News & Media http://www.law.uchicago.edu/feeds/newsandmedia.rss en LaCroix's Guest Post on 'The Shadow Powers of Article I' on Balkinization http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/lacroixs-guest-post-shadow-powers-article-i-balkinization <div class="field field-type-text field-field-news-title"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> The Shadow Powers of Article I </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-type-text field-field-news-author"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> Alison L. LaCroix </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-type-text field-field-news-publication"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> Balkinization </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-type-date field-field-datepublished"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <span class="date-display-single">April 17, 2014</span> </div> </div> </div> <p>For the Symposium on&nbsp;<em><a href="http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/04/federalism-as-new-nationalism.html#http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/04/federalism-as-new-nationalism.html">Federalism as the New Nationalism</a></em></p> <p><em><a href="http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/04/federalism-as-new-nationalism.html#http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/04/federalism-as-new-nationalism.html"></a></em>The terms of the federalism debate have recently changed, with important and potentially far-reaching consequences that have not been fully appreciated—even by the Court itself. The interpretive struggle over the meaning of American federalism has shifted from the Commerce Clause to two textually marginal but substantively important battlegrounds: the Necessary and Proper Clause and, to a lesser extent, the General Welfare Clause. To be sure, the higher-profile commerce power continues to attract an enormous amount of judicial attention and scholarly commentary. But for nearly a decade, the quieter, more structurally ambiguous federal powers listed at the head and foot of Article I have steadily increased in prominence. Today, the battles of judicial federalism are fought not across the well-trampled no-man’s-land of the commerce power or the Tenth Amendment, but in the less trafficked doctrinal redoubts of what I term the “shadow powers.” In my contribution to the Symposium,&nbsp;<a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2380958#http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2380958"><em>The Shadow Powers of Article I</em></a>, I argue that this expansion of the battlefield carries important consequences for the meaning of modern federalism.</p> <p>Beginning with&nbsp;<em>Gonzales v. Raich</em>&nbsp;in 2005 and continuing through&nbsp;<em>United States v. Comstock</em>,&nbsp;<em>National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius</em>, and&nbsp;<em>United States v. Kebodeaux</em>, the Supreme Court’s “federalism revolution” has taken on a new form. The Court’s federalism jurisprudence has shifted from its once-typical form of inquiry into the scope of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, refracted through the Tenth Amendment, to become an inquiry into the transsubstantive reasons for allowing Congress to regulate at all. This transformation has been especially significant when the Court views Congress as venturing into a domain not explicitly specified in the text of Article I.</p> <div class="field field-type-text field-field-news-source-url"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <div class="field-label-inline-first"> Read more at:&nbsp;</div> <p><a href="http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-shadow-powers-of-article-i.html" title="http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-shadow-powers-of-article-i.html">http://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-shadow-powers-of-article-i.html</a></p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-faculty-news"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <div class="field-label-inline-first"> Faculty:&nbsp;</div> <a href="/faculty/lacroix">Alison LaCroix</a> </div> </div> </div> Thu, 17 Apr 2014 19:26:01 +0000 arester 21374 at http://www.law.uchicago.edu Caroline Wong '16 Wins 2014 Concerto Competition http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/caroline-wong-16-wins-2014-concerto-competition <div class="field field-type-text field-field-news-title"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> 2014 Concerto Competition first-place winners to perform with University of Chicago Symphony Orchestra </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-type-text field-field-news-publication"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> UChicago News </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-type-date field-field-datepublished"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <span class="date-display-single">April 16, 2014</span> </div> </div> </div> <p>Two of the three first-place winners of the 2014 Concerto Competition will perform with the University of Chicago Symphony Orchestra at 8 p.m. on Saturday, April 26 in Mandel Hall.</p> <p>Forty musicians applied for the 2014 biennial Concerto Competition at the University. “The record number of applicants demonstrates the continually growing interest in musical performance on our campus,” said Schubert. “The level of preparation and artistry exhibited by this year’s auditioning students was extraordinary. The decisions were difficult to make!”</p> <p>The 2014 recipients are Caroline Wong, Matthew Bloomfield and George Hyun. The panel of judges for the 2014 Concerto Competition included Barbara Schubert; Robert Whalen, conductor of the University Chamber Orchestra; Chip De Stefano, conductor of the University Wind Ensemble; and Steinway artist Gregory Brown, an internationally acclaimed concert pianist.</p> <p>Flutist Wong will present Jacques Ibert’s virtuosic Flute Concerto and trumpet player Matthew Bloomfield will perform George Gershwin’s colorful&nbsp;<em>Rhapsody in Blue</em>, in the arrangement by Timofei Dokshizer, the famed principal trumpet player of the Bolshoi Ballet. Barbara Schubert, director of performance programs and conductor for the University Symphony Orchestra, will conduct the program.</p> <p>Originally from Cincinnati, Ohio, Wong started playing the flute at age 7. She received her BA from the Indiana University Jacobs School of Music in 2012, where she was a student of Thomas Robertello. She also was a first-place winner of the James and Helen Pellerite Orchestral Excerpt Competition in 2012, and the Accent Music Festival Concerto Competition in 2009. She was selected as a live-round competitor in the National Flute Association Young Artist Competition in 2011. Wong is currently a first-year law student at the University of Chicago Law School and a member of the University of Chicago Symphony Orchestra.</p> <div class="field field-type-text field-field-news-source-url"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <div class="field-label-inline-first"> Read more at:&nbsp;</div> <p><a href="http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2014/04/16/2014-concerto-competition-first-place-winners-perform-university-chicago-symphony" title="http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2014/04/16/2014-concerto-competition-first-place-winners-perform-university-chicago-symphony">http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2014/04/16/2014-concerto-competition-fi...