Contracts Act: What’s at Stake for Collective Bargaining?
    2026/08/24
    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.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1 時間 1 分