The Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy at Yale Law School invites you to a panel discussion on the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision in United States v. Skrmetti. The panel will feature Joshua Block ’05, Senior Counsel at the ACLU, Dr. Meredithe McNamara, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at the Yale School of Medicine, and Jess Braverman, Legal Director at Gender Justice, and will be moderated by Anne Urowsky Professor of Law at Yale Law School Douglas NeJaime.
Space is limited. RSVP required. There will be a wait list if demand is high.
This event is off the record and closed to press.
From detaining student protesters to threatening to deport rival politicians, President Trump has weaponized the immigration system to suppress dissent. In this event, Professor Alina Das and advocate Ramya Krishnan will discuss how these attacks chill speech across the board, examine the unique challenges of defending free speech in the immigration context and describe how lawyers can resist efforts to silence non-citizens and citizens alike.
Featuring:
Alina Das, James Weldon Johnson Professor and co-director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic at New York University
Ramya Krishnan, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute and a lecturer in law at Columbia Law School
Taonga Leslie, Director of Policy and Program for Racial Justice, American Constitution Society
The American Constitution Society is pending approval as a State Bar of California CLE provider. Upon approval, this event will be worth 1.0 hours of California MCLE credit. Click here for the CLE Documentation, CA MCLE Cert. of Attendance, Non-CA CLE Cert. of Attendance, Evaluation Form, and CLE Attendance Verification form.
General meeting of ACS members at UNC Law to breakdown the events that we hosted this semester, discuss goals for next semester, and garner community input.
Professor Paul Koster is giving a presentation on the rule of law. This event explores the relationship between the rule of law and the pursuit of justice, inviting participants to examine when actions that may violate existing laws either undermine or further the rule of law. Using historical and contemporary case studies—including the May Day protests of 1971, the January 6, 2021 Capitol events, and the legal controversies surrounding sanctuary jurisdictions—attendees will analyze foundational principles of the rule of law such as independence, equality, transparency, fairness, human dignity, and due process. Through guided reflections and discussion, participants will consider distinctions between rightful civil disobedience and wrongful lawlessness, and between permissible governmental discretion and abuse of power. The event encourages participants to critically engage with how legal actors and citizens can act to support or challenge the rule of law, fostering skills, knowledge, and values that emphasize justice, ethical responsibility, and principled legal practice.
Since September 2025, the Trump administration has conducted at least nineteen drone strikes against suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, killing over 75 people, far from any battlefield. Never before has a president claimed the authority to use military force against drug traffickers as a matter of self-defense. Former government lawyers and legal scholars across the political spectrum warn that this crosses a red line. They contend these strikes constitute extrajudicial killings prohibited by international law, and that they represent a dangerous expansion of executive power. Moreover, these actions show no signs of slowing, with the administration discussing potential lethal action within Venezuela’s borders and moving military assets to the region.
Join us for a conversation with Professors Allen Weiner and Harold Trinkunas about the boundaries of presidential authority, the administration’s foreign policy strategy, and the role of lawyers in deciding when and how America uses lethal force.
This event is co-sponsored by the Stanford National Security Law Society (SNSLS), the American Constitution Society (ACS), the Stanford Immigration & Human Rights Law Association (SIHRLA), and the Stanford Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC).
Join Maurer's American Constitution Society, Public Interest Law Foundation, Plaintiff's Law Association, and FedSoc for a conversation on what public employees can and cannot say with speaker Frank LaMonte.
Rules and policies that forbid public employees from speaking about their work are pervasive across all levels of government, from Cabinet-level agencies down to the smallest local school district. While commonplace, these restrictions exist under a dark cloud of constitutional doubt. Decades worth of First Amendment caselaw establishes that public employers cannot gag their employees from sharing information and expertise gathered at work. What rights do public-sector workers have, where do First Amendment freedoms give way to employers’ authority to maintain order, and how is the public affected when government employees are restrained from speaking freely?
