The Juror Project isn’t participating in a formal 8/28 campaign this year, but we are absolutely part of the community this day is designed to celebrate and sustain. We are Black-founded, Black-led and committed to building a more fair and equitable jury system through education, outreach and direct engagement with our communities.

So, in the spirit of 8/28, if you’ve been looking for a way to support The Juror Project, today is a good day to do it.

You can make a direct contribution at thejurorproject.org/donate, or shop our new merchandise at thejurorproject.org/store. Proceeds from the store support our community programming, sponsored events and engagement activities.

You can also find everything through the Linktree in our bio at linktr.ee/jurorproject.

Thank you in advance to everyone who chooses to invest in this work and help us continue building informed, confident jurors and stronger Black communities.

The Juror Project

Elvis Brooks was 19 years old when he was arrested for a 1977 New Orleans bar shooting. He would spend the next 42 years incarcerated for a murder he maintained he did not commit. Today, his conviction has been vacated, but his legal fight with the State of Louisiana cont…

Read more

Federal grand juries are made up of 16 to 23 people. They hear evidence presented by prosecutors and decide whether probable cause exists to issue an indictment. There is no judge in the room, no defense attorney, and no attorney representing the person under investigation. At least 12 jurors must agree before an indictment can move forward.

The article points to recent cases in which courts found misconduct during grand jury proceedings, including incorrect legal instructions, improper contact with jurors, removing a dissenting juror, vouching for the government’s evidence, and filing an indictment that had not actually been presented to the grand jury.

Reilly proposes three reforms:

1. Require the complete, unredacted grand jury transcript to be given to the judges assigned to every indicted case.

2. Give defendants access to the legal instructions, commentary, and recommendations prosecutors provided to the grand jury.

3. Require prosecutors, at the first post-indictment hearing, to confirm on the record that the grand jury received legally accurate instructions.

These changes would give courts and defense counsel a way to verify what happened inside the grand jury room and challenge misconduct when it occurs.

The article ended with this conclusion: "A system predicated on customs and best practices is doomed to be viewed with suspicion when those playing a leading role have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to disregard those norms. The grand jury is a venerable institution that, in recent times, has risen to the occasion to serve as a check on unrestrained government not because of how the system is designed, but in spite of it. We should now take steps to strengthen the grand jury as an institution by giving the courts and defense counsel additional tools to serve as a much-needed check on prosecutors’ authority."

What do you think? Would these reforms strengthen the grand jury’s independence, or would greater access undermine the secrecy of the process?

Qualified immunity comes into play after a civil lawsuit has been filed. Before the case reaches trial, the officer’s attorney can ask the judge to dismiss the lawsuit by arguing that qualified immunity applies. The judge then decides whether the case should move forward or end before a jury is ever selected.

To move past qualified immunity, the person bringing the lawsuit must generally show two things. First, that a government official violated their constitutional rights. Second, that the law had already made it clear that this type of conduct violated the Constitution. Courts usually answer that second question by looking at earlier court decisions involving similar facts. If the judge determines that the law was not clearly established at the time, the lawsuit may be dismissed even if the court believes a constitutional violation occurred.

For many people, this is the most important part of understanding qualified immunity. The doctrine is usually decided by a judge, not a jury. When qualified immunity is granted, the lawsuit ends before jurors hear testimony, review evidence, or decide whether the officer should be held financially responsible. In other words, qualified immunity determines whether many civil rights cases will ever reach a jury.

Supporters of qualified immunity argue that it protects public officials from personal financial liability when they are forced to make difficult decisions in situations where the law is unclear. Critics argue that it has become a significant barrier to accountability because it prevents many people from having their claims heard by a jury.

Qualified immunity continues to be the subject of national debate, but understanding how it works is an important part of understanding our justice system. When you hear the term in the news, it is not describing a criminal trial or determining whether someone committed a crime. It is describing a legal question in civil court about whether a lawsuit will continue and whether a jury will ever have the opportunity to hear the case.

An informed Juror is a confident juror.

#justice #qualifiedimmunity #lawenforcement

On June 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Slaughter that the FTC’s for-cause removal protection violates the separation of powers. The Court overruled Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the 1935 case that allowed Congress to protect FTC commissioners from removal by the President except for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasan…

Read more

Recently, The Juror Project was mentioned in a Times-Picayune | The Advocate article examining the U.S. Supreme Court case that could determine whether six-person juries are constitutional. This article esplains why six-person juries are being challenged, and why The Juror Project supports twelve-person juries.

