,1,Agreeing to Disagree: How the Establishment Clause Protects Religious Diversity and Freedom of Conscience investigates the questions that surround the correct interpretation of the Establishment Clause, breaking down the practical history of establishment and disestablishment in the United States of religion as law and argues that a Clause often seen as a defense against religion is valuable for promoting religious freedom and diversity in America. Prof. Michael McConnel, co-author of the book, and Prof. Vincent Munoz discussed these themes and the history of the Establishment Clause in the United States.
Featuring:
Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School
Dr. Vincent Phillip Munoz, Tocqueville Associate Professor Department of Political Science and Concurrent Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
(Moderator) Adam Griffin, Constitutional Law Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
,1,During President Obama’s second term, the U.S. Education Department began sharing studies indicating that black students were disciplined at higher rates than their white peers. These data were viewed as evidence of racial bias, and, in 2014, the Education and Justice Departments jointly published a resource package to help American schools “…promote fair and effective disciplinary practices that will make schools safe, supportive, and inclusive for all students,” (DOJ).
Supporters applauded these steps from the federal government saying they reduced schools’ racial disparities in disciplinary decisions thereby curtailing the “school-to-prison pipeline.” Critics countered that the guidance misstated federal civil rights law, encouraged racial discrimination in the allocation of school discipline to produce demographic parity, and left classrooms less functional.
The 2014 resource package was ultimately rescinded in 2018 under the Trump Administration, only to be largely restored by the Biden Administration. In May 2023, the Education and Justice Departments published a “Resource on Confronting Racial Discrimination in Student Discipline.”
What is the best path forward for appropriate and meaningful disciplinary decision making in American schools? How will our school children be best served? What does the evidence really show about race and school discipline? An expert panel joined us to discuss the legal and educational contours of the most recent guidance on race and school discipline.
Featuring:
Dr. Juan Del Toro, Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota
Max Eden, Research Fellow, American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
Kristen Harper, Vice President for Public Policy and Engagement, Child Trends
Dan Morenoff, Executive Director, American Civil Rights Project
[Moderator] Alison Somin, Legal Fellow, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
,1,Competition Policy, Corporate Concentration & Freedom of Thought: Approaching the Draft Merger Guidelines
The Department of Justice has just released new Draft Merger Guidelines. What are the implications - not just for how the Draft Guidelines might affect economic questions, but also for freedom of thought and the rule of law? In this afternoon session, Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Doha Mekki, and Prof. Todd J. Zywicki discussed these issues, the development of the Draft Guidelines and what comes next.
Featuring:
Hon. Jonathan S. Kanter, Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
Doha Mekki, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
Prof. Todd J. Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Moderator: James M. Burnham, President, Vallecito Capital, LLC
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
,1,Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protects qualified "individuals with disabilities" from discrimination by "programs or activities" that receive federal funding. The word disability is defined in Title 42 USC Section 12102, and it is noted that the definition "shall be construed in favor of broad coverage." Similarly, 504 regulations cover a wide array of "programs or activities" - colleges, corporations, state government entities, even local government entities, including public schools, can meet the definition of a covered "program or activity."
The Biden Administration has wrestled with Section 504 on issues like remote learning, masking, transgender status, child welfare, and more. Additionally, there has been increased discussion surrounding Section 504's applicability to private schools. Some disability advocates have argued that Section 504 is outdated and needs to be revamped before the end of President Biden's first term.
What updates to Section 504 can we expect? What trends have experts observed in 504 regulations before and after President Biden took office? Does Section 504 inadequately address disability discrimination today? Kim Richey and Professor Robert Dinerstein joined us to consider these questions and more.
Featuring:
Prof. Robert Dinerstein, Professor of Law and Director, Disability Rights Law Clinic, American University Washington College of Law
Kimberly M. Richey, Former Acting Assistant Secretary and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights
[Moderator] Sarah Perry, Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
,1,Professor David Bernstein explains that as administrative agencies have grown over time, so has their impact on the average citizen. Agencies set policies that govern daily life and the policies can sometimes vary widely depending on the political party in control of the Executive branch. Professor Bernstein argues that it is generally easier for a Democratic administration to enact its agenda, due to the mission and staffing at the agencies.
David Bernstein is a University Professor and the Executive Director of the Liberty & Law Center at the Antonin Scalia Law School.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Subscribe to the series’ playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWwcngsYgoUXTBxtM1cr9ThwGsTTR4XU_
#law #no86 #administrativelaw
,1,All administrative agencies have a particular mission. How the mission is enacted or perceived can be politically motivated. Professor David Bernstein argues that the staffers at these agencies may not be political but they do necessarily subscribe to the mission of the agency. Agency staff are more concerned with advancing the policies of the agency than they are about Constitutional considerations.
David Bernstein is a University Professor and the Executive Director of the Liberty & Law Center at the Antonin Scalia Law School.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Subscribe to the series’ playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWwcngsYgoUXTBxtM1cr9ThwGsTTR4XU_
#law #no86 #administrativelaw
,1,On January 3-4, 2020, the Federalist Society hosted its 22nd annual Faculty Conference at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC. The final panel asked "Is Everything Political?"
This panel sought to explore whether the reach of politics is broader now than it once was, whether there is a law-politics distinction, whether politics has become a substitute for religion or related claims on a person’s sense of self, and whether it is possible or desirable for politics to play a smaller role in life.
*******
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Featuring:
-Moderator: Prof. Joshua Kleinfeld, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
-Prof. Christian R. Burset, Notre Dame Law School
-Prof. Guy-Uriel Charles, Duke University School of Law
-Prof. Tara Leigh Grove, William & Mary Law School
-Prof. Stephen E. Sachs, Duke University School of Law