Collegiality and the presumption that opposing counsel work together in good faith are bedrocks of the American legal profession, as well as unpopular ideas and clients being able to obtain competent representation and equal access to justice under the law. In recent years, there has been an increase in disruptive activity in law schools. We have seen law students declare ideas "too harmful" for open debate and try to “cancel” or “shame” anyone who challenges their views. We have also seen instances where law students shout down invited speakers, even federal judges. But today's law students are tomorrow's lawyers. How should the legal profession prepare to deal with these recent trends on campus? What’s the responsibility of faculty and administrators to model and educate on appropriate behavior in an academic community and in the legal profession? Should there be consequences for students that engage in disruptive activity in law school? Should legal employers be concerned how these students will handle representing clients and making arguments that do not align with their own views? Should clients be worried about hiring lawyers that have personally disrupted an event by a judge? Our panel will feature leaders from all the major institutions that will have to answer these important questions: academia, the courts, law firms, and in-house legal departments. Featuring:Robert Ahdeih, Dean and Anthony G. Buzbee Endowed Dean's Chair and Vice President for Professional Schools and Programs, Texas A&M UniversityHon. Jimmy Blacklock, Justice, Supreme Court of Texas Gregg Costa, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPHiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty InstituteJ. Ammon Smartt, General Counsel, North America; Global Lead Counsel, Treasury, WTWModerator: Hon. Reed O’Connor, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas

Litigation and legislation involving complex issues regarding gender identity are at the forefront of public interest. States and other authorities face questions about legality, morality, or advisability of treatment for minors. Courts are being asked to adjudicate who can participate in sex-segregated sporting competitions. Advocates on all sides of these complex gender identity issues portray their position as a matter of fairness. When minors are involved all sides claim to seek to protect the best interest of the child and there is not a clear ideological breakdown in terms of whether states should adopt a parents rights approach, which cautions deference to parents to protect their child’s best interests, versus those who advocate for state intervention to protect the child. In both red and blue states, advocacy for the respective ideological approaches can draw opposing conclusions, wherein, for example, some states are banning medical intervention for minors over parents’ objections and other states are permitting medical intervention for minors over parents’ objections. Our panel today will discuss these and other legal issues facing state governments, parents, and children as they work to navigate these new legal challenges.Featuring:Christiana Kiefer, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending FreedomProf. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of LawShannon Minter, Legal Director, National Center for Lesbian Rights Christopher Mills, Principal, Spero Law, LLCModerator: Hon. Elizabeth Kerr, Justice, Second Court of Appeals, State of Texas

Featuring: Prof. J. Joel Alicea, Co-Director, Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition, Assistant Professor of Law, Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Founding Director, Georgetown Center for the Constitution Prof. Richard H. Fallon, Story Professor of Law, Harvard Law School Prof. Stephen E. Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law School Moderator: Hon. Neomi Rao, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

The 2023 National Lawyers Convention will take place November 9-11, 2023 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference is "Originalism on the Ground." The final day of the conference will feature the fifteenth annual Rosenkranz Debate. RESOLVED: States Can Constitutionally Regulate the Content Moderation Policies of Facebook and Twitter Featuring: Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law Mr. Clark Neily, Senior Vice President for Legal Studies, Cato Institute Moderator: Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Professor of Law, Georgetown School of Law

In patent and copyright law, injunctions are now a subject of significant policy debate. Innovators say they are unable to stop predatory infringement. Creators state they are unable to stop large-scale piracy websites. If so, this undermines the rewards promised by the intellectual property system and devalues the commercial assets that drive the global innovation economy in new technologies and creative works. Others state that intellectual property owners use injunctions to hold up innovation or chill legitimate commercial activity. This panel will discuss the role of injunctions in facilitating or constraining commercialization of patented technologies and copyrighted works, and what the current state of the law portends for the future, such as in the development of next-generation innovations like AI and its use of creative works. Featuring: Hon. John W. Holcomb, United States District Court, Central District of California Prof. Kristen Jakobsen Osenga, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law Ms. Laurie Self, Senior Vice President & Counsel, Government Affairs, Qualcomm Ms. Laura Sheridan, Head of Patent Policy, Google Moderator: Hon. Ryan T. Holte, U.S. Court of Federal Claims; Jurist-In-Residence Professor of Law, The University of Akron School of Law Overflow: Chinese Room

Oral argument was held in U.S. v. Rahimi on November 7, 2023. The case asks whether 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(8), which prohibits possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders violates the Second Amendment on its face. What does the Court's jurisprudence foretell about the decision? Is there an obvious originalist answer? Featuring: Prof. William G. Merkel, Associate Professor, Charleston School of Law Prof. Mark W. Smith, Senior Fellow, Ave Maria School of Law Mr. David H. Thompson, Managing Partner, Cooper & Kirk Moderator: Hon. Lawrence VanDyke, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit Overflow: Cabinet & Senate Rooms

