Federalist Society’s National Bar Convention Focuses on Free Speech and New Frontiers

This week, the Federalist Society is hosting its national bar convention in Washington, D.C. The theme for this year is “New Frontiers,” tackling topics ranging from advances in technology and artificial intelligence to the involvement of young people in conservative legal movements. The aim is to highlight the significance of open debate, free speech, and meaningful engagement that extends beyond mere politics.

The event is set to feature law students from various universities who are actively advocating for free speech and diverse viewpoints. This push comes in response to rising concerns over “cancel culture,” censorship, and incidents on campuses that have led event speakers to face opposition from peers and faculty.

Students leading Federalist Society chapters in law schools are encountering a range of challenges in promoting free speech. Some of these hurdles are subtle; others, not so much.

As these future lawyers gather for Thursday’s conference, they’re indicating that the struggle is not just about defending free speech, but, quite possibly, reshaping its meaning. Many students feel that academic environments now often penalize dissent rather than foster open dialogue.

Each student mentioned various attempts to intimidate discourse or undermine good-faith engagement—this phenomenon is not isolated but part of a broader trend on campuses nationwide.

Recently, New York University School of Law’s administration canceled a scheduled event featuring pro-Israel legal scholar Ilya Shapiro. Initially, the administration suggested postponement due to anticipated protests and potential violence, but students pushed back, arguing that postponing would simply capitulate to those trying to silence them. Eventually, after significant public outcry, the university allowed Shapiro to proceed with his talk as planned.

These tensions have escalated over the years. For instance, at the University of Michigan, students reportedly documented attendees at Federalist Society events, which raised concerns among chapter members.

“Some groups say, ‘If you attend that event, you’re not welcome among us,'” highlighted Matthew Holmes, president of the University of Michigan Law School chapter.

Moreover, recent events reflect a growing trend of intolerance towards Jewish speakers and conservative views, a situation students find increasingly troubling.

“We are stepping into a new legal frontier,” said Jordan Holmes, a law student from the University of Texas at Austin, resonating with this year’s conference theme. “With changes in AI and the judicial landscape, the stakes are high. Violence often arises when we stop engaging with one another.”

David Huang, leading the Federalist Society chapter at Yale University, echoed these sentiments. Reflecting on the impact of Charlie Kirk’s assassination during a speech in Utah, Huang noted that the event sent shockwaves through campuses and raised safety concerns.

In discussions following Kirk’s death, younger conservatives voiced their fears regarding personal safety and how such events might deter the hosting of controversial speakers or vigorous debates.

“Kirk’s assassination has definitely changed the atmosphere on campus,” said Huang. He mentioned a recent event hosted by his chapter that tackled the contentious issue of birthright citizenship, which drew considerable attendance despite previous concerns about safety.

“There’s a notion now that if you show up, you’re not alone,” Holmes remarked, emphasizing the importance of dialogue over silence. He recalled Kirk’s words: “When people stop talking, that’s when violence begins.”

Despite the challenges, students are cautiously optimistic. There are signs of progress, like the new civic discussion fund at the University of Michigan aimed at fostering dialogue among students with varying viewpoints.

“What sets the Federalist Society apart is the forward-thinking mindset among its members,” observed Lamb. “In an age where youth are often pressured to be indignant, it’s refreshing to see students and lawyers genuinely considering the future of the law.”

Huang pointed out recent events that invite constructive debate, urging opponents to express their disagreements at discussions rather than through inflammatory rhetoric.

This collaborative spirit will continue at the conference, where Federalist Society members plan to engage judges in conversations about their interests and how they relate to the law. It’s a way to humanize those in judicial roles and break down barriers to discussion.

As Holmes stated about the various Federalist Society chapters, “Join us at our events and feel free to challenge your ideas. It’s through rigorous debate that we find the best solutions.”