About this Event
2000 H St NW, Washington DC 20052
In honor of Constitution Day, join GW Law as they host a distinguished panel of legal experts who will discuss the cases on the docket for the Supreme Court’s October Term 2023. We will begin the day with a continental breakfast at 9 am.
On the Docket:
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America; Does the funding scheme for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which receives funding directly from the Federal Reserve, violate the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution?
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy; Does the statutory scheme that empowers the Securities and Exchange Commission violate the Seventh Amendment, the nondelegation doctrine, or Article II of the U.S. Constitution?
- Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer; Does an ADA “tester” have Article III standing to challenge a hotel’s failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website, even if she has no plans to visit the hotel?
- Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP; Does the South Carolina legislature’s redistricting map, which has the effect of moving tens of thousands of Black voters to a different district, constitute an impermissible racial gerrymander, even if the legislators’ purported intent was merely a political gerrymander?
- Brown v. United States; Does the "serious drug offense" definition in the Armed Career Criminal Act incorporate the federal drug schedules that were in effect at the time of the federal firearm offense?
- United States v. Rahimi; Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders, violate the Second Amendment?
- Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz; Do the civil-liability provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act unequivocally and unambiguously waive the sovereign immunity of the United States?
- Lindke v. Freed; When does a public official’s social media activity constitute state action subject to the First Amendment?
- O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier; Does a public official engage in state action subject to the First Amendment by blocking an individual from the official’s personal social media account, which the official uses to communicate about job-related matters with the public?
- Vidal v. Elster; Does the refusal to register a trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?
Moderator: Mark Stern, Legal Analyst and Supreme Court, Slate
Panelists: Kimberly Atkins Stohr, Senior Opinion Writer and Columnist, Boston Globe Opinion
Emily Hammond, Glen Earl Weston Research Professor, GW Law
Alan B. Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service Law and Professorial Lecturer in Law, GW Law
Please follow GW Law’s Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter accounts for updates on the briefing. Join the conversation using hashtag #GWSCOTUS23.
If you have any questions, please contact Shannon Mitchell at email@example.com.
GW Law, long recognized as one of the top law schools in the country, pursues a distinctive research and learning mission that engages the leading law and policy questions of our time and provides students with an education that will position them to help change the world. Accredited by the American Bar Association and a charter member of the Association of American Law Schools, GW Law was founded in 1865 and was the first law school in the District of Columbia.