Is the National Labor Relations Board doing more than any other federal agency to impose broad restrictions on non-coercive speech, based exclusively on whether the speaker is an employer? Under other statutes, speech prohibitions require evidence of actual threats, unlawful retaliation or potential injury to health and safety, and the National Labor Relations Act expressly protects the right to express “views,” “argument” and “opinion” unless the message “contains” an illegal threat or promise. The NLRB General Counsel is prosecuting numerous complaints claiming it is “inherently” coercive and “per se” unlawful for employers to address certain subjects in the workplace. This session will involve diverse views about important questions: Where do these cases leave the First Amendment? Does commerce regulation override the First Amendment? Does the NLRB have authority to prohibit workplace discussions by employers regarding certain subjects? And what role exists in this critical area for the courts? Featuring: Hon. Philip A. Miscimarra, Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Craig Becker, General Counsel, American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations Moderator: Hon. Chad A. Readler, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Featuring: Prof. John C. Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law Hon. Randolph Moss, United States District Court, District of Columbia Hon. Andrew S. Oldham, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit Prof. Jed H. Shugerman, Boston University School of Law Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

(Ticketed event) On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society believes that it is most fitting to dedicate an annual lecture on limited government and the spirit of freedom to the memory of Barbara Olson. She had a deep commitment to the rule of law and understood well the relationship between respecting limits on government power and the preservation of freedom. And, significantly, Barbara Olson was an individual who never took freedom for granted in her own life, even in her final terrifying moments-her inspiring and energetic human spirit is a testament to what one can achieve in a world that places a premium on human freedom. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals. Featuring: Ms. Bari Weiss, Founder & Editor, The Free Press Introduction: Mr. Theodore W. Ullyot, Co-Chairman, Board of Visitors, The Federalist Society

The U.S. Supreme Court’s originalist jurisprudence has been on display in its most recent terms – consider the constitutional analysis in major cases like Bruen and Dobbs. But is the Court’s originalism sound? In his newly released book, Mere Natural Law, Professor Hadley Arkes argues that the Court’s ascendant mode of interpretation insufficiently relies upon the natural moral law. Critics assert that such reliance would be difficult, if not impossible, to moor to objectively discernible standards. This panel brings together several of the most formidable constitutional scholars of a generation to discuss natural law and constitutional conservatism alongside Professor Arkes. Featuring: Prof. Hadley P. Arkes, Founder and Director, James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights and the American Founding & Edward N. Ney Professor in American Institutions Emeritus, Amherst College Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center Hon. Edith H. Jones, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit Moderator: Prof. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence & Director, James Madison Program, Princeton University Overflow: Chinese Room

Recent years have seen unprecedented controversies about election rules, including mail-in ballots and drop boxes, partisan and racial gerrymandering, early voting, ballot harvesting, and methods of vote counting. Because election laws have partisan consequences, the legislators who make election laws, the officials who administer elections, and the judges who decide election cases are often suspected of exercising power so as to increase their own side’s electoral chances. As we look ahead to future elections, this panel will consider what it means to have a fair election process and how much deference judges should pay to the determinations of officials whose actions in formulating and applying election laws may have partisan motivations. Featuring: Hon. Michael G. Adams, Secretary of State, Commonwealth of Kentucky Prof. Richard Briffault, Joseph P. Chamberlain Professor of Legislation, Columbia Law School Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School Prof. Richard H. Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law Hon. Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law, Capital University Law School; Former Commissioner, Federal Election Commission Moderator: Hon. Thomas M. Hardiman, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Featuring: Hon. Stewart Baker, Of Counsel, Steptoe & Johnson LLP Hon. Beth A. Williams, Board Member, United States Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board Mr. Gene C. Schaerr, Partner, Schaerr Jaffe LLP Prof. John Yoo, Emanuel Heller Professor of Law, University of California Berkeley School of Law Moderator: Hon. Paul Matey, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Featuring: Prof. William Baude, Professor of Law and Faculty Director, Constitutional Law Institute, University of Chicago Law School Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution Moderator: Prof. Julia D. Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law and Joseph C. Carter, Jr. Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law

In recent months, the U.S. Senate confirmed a third Democratic Commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission, putting the agency in full force for the first time since January 2021. This panel will focus on the FCC’s likely agenda as we look to 2024. It will also explore the bounds of the Communications Act of 1934, as updated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, when applied to modern technology, areas for possible legislative reform, and how the existing regulatory authority provided by Congress impacts the Commission's initiatives in the year ahead. Featuring: Hon. Jonathan Adelstein, President & CEO, The Wireless Infrastructure Association; Former Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission Hon. Mignon Clyburn, Principal, MLC Strategies, LLC; Former Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission Hon. Nathan Simington, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission Moderator: Hon. Michael H. Park, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

