Schedule of Events
Friday, October 6
2:30 PM -3:30 PM: Greenroom with Students
Brief Description: Available panelists will meet with registered W&M students to talk about their lives in the law and to give advice they wish they had been given when in law school.
4:00 PM: Welcome (Alli Larsen and Dean A. Benjamin Spencer)
4:05 PM - 5:30 PM: Moot Court- United States v. Rahimi*
Advocates: Jonathan Ellis and Michelle Kallen
Justices: Joan Biskupic (Chief), Judge Toby Heytens, Judge Robin Rosenbaum, Judge Stephanos Bibas, Judge David Stras, Katherine Mims Crocker, Pratik Shah, Meaghan VerGow, Jess Bravin
Brief Description: The question presented is whether the government may constitutionally forbid people subject to domestic violence orders from having guns. Zackey Rahimi was under a restraining order after assaulting his girlfriend in 2019; a year later, police found guns in his home while executing a warrant for a shooting. Rahimi was convicted of violating a federal law which prohibits possession of a firearm by anyone who is the subject of a domestic violence restraining order. The Fifth Circuit reversed his conviction, concluding that Rahimi still retained his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment because the government could not show that the ban was consistent with the country’s historical tradition of regulating firearms.
5:30 PM – 6:30 PM: “Heartfelt disagreement or disparagement?”: Is there discord at the Court or worries about its public image? And will any of that matter at the end of the day?
Moderator: Adam Liptak
Panelists: Melissa Murray, Beth Brinkmann, Kannon Shanmugam, Erin Murphy
Brief Description: On the last day of the last term, the Chief Justice wrote, “we do not mistake this plainly heartfelt disagreement for disparagement. It is important that the public not be misled either. Any such misperception would be harmful to this institution and our country.” Is this all talk or do the relationship dynamics among the Justices make a difference in the decisions the Court makes? Similarly, do recent ethics controversies and public criticism matter in terms of how the Court decides cases? The panel will discuss whether and how recent criticisms of the Court might manifest in the Court’s actions this term.
* The moot court and the Friday evening panel will both be held in the McGlothlin courtroom. All panelists are welcome to sit in the courtroom. Paid registrants may sit in the courtroom on a first come, first serve basis. All students, without a special invitation, should be seated in the classroom.
Saturday, October 7
9:00 AM – 10:00 AM: A Term of Significant Administrative Law Challenges
Moderator: Aaron Bruhl
Panelists: Allison Larsen, Aileen McGrath, Bertrall Ross, Meaghan VerGow
Brief Description: Although the battle lines have been drawn for years, 2023-24 may be the apex of challenges to the administrative state at the Court. On the docket are cases asking the Justices to overturn Chevron deference, to limit the power of administrative law judges at the SEC, and to invalidate the CFPB, among others possible claims. This panel will discuss the specific pending cases and speculate which of the proposed changes the Court will adopt.
10:00 AM – 11:00 AM: Recurring procedural problems: what is the future and what are the stakes of standing for state plaintiffs, the shadow docket, and nationwide injunctions?
Moderator: Adam Liptak
Panelists: Kannon Shanmugam, Beth Brinkmann, Andrew Pincus, David Savage
Brief Description: It seems every year there are two procedural issues that require the Court to engage in refereeing policy disputes between the states and the federal government regardless of which party controls the White House: state standing doctrine and universal relief (nationwide injunctions). On top of that, many of these disputes (student loans, immigration) reach the Court first on the Court’s shadow docket. This panel will address where the law stands now on these recurring procedural issues and whether the Court is likely to make a change.Break
11:15 AM – 12:15 PM: Collegiality on the Bench: what specifically does it mean to be a collegial judge and why is it important / fragile?
Moderator: Neal Devins
Panelists: Judge Stephanos Bibas, Judge Toby Heytens, Judge Robin Rosenbaum, Judge David Stras
Brief Description: A panel of distinguished federal appellate judges will take us behind the scenes to address the importance, fragility, and stakes of civil discourse among members of the judiciary.12:15 PM – 1:00 PM: Lunch Break
1:00PM – 2:00 PM: Docket Deep Dives (3 choices in 3 different rooms)
- Election Law (Room 119)
- Moderator: Joan Biskupic
- Panelists: Bertrall Ross, Paul Smith, Erin Murphy, Rebecca Green
- Business Law & Employment Law (Room 133)
- Moderator: Robert Barnes
- Panelists: Pratik Shah, Andrew Pincus, Kannon Shanmugam, Aileen McGrath
- Criminal Law & Immigration Law (Room 124)
- Moderator: Martina Stewart
- Panelists: Erwin Chemerinsky, Easha Anand, David Savage
Break
2:15 PM -3:15 PM: Online speech and the First Amendment
Moderator: Jess Bravin
Panelists: Paul Smith, Sarah Harris, Erwin Chemerinsky, Margaret Hu
Brief Description: Should the balance behind the First Amendment’s commitment to free speech change as technology changes? This panel will address several versions of that question likely to reach the Court this term all relating to online speech, including a case presenting the foundational question of whether public official activity on social media constitutes state action subject to constitutional scrutiny and another challenging new Florida and Texas laws regulating social media platforms.Break
3:15 PM – 4:15 PM: Civil Rights Cases
Moderator: Martina Stewart
Panelists: Robert Barnes, Easha Anand, Sarah Harris, Michaele Turnage Young
Brief Description: Civil forfeiture and Due Process, “Trump too small” T shirts, Second Amendment challenges, and a possible grant in the Oklahoma religious charter school case will make for an active civil rights docket this term. This panel will address those specific cases and more, including which follow-up cases after Bruen and Dobbs are most likely to reach the Court’s docket.