2655 Lane Park Rd
Birmingham, AL 35223
Join the Alabama Lawyers Chapters September 7-8 for the 2023 Alabama Chapters Conference!
This event is closed to the press.
The refund deadline for cancellations is 5:00 pm Eastern on September 5. We will not be accepting on-site registrations.Back to top
Alabama Chapters Conference
Today's Attorneys General offices have become increasingly entrepreneurial in the use of their powers to address a wide range of legal issues critical to society, both through traditional litigation and other means. Moreover, multiple Attorneys General offices often coordinate their efforts to achieve important results. Drawing on experiences of lawyers who have litigated on behalf of the States (and some of whom have also have defended against such actions), this panel will discuss the tools utilized by modern Attorneys General offices and the appropriate scope of their activities.
When state prisoners seek federal habeas corpus relief, they are effectively asking federal courts to review and overturn an otherwise valid and final state court conviction. This practice raises obvious questions about the appropriate balance of power between the federal and state governments. In recent decades, both the U.S. Congress (via AEDPA) and the U.S. Supreme Court (via a series of cases interpreting AEDPA) have imposed several limits on federal courts’ abilities to collaterally attack state convictions and sentences. These changes have sparked new debates, both about the validity of federal habeas review as an original matter and about the (increasingly important) role that state courts play in their own post-conviction proceedings.
Over the last generation, originalism has (re-)gained immense traction in the federal judiciary. It is now on the rise in state courts as well. During its recent ascendance, originalism has undergone several significant methodological refinements. Earlier versions of originalism that were popular several decades ago focused primarily on the Framers’ subjective intent and were often criticized for being overly simplistic or mechanistic. In response, judges and scholars have refined the doctrine to emphasize the Constitution's original public meaning and to take historical context into greater account. This panel will provide originalist judges – who serve at varying levels of the state and federal judiciaries – the opportunity to comment on these developments.