The Duke Law community came together to honor the life and legacy of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Remarks were delivered from those who knew Justice Ginsburg personally or studied, taught, or engaged with her life's work.

We have also set up a KudoBoard to allow members of the Duke community to share the ways in which Justice Ginsburg has influenced or inspired them (https://www.kudoboard.com/boards/OKeLQ5LK).

Sponsored by The Women's Law Students Association, the Program in Public Law, and the Dean's Office.

Judge Robert Katzmann discusses his book on statutory interpretation, "Judging Statutes", with Duke Law professors Neil Siegel and Marin Levy. Katzmann became Chief Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on September 1, 2013. At his appointment in 1999, he was the Walsh Professor of Government, Professor of Law and Professor of Public Policy at Georgetown University; a Fellow of the Governmental Studies Program of the Brookings Institution; and president of the Governance Institute.

The Program in Public Law presents its Annual Supreme Court Preview. Duke Law professors Lisa Griffin, Tom Metzloff, Darrell Miller, and Neil Siegel offer a preview of the Supreme Court's October 2015 Term.

A program about Justice Ginsburg's 50+ years as a lawyer, professor, appellate judge and associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The discussion features the editor and contributors to the recent book, "The Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg", Scott Dodson '00, Harry & Lillian Hastings Research Chair and Professor of Law, UC Hastings College of Law; Lisa Kern Griffin, Professor of Law; and Neil Siegel, David W. Ichel Professor of Law. It was moderated by Katharine T. Bartlett, A. Kenneth Pye Professor of Law.

Sponsored by the Office of Alumni & Development.

A discussion of the status of marriage equality in North Carolina and across the United States, the panelists analyze the strategy choices that accompany nationwide civil rights litigation, the practical and theoretical issues surrounding equal protection and due process jurisprudence, and the impact these cases will have on civil rights, constitutional adjudication and federalism going forward.Sponsored by the the Program in Public Law and the American Constitution Society.

Do Members of Congress take the U.S. Constitution seriously? Do they attempt to shape their actions to what the Constitution says? Do they instead shape what the Constitution says so that it supports their actions (and condemns the actions of their opponents)? Or do they largely disregard the Constitution? Duke professors Chris Schroeder and Neil Siegel and UNC professor Michael Gerhardt discuss these questions from both an historical and a contemporary perspective. They also address the potential role of judicial review in bringing about the current state of affairs.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg discusses the most recent Supreme Court term with Duke Law Professor Neil Siegel before an audience of alumni and students from Duke Law's DC Summer Institute.

The Program in Public Law presented its annual Supreme Court Review (Civil) on August 29, 2013. Duke Law Professors Neil Siegel, Darrell Miller, Ernest Young and Katharine Bartlett discussed the most significant civil decisions of the past term of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court Confronts DOMA and Same-Sex Marriage: A Discussion with Roy Englert, Neil Siegel, Ernie Young, Erin C. Blondel, and Dan Boettcher. Sponsored by the Program in Public Law.

Join Duke Law School Professors Kate Bartlett, Guy Charles, Larry Helfer, Jed Purdy, and Neil Siegel for a discussion of the implications of the 2012 national elections and state referenda for American constitutional law and culture, both inside and outside the courts. Topics may include the possible effects of the Presidential and Senate elections on the future composition and decision making of the U.S.

Fisher and the Future of Affirmative Action. Oral arguments are in the books and the Supreme Court's decision in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin is only months away. How will the court decide? Will it be a narrow ruling? What could this mean for the future of race-conscious admissions policies? The American Constitution Society and Duke Law ACLU invite you to join Professor Neil Siegel and Professor Guy Charles, founding director of the Duke Law Center on Law, Race, and Politics, for a discussion of these questions and the Court's affirmative action doctrine generally.

As Professor Sachs said in the September 4 panel on the ACA, "It's Constitutional, Now what?," "Just because the Supreme Court held that the ACA was constitutional doesn't mean it is constitutional." Join the Federalist Society as Professor Neil Siegel and Mr. Ilya Shapiro square off in a head to head debate on the Supreme Court's ACA Decision. Is it Constitutional? Was it great? Terrible? So-so?

The Program in Public Law presents its annual Supreme Court Review (Criminal). Duke Law professors Neil Siegel, Sam Buell, Jim Coleman, Nita Farahany, and Lisa Griffin review the most significant decisions of the past term of the U.S. Supreme Court, focusing on criminal cases.

The Supreme Court's health care ruling was an extremely important, and perhaps surprising, decision. Professor Neil Siegel (whose writings may have influenced part of the opinion), Professor Steven Sachs (author on health reform and former clerk to Chief Justice Roberts), and Asheesh Agarwal of Ogletree Deakins (an authority on the possible impacts of the decision) discuss the ruling. Professor Joseph Blocher will moderate. Sponsored by the American Constitution Society, the Federalist Society, and the Health Law Society.

Duke Law professors discuss and review the most significant decisions of the 2011 term of the U.S. Supreme Court, focusing on civil cases. Margaret H. Lemos looks at the statistics from the term. Ernest A. Young examines two cases: Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC and Arizona v. U.S. Katharine T. Bartlett reviews Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals. Lastly, Joseph Blocher looks at the free speech decisions of the Court for the term. Sponsored by the Program in Public Law.

A discussion of the Affordable Care Act and arguments made recently before the U.S. Supreme Court. Featured panelists are Walter E. Dellinger III, Douglas B. Maggs Professor Emeritus of Law; Stephen E. Sachs, Assistant Professor of Law; and Neil S. Siegel, Professor of Law and Political Science. Dean David F. Levi moderates.

Panel 3: National Security Judicial Deference: Lessons Learned and Challenges for the Future
Moderator: Dean David Levi, Duke Law School
Professor Neil Siegel, Duke Law School
Professor Nathan Sales, George Mason Law School
Professor Deborah Pearlstein, Cardozo Law School

Join the Federalist Society, the Duke Journal of Constitutional Law and Public Policy, and former FBI Special Agent Alicia Hilton, and Professor Lisa Griffin for a discussion on the issues raised by the case Florida v. Jardines. The case will be heard by the Supreme Court in the upcoming October term.

Professors Neil Siegel, Guy Charles, Trina Jones, and Darrell Miller discuss Fisher v. University of Texas, the affirmative action admissions case in which the U.S. Supreme Court recently granted certiorari. Brought to you by the Program in Public Law.

Duke Law professors Neil Siegel, Sara Beale, Sam Buell, Jim Coleman and Lisa Griffin review the most significant decisions of the past term of the U.S. Supreme Court (2010 Term), focusing on criminal cases.

Duke Law Professors Neil Siegel, Stuart Benjamin, Joseph Blocher, Marin Levy, and Ernest Young discuss the most significant decisions of the past term of the U.S. Supreme Court (2010 term), focusing on civil cases.

Duke Law professors Neil Siegel, Stuart Benjamin, Guy-Uriel Charles, and Lisa Kern Griffin discussed some of the most important Supreme Court decisions from the October 2008 Term.

Recorded on September 24, 2009.

February 17, 2010 - The Program in Public Law presents a discussion on the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC.

Judicial Engagement or Judicial Abdication? That is the question Clark Neily from the Institute for Justice and our own Professor Neil Siegel will attempt to answer. Judicial Engagement is the concept that federal judges should be enforcing constitutional limits on the other branches of government.

Professor Neil Siegel moderated this Supreme Court Review panel. Duke Law Professors Paul Haagen, James Cox, Guy Charles, and Katharine Bartlett discuss the most significant decisions of the past term of the U.S. Supreme Court, focusing on civil cases.