The number of jurors can depend on the state you are in and the type of charge filed. Twelve jurors is the norm. However, there are seven states that allow six-person juries: Arizona; Connecticut; Florida; Indiana; Louisiana; Massachusetts; and Utah. But what triggers a six-person jury versus a twelve-person jury isn’t uniform. For example, in Louisiana a six-person jury is empaneled when the punishment for the offense is for a term of years, “with or without hard labor.” If the punishment is, “at hard labor” a twelve-person jury will be empaneled. This typically leads to lower-level felonies having six-person juries while more serious felonies have twelve.

Florida is unique because they use six-person juries for all of their felony trials except charges that carry the death penalty. And Hamed Kian is asking the United States Supreme Court to review his guilty verdict delivered by a six-person jury and declare it unconstitutional. Last week The Supreme Court agreed to hear Mr. Kian’s appeal and answer his question: Are six-person juries Constitutional? Mr. Kian could not have a friendlier Court for this question.

There are nine Supreme Court justices–four of whom expressly describe themselves as “originalists.” Traditionally speaking there are two camps of constitutional interpretation: “originalists” and “non-originalists.” Originalists typically believe the Constitution should be interpreted through the lens of the time it was written–the late 1700s. Where “non-originalist” view the Constitution as a “living and breathing” document that was designed to evolve with the times. This is important because the Supreme Court has recently signalled that when the Framers of the Constitution penned the word “jury” it meant to represent twelve people, not six.

In 2020, the Court decided Ramos v. Louisiana, declaring non-unanimous juries unconstitutional–changing the law in the only two states that allowed them in Louisiana and Oregon. Additionally, Justice Gorsuch signaled his disagreement with the Supreme Court’s 1970 decision in Williams v. Florida declaring twelve-person juries a “historical accident.” Justice Gorsuch disagrees with the earlier Court's “functionalist” approach using a cost-benefit analysis of six-person juries compared to twelve-person juries. As interpreted by Justice Gorsuch, this is not consistent with how the historical guarantee of a twelve-person jury should be nullified.

In Ramos, the Court made clear that when the Sixth Amendment was adopted in 1791, juries’ decisions had to be unanimous. Mr. Kian is arguing the same historical logic applies, in 1791 juries were meant to be composed of twelve people. Therefore, his conviction by a six-person jury should be deemed unconstitutional and invalid.

The Juror Project favors twelve-person juries because they can facilitate more diversity and representativeness of the community where the trial is taking place. Additionally, there is more brain power to be tapped into during deliberations that help jurors remember evidence more accurately, deliberate longer, and helps ensure the constitutional protections the Framers intended requiring the government prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Most people in favor of the six-person jury describe twelve-person juries as costing more money, requiring longer voir dire (a stage of jury selection) and will say six-person juries help “streamline” the judicial system. Justice doesn’t have a price tag nor does it have a timeline. So when justifications for six-person juries are rooted in cost and time savings, we need more to supersede the Constitutional protection the Framers enshrined as the only right listed twice.

The Supreme Court has granted cert (this just means they’ll hear the case) and it will likely be argued in the fall of 2026. We suspect this originalist-leaning Court will revert back to the number of jurors they believe the Framers intended when they listed “jury” in the Constitution, twelve people from the community.

William C. Snowden | Director, The Juror Project

Sources

John Simerman, “Are ‘six pack’ juries, used in Louisiana, constitutional? U.S. Supreme Court to decide,” The Times-Picayune | The Advocate, June 20, 2026.

Kian v. Florida, Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (2020)

Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970)

Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978)

Alisa Smith and Michael J. Saks, “The Case for Overturning Williams v. Florida and the Six-Person Jury: History, Law, and Empirical Evidence.”

