This discussion group explores how mid- and senior-level faculty can effectively support their junior colleagues while respecting their autonomy and academic freedom. Discussants will share strategies for mentorship in teaching, scholarship, and service, as well as for guiding newer faculty through institutional norms and promotion and tenure expectations. The group will also discuss fostering collaboration and camaraderie across faculty cohorts, including tenured, pre-tenure, clinical, academic success, and legal writing faculty. In exchanging practical approaches to mentorship, discussants will consider how experienced faculty can help build a supportive academic culture that benefits everyone as we strive to achieve our common mission of educating our students to the best of our abilities.
For the first time in its history, the Supreme Court decided two Second Amendment cases in a single Term. These cases raise distinct challenges to the test Bruen articulated in 2022. One challenges a new state law that responds to changing social conditions and legal terrain (Wolford). May states change the default rules for gun carrying on private property? The other challenges a federal law that has been on the books for more than half a century (Hemani). May legislatures disarm those who abuse illegal drugs? This panel unpacks the decisions and their implications for Second Amendment doctrine and issues the Court will soon confront like assault weapons, sensitive places, and disarmament for those with felony convictions.
As law professors, we frequently encounter opportunities to spotlight our research and engage in public discourse via op-eds, testimony, amicus briefs, media commentary, podcasts, and more. Should legal academics engage more actively with the public, or does this detract from scholarly and pedagogical commitments? Drawing on their personal experiences, discussants will debate whether public engagement is a civic duty of the academy. The discussion will also consider institutional incentives, public trust in legal expertise, and the responsibilities of scholars in shaping legal narratives beyond the classroom.
How can you find your place in the legal academy? Who can you talk to about your questions? This session provides aspiring law teachers an opportunity to gather information and ask questions of experienced law teachers regarding specific issues in entering the academy. This session explores how to research the legal academic job hiring market and position yourself for the job, including how to build experience and prepare your curriculum vita and academic record to compete in the academic market. This session also provides information regarding the core components of an academic's life: teaching, scholarship, and service.
In recent years, law schools have placed greater emphasis on being student-centered than perhaps they traditionally had. Many view this as a positive development. Yet, professors must now navigate the expectation of caring for students while still upholding standards, maintaining balance between professional obligations and personal life, and establishing their own professional identities. This discussion group focuses on the new professor-student dynamic and its effect on faculty members' ability to accomplish their own personal and professional goals. Topics include: setting appropriate boundaries with students and colleagues; managing time to fulfill teaching, scholarship, and service obligations; remaining professional but approachable when working with different types of students in different capacities; and addressing the "student-as-consumer" culture.
Realization of substantive rights depends on remedies. Increasing use of emergency dockets places equitable remedies as pivotal from the start of the litigation. The nature and scope of remedies demonstrate what the law honors most from private law to public. Varied remedies are key to advance executive prerogatives or forestall overreaches. We discuss a host of areas, including intellectual property, unjust enrichment, contracts, torts, criminal law, constitutional law, and administrative law. Before equitable or legal remedies may flow, plaintiffs must meet demanding requirements. Judges may also need to consider federalism, separation-of-powers issues, sovereignty, choice of law, and reform statues. This discussion group explores strategies, obstacles, and unifying principles. Discussants ultimately suggest how remedies may best serve underlying rights at stake.
In the years since the Supreme Court decisions in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, law schools have experienced increased scrutiny of their admissions processes at both the federal and (particularly in the case of public institutions) state levels. This increased scrutiny seems to be part of a broader trend in which governments and private organizations have challenged previously accepted norms surrounding legal education and reignited debates about what faculty are allowed to do both inside and outside the classroom. This discussion group examines this trend and considers the impact that these decisions continue to have on the future of legal education.
In April 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Louisiana v. Callais. This decision struck down Louisiana's second majority minority congressional district, promulgated in 2024, as violative of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Louisiana successfully argued that, when devising a challenged 2022 map, it had redistricted based on politics._x000D_ _x000D_ Callais promises to be consequential for redistricting at the national, state, and local levels. This discussion group will convene constitutional law scholars to address the case from many angles, including doctrinal, historical, cultural, and theoretical. By engaging with differing perspectives on the case, the discussion group will seek to come to a fuller understanding of what Callais will mean for the future of law and politics in the United States.
