Uploaded February 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
The Council of the ABA's Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar has long been the only federally recognized accreditor for law schools. In that role, it is able to direct what law schools teach and determine what constitutes sufficient coursework for law students. Over the past several years, the ABA has faced several challenges to proposed directives for law schools, including a recent proposal to increase the requirement of clinical hours (which has since been withdrawn) and various policies that have been labeled DEI initiatives. Some have lauded those efforts, while others have expressed concern that they mistake the purpose of law schools. In light of skepticism about the ABA, some state bars, particularly Florida and Texas, have opted to no longer require students to have attended an ABA-accredited law school in order to sit for their bar exams. In light of these and other efforts, voices from across the political spectrum have debated not just the value of the particular ABA policy directives, but the appropriate role of the ABA as an accreditor. Our panel dives into those arguments around the ABA.
Featuring:
Prof. Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Daniel B. Rodriguez, Harold Washington Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
Daniel R. Thies, Shareholder, Webber & Thies PC
(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.
The Council of the ABA's Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar has long been the only federally recognized accreditor for law schools. In that role, it is able to direct what law schools teach and determine what constitutes sufficient coursework for law students. Over the past several years, the ABA has faced several challenges to proposed directives for law schools, including a recent proposal to increase the requirement of clinical hours (which has since been withdrawn) and various policies that have been labeled DEI initiatives. Some have lauded those efforts, while others have expressed concern that they mistake the purpose of law schools. In light of skepticism about the ABA, some state bars, particularly Florida and Texas, have opted to no longer require students to have attended an ABA-accredited law school in order to sit for their bar exams. In light of these and other efforts, voices from across the political spectrum have debated not just the value of the particular ABA policy directives, but the appropriate role of the ABA as an accreditor. Our panel dives into those arguments around the ABA.
Featuring:
Prof. Derek T. Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Daniel B. Rodriguez, Harold Washington Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
Daniel R. Thies, Shareholder, Webber & Thies PC
(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] What Was an Establishment of Religion at the Founding?](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/nVaBKoBRuJQ/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] What Was an Establishment of Religion at the Founding?
In this Federalist Society America250 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.
In 2022, the Supreme Court overruled the Lemon Test for interpreting the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, holding that the Clause must instead be interpreted by reference to historical practices and understandings. To do this, the Court suggested it would look to certain historical hallmarks of religious establishments the framers sought to prohibit when they adopted the First Amendment. This has kicked off a vigorous debate, in both caselaw and scholarship, about what constituted an establishment of religion at the time of the Founding, and how that history should inform interpretation of the Establishment Clause today.
Join a gathering of the foremost scholars and litigators of the Establishment Clause to discuss the Clauses historical meaning both as a matter of originalist theory and in its application to current church-state controversies, such as displays of the Ten Commandments in public schools.
Featuring:
• Joe Davis, Senior Counsel, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
• Douglas Laycock, Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Virginia; Alice McKean Young Regents Chair in Law Emeritus, University of Texas
• Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
• (Moderator) Hon. Ryan D. Nelson, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/what-was-an-establishment-of-religion-at-the-founding
* * * * *
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: The February Docket in 90 Minutes or Less](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/qH5H8qXjJ34/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] A Seat at the Sitting: The February Docket in 90 Minutes or Less
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.
• Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, (February 23) - International Law, LIBERTAD Act; Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff under Title III of the LIBERTAD Act must prove that the defendant trafficked in property confiscated by the Cuban government as to which the plaintiff owns a claim, or instead that the defendant trafficked in property that the plaintiff would have continued to own at the time of trafficking in a counterfactual world as if there had been no expropriation.
• Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A. (February 23) - International Law, FISA; Issue(s): Whether the Helms-Burton Act abrogates foreign sovereign immunity in cases against Cuban instrumentalities, or whether parties proceeding under that act must also satisfy an exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
• Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel (February 24) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether district courts have the authority to excuse the 30-day procedural time limit for removal in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).
• Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan (February 25) - Property Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment when the compensation is based on the artificially depressed auction sale price rather than the property’s fair market value; and (2) whether the forfeiture of real property worth far more than needed to satisfy a tax debt but sold for a fraction of its real value constitutes an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, particularly when the debt was never actually owed.
• United States v. Hemani (March 2) - 2nd Amendment, Criminal Law; Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent.
• Hunter v. United States (March 3) - Criminal Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether the only permissible exceptions to a general appeal waiver are for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum; and (2) whether an appeal waiver applies when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to appeal and the government does not object.
• Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC (March 4) - Labor and Employment Law; Issue(s): Whether a federal statute, 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c), preempts a state common-law claim against a broker for negligently selecting a motor carrier or driver.
Featuring:
• Jay R. Carson, Senior Litigator, The Buckeye Institute
• Jeffrey S. Hobday, Assistant Attorney General, Opinions Unit, Ohio Attorney General’s Office
• Mary E. Miller, Partner, Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP
• Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage Foundation
• Jordan Von Bokern, Senior Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center
• (Moderator) Sam Gedge, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/a-seat-at-the-sitting-february-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.")