The case challenges the prison’s “Farm Line” system, where people who are incarcerated, primarily Black men, are compelled to perform grueling agricultural labor in unsafe, degrading, and punitive conditions. Filed in 2023 on behalf of currently and formerly incarcerated plaintiffs, the lawsuit argues that these practices reflect and perpetuate Louisiana’s history of slavery while violating constitutional protections and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

During a five-day federal trial in February 2026, plaintiffs presented evidence describing forced labor practices enforced by armed guards, dangerous heat exposure, racialized language, and negligible or nonexistent wages. On May 26, 2026, a federal court agreed that forcing incarcerated people to work in dangerous heat conditions was unconstitutional. However, the court declined to order permanent relief and did not address broader claims that the Farm Line perpetuates a system rooted in Louisiana’s history of chattel slavery.

The case has placed a national spotlight on prison labor in the Deep South and raises important questions about dignity, safety, civil rights, and accountability. We encourage our community to learn more about this work and support the directly impacted leaders and organizations continuing the fight for justice.

Black residents make up roughly one third of Louisiana's population. For many years, however, Louisiana had only 1 majority Black congressional district. Voting rights advocates argued that the map diluted Black voting power and denied Black voters an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Those concerns led to years of litigation under the Voting Rights Act and repeated challenges to Louisiana's congressional maps.

In 2024, Louisiana adopted a new congressional map with 2 majority Black districts following court rulings that required the state to address concerns about Black voting strength and representation. The second majority Black district was created after years of litigation challenging a map that provided only 1 majority Black district in a state where Black residents make up approximately 33% of the population.

In April 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the 2024 map, ruling that race played too large a role in the creation of one of the districts. The decision placed Louisiana in the unusual position of revisiting a district that had been created in response to claims that Black voters were not being adequately represented under the previous map and led lawmakers to draft SB 121.

If enacted, SB 121 would eliminate one of the 2 majority Black districts created under the current map. Louisiana would once again have 1 majority Black district out of 6 congressional districts, despite Black residents making up roughly one third of the state's population. The proposal would undo a key change adopted in 2024 to address concerns raised through years of voting rights litigation.

Each congressional district elects 1 member of the U.S. House of Representatives. District boundaries determine which communities vote together and influence whose concerns are represented in Washington. Because of that, redistricting debates often center on representation, political power, and access to democratic participation.

SB 121 has not yet completed every step required to become law. If enacted, additional legal challenges are expected as courts continue to weigh questions about race, representation, and voting rights in Louisiana.

Sources

1. Louisiana Senate Bill 121 (2026 Regular Session), Louisiana Legislature

2. Louisiana v. Callais (2026), U.S. Supreme Court

Associated Press, "Louisiana House Approves Congressional Redistricting Plan" (May 28, 2026)

3. WAFB, "Louisiana House Passes New Congressional Map, Sending Bill Back to Senate" (May 28, 2026)

4. Louisiana Illuminator, "Louisiana Senate Committee Drops One of Two Majority Black Districts in Advancing Map" (May 13, 2026)

5. U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Louisiana

Please share.

See you tonight!

7:30pm CT / 8:30 ET

Youtube, FB and IG @jurorproject

Visit bit.ly/JPStreams to view older livestreams and to set a reminder on YouTube

Early giving for GiveNOLA Day is open today, and we are reaching out with appreciation for the community that continues to stand with The Juror Project.

Many of you have shared our work, engaged our programming, and stayed connected to the conversations we are building around juries and civic participation. That presence reflects a clear belief in what this work makes possible and affirms that people are paying attention to how decisions are made in courtrooms.

Across the country, questions about fairness, access, and accountability in the legal system continue to surface in public conversation. Jury service remains one of the few direct ways everyday people participate in that system, yet access to the jury box is still uneven, and many people enter the process without a clear understanding of their role or influence. In Louisiana, the legacy of non-unanimous jury verdicts shaped decades of convictions, and while the law has changed, the need for informed participation and strong jury practice remains present.

This year, we are raising funds to support 3 to 5 scholarships for the Just Juries Institute, a 2.5 day training in New Orleans focused on jury selection, fair cross section challenges, and the role of jurors in trial outcomes. Participants engage in live jury selection, receive direct feedback, and study how bias and decision making operate in real time.

Your support expands access to this training and helps ensure that more advocates enter courtrooms prepared to uphold the constitutional role of juries.

We are grateful in advance for every contribution made during early giving and on GiveNOLA Day.

To contribute, please visit tap the button below.

Thank you for standing with us and continuing to support this work.