This year the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. The Court held that the admissions programs of Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court’s ruling elevates a colorblind reading of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the college admissions context, the decision makes unconstitutional certain policies that would favor one applicant over another on the basis of that applicant’s race. College admissions offices across the country will have to alter the policies they’ve used for decades. How will they adapt? Will facially race-neutral policies aiming to achieve a desired racial balance for accepted classes be created as a proxy? Will colleges attempt to sidestep the ruling or find legally permissible means of achieving their objectives? If so, how will the courts respond? Some observers argue that the decision in SFFA should be expected to affect diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts outside of college admissions. Will public and private employers have to change their hiring practices? Will competitive K-12 schools adjust their admissions policies? What about scholarships? Government contracting? How far-reaching will the Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment ultimately be? This panel will provide a comprehensive review of SFFA and explore its consequences. Featuring: Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale Law School Hon. Gail L. Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law Prof. Randall L. Kennedy, Michael R. Klein Professor of Law, Harvard Law School Mr. Devon Westhill, President & General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity Moderator: Hon. Stephen A. Vaden, United States Court of International Trade Overflow: Cabinet & Senate Rooms

The administrative state - the agencies comprising the Executive Branch of the U.S. federal government - has exploded in size and reach since 1946 when President Truman signed the Administrative Procedure Act into law. The APA has been amended a bit since then, but has it kept up with current challenges? While the Executive Branch has been growing, the other two branches of government have been changing as well. Congress has increasingly tended to delegate authority to agencies. And courts are changing their views not only of how much leeway agencies have in interpreting and applying statutes, but also of what methodology courts themselves should employ when interpreting statutes, including the APA. This panel will discuss how these changes impact the government and the governed. Featuring: Hon. Steven Bradbury, Distinguished Fellow, Executive Vice President’s Office, The Heritage Prof. Emily Bremer, Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School Prof. Ronald M. Levin, William R. Orthwein Distinguished Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis School of Law Mr. Andrew Tutt, Senior Associate, Arnold & Porter Moderator: Hon. Steven J. Menashi, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit Overflow: Chinese Room

Featuring: Hon. Lina M. Khan, Chair, Federal Trade Commission Prof. Todd J. Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia, Law School, George Mason University

No one maintains that the Court has always and forever been originalist in its orientation. By any definition of "originalism," there is a vast body of case law that does not conform to it. How do and should modern originalists - and here one might specifically include lower-court judges who consider themselves originalist - handle this case law? Do non-originalist precedents count for nothing, no matter the expectations built upon them? If they count, how much do they count? Given the interconnectedness of the Constitution's provisions and structure, does it make sense to be "originalist" in some respects and some contexts but not others? Does originalism itself provide means to answer, or even address, these questions or does one necessarily have to step outside originalism to establish its relationship to precedent? Featuring: Prof. Tara Leigh Grove, Vinson & Elkins Chair in Law, University of Texas at Austin School of Law Prof. Randy Kozel, Fritz Duda Family Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School Prof. Gary Lawson, William Fairfield Warren Distinguished Professor, Boston University School of Law Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law Moderator: Hon. William H. Pryor Jr., United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit Overflow: Chinese Room

The Supreme Court’s decisions in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis and in Groff v. DeJoy posed issues about religious freedom in the workplace and religiously motivated speech in the marketplace. This panel will consider the cases and their implications for religious freedom, especially how future cases might apply the tests articulated by the Court for “substantial costs” to a business for making an accommodation in Groff, and for what counts as expressive messages protected against the application of state anti-discrimination laws under 303 Creative. The panel will also consider the broader question of if there is value in accommodating religion in the workplace despite conflicts with employer preferences, and likewise, if there is a value in accommodating businesses (especially small businesses, where this typically arises) in light of broader societal preferences (such as non-discrimination law). Observers indicate that Title VII represents statutory values and 303 Creative raises Free Exercise constitutional values, but both cases pose questions about making room for faith in public life. Featuring: Prof. William Eskridge, Alexander M. Bickel Professor of Public Law, Yale Law School Ms. Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom Mr. Aaron Streett, Chairman, Supreme Court and Constitutional Law Practice, Baker Botts LLP Mr. Adam Unikowsky, Partner, Jenner & Block LLP Moderator: Hon. S. Kyle Duncan, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit Overflow: Cabinet & Senate Rooms

In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has emphasized the federalist nature of our national Constitution and the importance of preserving state sovereignty. This trend is evident in several of the Court's decisions – Dobbs most notable among them – that have recognized and reinforced the authority of individual states in matters of health, safety, and morals. As a result of this return to federalism, some of the nation’s most interesting and groundbreaking legal work is being done at the state level. In particular, state constitutional and statutory provisions that used to be subsumed by federal law or judicial precedent – restrictions on abortion, requirements for post-conviction review, grants for religious schooling, and so on – now matter in their own right. On this panel, several state supreme court justices will discuss what the ascendance of federalism means for their states and state courts, as well as how this shift will impact the teaching and practice of law across the nation. Featuring: Hon. Rebecca Bradley, Wisconsin Supreme Court Hon. David N. Wecht, Pennsylvania Supreme Court Hon. Evan A. Young, Supreme Court of Texas Moderator: Hon. Carlos T. Bea, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit