Uploaded September 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
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
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
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
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
![[LIVE] A Seat at the Sitting - April 2026](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/tEg21uQPKbE/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] A Seat at the Sitting - April 2026
Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.
• Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission, (April 20) - Corporations & Securities; Issue(s): Whether the SEC may seek equitable disgorgement under 15 U.S.C. 78u(d)(5) and (d)(7) without showing investors suffered pecuniary harm.
• T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp., (April 20) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, Standing; Issue(s): Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents parties who lose in state courts from challenging injuries caused by state-court judgments, can be triggered by a state-court decision that remains subject to further review in state court.
• Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc.,(April 21) - Communications & Technology; Issue(s): Whether the Communications Act of 1934 provisions that govern the Federal Communications Commission’s assessment and enforcement of monetary forfeitures are consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Article III.
• Bondi v. Lau, (April 22) - Immigration Law; Issue(s): Whether, to remove a lawful permanent resident who committed an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) and was subsequently paroled into the United States, the government must prove that it possessed clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of the lawful permanent residents last reentry into the United States.
• Chatrie v. United States, (April 27) - Criminal Law; Issue(s): Whether the execution of a geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.
• Monsanto Company v. Durnell, (April 27) - Energy & Environmental Law; Issue(s): Whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning.
• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I, (April 28) - International Law & Human Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Alien Tort Statute allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting; and (2) whether the Torture Victim Protection Act allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting.
• Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., (April 29) - Patent Law / Intellectual Property Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether, when a generic drug label fully carves out a patented use, allegations that the generic drugmaker calls its product a “generic version” and cites public information about the branded drug (e.g., sales) are enough to plead induced infringement of the patented use; and (2) whether a complaint states a claim for induced infringement of a patented method if it does not allege any instruction or other statement by the defendant that encourages, or even mentions, the patented use.
• Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot, (April 29) - Immigration Law; Issue(s): Whether the Trump administration can end the Temporary Protected Status program for Syrian and Haitian nationals.
Featuring:
• Thomas Berry, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
• James Conde, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC
• James Rogers, Senior Counsel, America First Legal
• Ryan Schermerhorn, Partner, Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP
• [Moderator] Maria Monaghan, Associate Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/a-seat-at-the-sitting-april-2026
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.")
![SCOTUS Short: West Virginia v. B.P.J. [Opinion]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/tS9UY39dCXE/mqdefault.jpg "SCOTUS Short: West Virginia v. B.P.J. [Opinion]
On June 30, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring school athletic participation be based on biological sex, preserving womens and girls sports.
Watch FedSocs updated SCOTUS Short on West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox for a breakdown of the Courts decision and its implications.")