— The Juror Project

Donate Here

Early giving for GiveNOLA Day begins tomorrow, April 28.

This year, The Juror Project is raising funds to support 3 to 5 scholarships for the Just Juries Institute, a 2.5 day training in New Orleans focused on jury selection, fair cross section challenges, and the role of jurors in shaping trial outcomes.

Each scholarship makes it possible for an attorney or advocate to take part in a practice based training that includes live jury selection exercises, real time feedback from community members, and close analysis of how decisions are made in the courtroom.

This work strengthens how juries are built. It equips participants to identify bias, ask better questions, and engage the jury box with clarity and intention.

We are also inviting the community to participate directly in this process.

On May 7, we will host a live jury selection demonstration in New Orleans. Community members will serve as mock jurors and engage with legal professionals in real time. This is an opportunity to experience how jury selection works and to take part in a process that shapes how justice is carried out every day.

A stipend and meals will be provided for those selected.

To participate, email info@thejurorproject.org with the subject line “Reporting for Duty” and include your name, city and parish, phone number, and availability for May 7.

Early giving opens tomorrow, April 28th. GiveNOLA Day takes place on May 5.

Your support expands access to this training and strengthens the presence of informed, prepared advocates in the courtroom.

— The Juror Project

Members of the jury,

We have officially reached full capacity for our first Just Juries Institute.

This milestone reflects the urgency of this work and the commitment of attorneys and advocates who are ready to strengthen how juries are selected and engaged in courtrooms across the country. We are preparing to welcome a strong cohort in May and are looking forward to a focused, rigorous, and practice-based training experience in New Orleans.

At the same time, we continue to hear from additional attorneys and advocates who are ready to step into this work and are actively seeking a way to participate.

As we move into GiveNOLA Day, our focus remains steady. We are raising funds to support 3 to 5 scholarships so that more participants can take part in this training. These scholarships extend access to individuals who are prepared to serve and lead in the courtroom and who would benefit from this experience but may not have the financial resources to attend.

Early giving begins April 28. GiveNOLA Day takes place on May 5.

We are also inviting the community into this work in a direct and meaningful way.

The Just Juries Institute is seeking community members to serve as mock jurors for a live jury selection demonstration in New Orleans on May 7, 2026. This is an opportunity to learn how jury selection operates in real time and to take part in a process that shapes how justice is carried out in courtrooms every day.

Participants will engage directly with legal professionals during the demonstration and contribute to a space focused on education, transparency, and civic participation.

A stipend and meals will be provided for those selected.

To participate, email info@thejurorproject.org with the subject line “Reporting for Duty” and include your name, city and parish, phone number, and availability for May 7.

We are grateful for your support and look forward to what we will build together.

— The Juror Project

Members of the jury,

Here are the facts.

On April 20, 2026, the United States Senate did not advance the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act.

This marks the second time the legislation has failed to move forward in the Senate.

The SAVE Act would require individuals to provide documentary proof of citizenship, including a valid U.S. passport or a birth certificate, in order to register to vote.

Available data shows that fewer than 30 percent of residents in Alabama and Mississippi hold a valid U.S. passport. An estimated 69 million married women across the United States do not have birth certificates that match their current legal names.

Because the bill did not advance, existing federal voter registration processes remain in place at this time.

Efforts to pass similar legislation are ongoing, and proposals affecting voter eligibility and access may continue to be introduced and considered in future legislative sessions.

Stay engaged.

-TJP

Louisiana’s courts are undergoing major legislative review this session, and several bills moving through the State House will directly affect jury access, judicial authority, and who participates in courtroom decision-making. These measures will shape how justice is administered in our state and how communities experience fairness inside the legal system.

Several bills deserve close attention:

HB 52: Judge-Only Trials Expansion
Allows prosecutors to classify certain misdemeanors as non-jury cases and place them before a judge instead of a jury. The bill expands prosecutorial discretion over how these cases are tried and includes retroactive language that may affect people already charged.

SB 123: Judicial Removal Power
Creates a constitutional amendment process that allows lawmakers to remove judges through a House vote and Senate trial. The bill transfers judicial oversight authority into the legislative arena and would require voter approval to take effect.

HB 219: Non-Unanimous Jury Relief
Establishes the process for people convicted by non-unanimous juries to seek post-conviction relief or parole. The bill determines how relief is accessed for those still incarcerated under unconstitutional verdicts.

