Pre-Law Panel Webinars

Panels

Supreme Court Activism or Restraint

in Today’s Culture Wars

Part I-A Women’s Right to Choose or an Unborn Fetus’ Right to Life? The Past, Present & Future of Abortion Rights in America

Click Here to Join the Webinar

Tuesday, September 13, 5:00-6:30 pm

Discussants

  • Christopher Banks, Professor, Kent State Political Science (moderator)
  • Michael Gentithes, Associate Dean and Associate Professor, University of Akron School of Law
  • CJ Peters, C. Blake McDowell, Jr. Professor of Law, University of Akron School of Law
  • Rebecca Kendis, Reproductive Rights Fellow, Case Western University School of Law

This panel discusses the role of the U.S. Supreme Court in using its judicial power to weigh in on today’s culture wars, with a focus on explaining Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Care Organization, the ruling that reversed Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey precedents that previously guaranteed a women’s right to choose to have an abortion under the U.S. Constitution. What is the legal and constitutional justification for Dobbs? Why, and under what legal standards, did the justices reverse long-standing Roe and Casey precedents? What is the public policy impact of the Court’s alleged judicial activism and/or restraint in regard to women’s health care?

Part II-The Constitutional Meaning & Policy Implications of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen

Click Here to Join the Webinar

Tuesday, September 20, 5:00-6:30 pm

Discussants

  • Christopher Banks, Professor, Kent State Political Science (moderator)
  • Michael Dzordzormenyoh, Assistant Professor, Kent State Political Science
  • Joe Muha Professor, University of Akron School of Law and General Counsel of Discount Drug Mart
  • CJ Peters, Professor, University of Akron School of Law

This panel discusses the role of the U.S. Supreme Court in using its judicial power to weigh in on today’s culture wars, with a focus on explaining New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen, the ruling that invalidated New York’s proper-cause requirement for possessing an unrestricted licensed to carry a concealed weapon under the Fourteenth and Second Amendments. What is the legal and constitutional justification for New York State Rifle? Why, and under what legal standards, did the justices expand gun rights in a time of growing mass shootings and gun violence? What is the public policy impact of the Court’s alleged judicial activism and/or restraint in regard to the government’s regulation of guns?

Part III-A Constitutional Game-Changer? Religious Freedom & a Football Coach’s Right to Pray at the Fifty-Yard Line in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District

Click Here to Join the Webinar 

Tuesday, October 11, 5:00-6:30 pm

Discussants

  • Christopher Banks, Professor, Kent State Political Science (moderator)
  • Gary Spring, Professor, University of Akron School of Law
  • Willa Gibson, Professor, University of Akron School of Law
  • CJ Peters, Professor, University of Akron School of Law

This panel discusses the role of the U.S. Supreme Court in using its judicial power to weigh in on today’s culture wars, with a focus on explaining Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the ruling that sided with a high school football coach who was fired for engaging a post-game prayers at the 50-yard line. What is the legal and constitutional justification for Kennedy? Why, and under what legal standards, did the justices lower the “wall” separating church and state? What is the public policy impact of the Court’s alleged judicial activism and/or restraint in regard to the religious freedom under the First Amendment’s (Dis)Establishment Clause?

Part IV-The Ohio Supreme Court & the Constitutional Politics of Ohio Redistricting

Click Here to Join the Webinar 

Tuesday, October 25, 5:00-6:30 pm

Discussants

  • Christopher Banks, Professor, Kent State Political Science (moderator)
  • Michael Ensley, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Kent State Political Science
  • Michael Gentithes, Associate Dean and Associate Professor, University of Akron School of Law
  • Jonathan L. Entin, David L. Brennan Emeritus of Law and Adjunct of Political Science, Case Western University School of Law

This panel discusses the role of the Ohio Supreme Court in using its judicial power to weigh in on today’s culture wars, with a focus on explaining its series of rulings that invalidated the Ohio Assembly’s redistricting maps that favored the Republican Party. What did the Ohio legislature do in its redistricting maps? Why, and under what legal standards, did the Ohio Supreme Court reject the state legislature’s redistricting maps? What is the public policy impact of the Court’s alleged judicial activism and/or restraint in regard to the politics of redistricting?

Part V-The Federal Government’s Power to Fight Climate Change

Click Here to Joint the Webinar 

Monday, November 7, 5:00-6:30 pm

Discussants

  • Christopher Banks, Professor, Kent State Political Science (moderator)
  • John Hoornbeek, Professor, Kent State Public Health
  • Martin H. Belsky, Emeritus Dean, Randolph Baxter Professor, University of Akron Law School

This panel discusses the role of the U.S. Supreme Court in using its judicial power to weigh in on today’s culture wars, with a focus on explaining West Virginia v. EPA, the ruling that limited the EPA’s power to combat climate change. What is the legal justification for West Virginia ? Why, and under what legal standards, did the justices choose to curtail federal agency power to regulate carbon emissions and greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act? What is the public policy impact of the Court’s alleged judicial activism and/or restraint in regard to environmental law and climate change?