Join PLF for our annual Supreme Court preview event!
PLF and National Review Institute will once again host a Supreme Court preview event featuring a distinguished panel of Supreme Court advocates (listed below). The event, held near the Supreme Court, will take place at noon on September 29.
With its full complement of justices, the High Court has been adding blockbuster cases to its docket at a surprising rate. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemingly agreed, saying last July that “We can safely predict that next term will be a momentous one.”
The Court’s docket already includes challenges to the Trump administration’s travel ban, an examination of whether electoral districts drawn with partisan motives are unconstitutional, a challenge to warrantless tracking of cell phone locations, a religious baker’s First Amendment defense relating to his refusal to design cakes for same sex marriage ceremonies, and several other cases with significant economic, environmental, and administrative law implications. Yet some of the most consequential cases are added each year after the Court’s late September “long conference.”
Our distinguished panel members will discuss the most significant cases, including those the Court selects during its September 25 conference. They will also highlight promising cert. petitions that may be granted later in the term. Please join us to listen to their insight and ask your questions.
Michael A. Carvin
Partner, Jones Day, Issues & Appeals Practice
John P. Elwood
Partner, Vinson & Elkins, Appellate Practice Group
Relist Watch Columnist, SCOTUSblog.com
Donald B Verrilli, Jr.
Former Solicitor General of the United States
Partner, Munger, Tolles & Olson
Senior Editor, National Review
Senior Fellow, National Review Institute
What to read next
PLF asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that there is no “legislative exception” to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine
It seems that some governments and courts prefer to treat Supreme Court precedent as an option, rather than a requirement. The Supreme Court has ruled—twice—that it’s unconstitutional for government to … ›