HB 532: Jury Unanimity Amendment
Requires unanimous jury verdicts in cases originating before January 1, 2019, and defines eligibility for new trials in those cases. The amendment would require voter approval if passed.

HB 59: Jury Eligibility Restrictions
Would bar anyone ever convicted of a crime of violence or sex offense from serving on a jury, narrowing jury pool eligibility under Louisiana law.

Together, these bills are redefining how juries are formed, how judges are governed, and how constitutional protections are applied in Louisiana courtrooms. As these changes unfold, public defenders remain one of the strongest bridges between communities and a more just legal process. They are the attorneys standing beside our neighbors in moments when liberty, fairness, and due process are at stake.

That is why this year’s Just Juries Institute arrives at such an important time.

From May 6 through 8, The Juror Project will convene public defenders and defense attorneys for advanced training on jury selection, bias challenges, and fair cross-section advocacy. These tools are essential in a legal climate where jury access is narrowing and courtroom procedures are shifting.

We also recognize the economic reality facing many defenders. Public defenders are deeply underpaid compared to private practice attorneys, and professional development opportunities are often financially out of reach. Every attorney committed to strengthening their skill set should be able to participate in this training.

This GiveNOLA Day, we are raising funds to provide scholarships for public defenders who want to attend the Just Juries Institute but cannot afford the $650 registration fee.

When you give, you are helping equip the attorneys who protect fairness inside our courtrooms every day.

Register for the Just Juries Institute, sponsor a scholarship, and help strengthen justice where it matters most.

Register for JJI

Save the Date to Donate!

Thank you,

The Juror Project

Tonight, Juror Project Director, Will Snowden, will talk through what we can do together as community members, as citizens, as people who hold power in real ways. We will also name what it takes to protect ourselves and our neighbors as we move through this current wave of policy.

Join us tonight at 7:30 PM CT for a live check-in. We will break things down, answer questions, and make space for your thoughts and insights.

Join with YouTube

Attorneys and court observers cited several factors, including diminished trust among jurors toward the federal government, the Department of Justice, and law enforcement agencies. One attorney described the situation directly, stating, “They’ve lost the jury pool.”

The article also notes an increase in jury resistance, including acquittals, mistrials, and grand jury refusals to indict, sometimes referred to as “no true bills.” These outcomes have appeared in cases ranging from fraud allegations to assault charges, with some juries unable to reach consensus and others rejecting prosecution arguments outright.

In response to reporting on the office’s trial record, Pirro rejected the characterization of declining performance. When asked about the results, she responded multiple times, “Hogwash!” She also stated that if juries believe the government has not met its burden of proof, “then so be it,” while pointing to guilty pleas and overall conviction numbers as part of the office’s broader record.

The article further describes challenges in securing indictments from grand juries, particularly in politically sensitive cases, as well as internal changes within the office, including turnover among prosecutors. Despite these trends, the office continues to pursue major cases, including violent crime and national security prosecutions, where it has maintained some success.

We know we cannot cover everything in one hour. What we can do is focus. We can name a few of the issues we have been tracking, walk through what they mean, where they are in the process of becoming law, and what they ask of us as people who live with the impact.

We will talk through what we can do together as community 7members, as citizens, as people who hold power in real ways. We will also name what it takes to protect ourselves and our neighbors as we move through this current wave of policy.

Join us tonight at 7:30 PM CT for a live check-in. We will break things down, answer questions, and make space for your thoughts and insights.

We gather every second Wednesday. Today is no different, let's sift through this legal noise together.

Watch on YouTube, Instagram, or Facebook @jurorptoject.

WATCH ON YOUTUBE

WATCH ON INSTAGRAM

WATCH ON FACEBOOK

Members of the Jury,

We are excited to announce the Just Juries Institute is officially here.

As you may know, across Louisiana and beyond, the landscape around jury trials continues to shift in ways that raise serious questions about access, fairness, and the composition of the jury box. For those of us in trial practice, this moment calls for preparation, clarity, and sharpened skill.

The Juror Project is opening registration for the Just Juries Institute, a 2.5 day intensive in New Orleans focused on strengthening voir dire practice and sharpening fair cross section challenges.

This training is designed for criminal defense attorneys and public defenders who are actively in the courtroom and want to deepen their approach to jury selection. Participants will step into live voir dire practice with mock juries and receive real time feedback grounded in how their language, tone, and presence are experienced.

Through this institute, participants will strengthen their ability to:

• Conduct more effective and intentional voir dire
• Identify and respond to bias during jury selection
• Refine how they communicate with jurors in real time
• Approach fair cross section challenges with greater clarity and confidence

The institute is facilitated by William C. Snowden, Director of The Juror Project, and Porsha-Shaf’on Venable, Deputy Director. With a special guest facilitator, Professor at CUNY School of Law and fair cross section expert, Nina Chernoff. Together, their approach centers practical application and real time learning grounded in the realities of trial work.

Event Details
May 6 through May 8
Loyola University, New Orleans, Louisiana
Registration: $650
Breakfast and lunch provided daily
Travel and lodging not included

Questions: info@thejurorproject.org

Looking forward to it,

The Juror Project

Learn More & Register

This 90 minute conversation will move through the legal context behind select cases and explain how individual actions inside courtrooms can influence legal precedent. Participants will hear the stories, learn the legal significance of the cases, and examine how the experiences of ordinary people continue to shape the law.

The session is designed to be accessible for community members who want a deeper understanding of their rights while also offering legal professionals a fuller historical and social context for landmark decisions.

The Facilitators:

Shannon Cumberbatch | Shannon Cumberbatch is the founder and lead facilitator of uproot.ed, where she supports individuals and institutions working to transform systems and communities. Her work spans organizational consulting, educational curriculum design, care centered coaching, and conscious travel experiences that connect people to communities around the world.

Shannon brings more than a decade of experience across legal practice, people and equity strategy, organizational development, operational innovation, managerial leadership, coaching, and consulting. Her work focuses on helping people navigate systems with clarity, care, and collective responsibility.

Porsha-Shaf’on Venable | Porsha-Shaf’on Venable is a licensed attorney and social worker based in the Bronx. She is the Deputy Director of The Juror Project, where she leads strategy, programming, and partnerships to increase civic participation and challenge exclusion in the jury system. Her work is grounded in both legal expertise and a social worker’s understanding of care and structural harm.

She has served as a staff attorney, forensic social worker, and team leader with The Bronx Defenders and the Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem. Porsha trains public defenders and legal advocates nationwide on jury selection, nullification, and trial strategy through platforms such as the Black Public Defender Association and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. She holds a J.D. from California Western School of Law and an M.S.W. from NYU.

William C. Snowden | William C. Snowden is the Director of The Juror Project, a licensed attorney and a professor at Loyola University New Orleans College of Law. His work is grounded in a simple truth: exclusion is not accidental. As a former public defender in New Orleans, he represented people forced to stand trial in courtrooms designed to convict them. He later served as Executive Director of the Vera Institute of Justice in Louisiana, where he advanced efforts to eliminate money bail, reduce jail populations, and shift power toward communities.

Through public education, legal scholarship, and grassroots organizing, Will challenges the myths of fairness that surround the jury system. He exposes how civic participation has been weaponized to protect institutions rather than people. His work does not ask for faith in the system. It calls for clear vision, informed resistance, and collective presence in the places where decisions are made about our lives.

Join us for this Women’s History Month conversation as we examine the women whose courage inside the courtroom helped reshape the law.

One day away, RSVP for link to join.

March 19, 2026

6:30 PM to 8:00 PM ET

Free for community members

Sliding scale for legal professionals ($25 to $75)

RSVP: bit.ly/SheResisted

This 90 minute conversation will move through the legal context behind select cases and explain how individual actions inside courtrooms can influence legal precedent. Participants will hear the stories, learn the legal significance of the cases, and examine how the experiences of ordinary people continue to shape the law.

The session is designed to be accessible for community members who want a deeper understanding of their rights while also offering legal professionals a fuller historical and social context for landmark decisions.

Join us for this Women’s History Month conversation as we examine the women whose courage inside the courtroom helped reshape the law.

One day away, RSVP for link to join.

March 19, 2026

6:30 PM to 8:00 PM ET

Free for community members

Sliding scale for legal professionals ($25 to $75)

RSVP: bit.ly/SheResisted