</a></p> </div> </div> </div> Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:56:50 +0000 arester 21373 at http://www.law.uchicago.edu BLSA Earns Chapter of the Year Honors http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/blsa-earns-chapter-year-honors <div class="field field-type-text field-field-news-author"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> Meredith Heagney </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-type-text field-field-news-publication"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> Law School Office of Communications </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-type-date field-field-datepublished"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <span class="date-display-single">April 16, 2014</span> </div> </div> </div> <p>The student chapter of the <a href="http://www.law.uchicago.edu/studentorgs/blsa">Black Law Students Association</a> has been named the 2013-2014 “Chapter of the Year” among small chapters by the <a href="http://www.nblsa.org/index.php">national organization</a>, a recognition of its hard work to support students of color and increase diversity at the Law School.&nbsp;</p> <p>The award recognizes BLSA’s commitment to community service, professional development, and academic and social support.</p> <p>BLSA, officially named the <a href="http://www.wbez.org/episode-segments/biography-earl-b-dickerson">Earl B. Dickerson</a> Chapter of the Black Law Students Association, has recently taken its programming and advocacy “to a new level,” said Kevin Waklatsi, ’14, past president. “We’re really proud of this year’s board for that.”</p> <p>Waklatsi, who is also <a href="http://www.nblsa.org/index.php?pID=436">chair of the 56-school Midwest region</a>, was at the national convention in Milwaukee in March when the honor was announced. When current chapter President Jackie Newsome, ’15, heard the news, she was very proud, she said. “I think what we showed this year was a willingness to have courageous conversations consistently.”</p> <p>“I’m so proud of BLSA, but not surprised that they earned this honor,” Dean of Students Amy Gardner said. “They are an active and crucial student organization that adds a lot of valuable programming and perspective to the Law School community.”</p> <p>Chapters are judged on their activities in several categories, including sociopolitical awareness, community service, relationships with alumni and pre-law students, educational and career development, and social events. BLSA awards “chapter of the year” in three chapter sizes: small (under 20 dues-paying members), medium (20-40 dues-paying members), and large (40 dues-paying members or more).</p> <p>Halimah Najieb-Locke, a student at George Washington University Law School, is national chair of BLSA.</p> <p>"I got to see the (Chicago Law) chapter a couple of times in action," she said. "I saw members who really believed in the mission of the organization."</p> <p>BLSA’s year (which, for award purposes, ran from March 2013 to February 2014) had many highlights. Members tutored at a local high school and <a href="http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/high-school-students-get-peek-law-school-during-blsa-week">brought high school students from minority and low-income neighborhoods into the Law School</a> to talk to them about pursuing higher education. BLSA hosted networking events with attorneys of color and speakers who addressed race and legal issues, such as the Trayvon Martin case. They presented a panel of <a href="http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/serving-client-who-often-looks-you-what-it%E2%80%99s-practice-criminal-defense-minority">criminal defense attorneys who talked about what it was like to do that job as a black person</a>, and they visited a juvenile detention center. The board helped expand diversity programming during Admitted Students Weekend, and they initiated important conversations with faculty and administrators about the importance of hiring more professors of color. BLSA also pointed out in their application that they’ve become a gathering place for all minority students, not just African-Americans.</p> <p>Waklatsi said that at the national convention the organizers called the Law School “was the small chapter that most exemplified A.J. Cooper’s ideals.” <a href="http://www3.law.harvard.edu/orgs/blsa/about/national-blsa-history/">Cooper was the founder of BLSA</a>.</p> <p>Waklatsi, who graduates in June, said he’s heartened to see the chapter in such good shape. It was strong when he was a 1L, but it just gets better each year, he said. “You can feel good about the future.”</p> <div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-faculty-news"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <div class="field-label-inline-first"> Faculty:&nbsp;</div> <a href="/faculty/gardner">Amy M. Gardner</a> </div> </div> </div> Wed, 16 Apr 2014 21:41:54 +0000 mheagney 21343 at http://www.law.uchicago.edu Research Matters: Geoffrey Stone on “The Behavior of Supreme Court Justices When Their Behavior Counts the Most” http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/research/geoffrey-r-stone-behavior-supreme-court-justices-when-their-behavior-counts-most/qanda <div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-facresearch-abstract"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <a href="/faculty/research/geoffrey-r-stone-behavior-supreme-court-justices-when-their-behavior-counts-most">The Behavior of Supreme Court Justices When Their Behavior Counts the Most</a> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-researchmatters-faculty"> <div class="field-label">Faculty member:&nbsp;</div> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <a href="/faculty/stone-g">Geoffrey R. Stone</a> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <div class="filefield-file"><img class="filefield-icon field-icon-image-jpeg" alt="image/jpeg icon" src="http://www.law.uchicago.edu/profiles/palantirprofile/modules/filefield/icons/image-x-generic.png" /><a href="http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/image/stone_geof.jpg" type="image/jpeg; length=7058">stone_geof.jpg</a></div> </div> </div> </div> <p><a href="http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/research?order=nid&amp;sort=desc"><em>Research Matters</em></a><em> is a biweekly feature in which a member of the faculty talks about some of his or her latest work and its impact and relevance to law and society.</em></p> <p>Professor <a href="http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/stone-g">Geoffrey Stone</a> wrote “<a href="http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/research/geoffrey-r-stone-behavior-supreme-court-justices-when-their-behavior-counts-most">The Behavior of Supreme Court Justices When Their Behavior Counts the Most</a>” for the September/October 2013 issue of the journal <a href="https://www.ajs.org/judicature-journal"><em>Judicature</em></a><em>. </em>In the work, Stone examines the voting behavior of Supreme Court justices in the 20 most “important” decisions since 2000 and whether those votes align with individual justices’ ideological preferences.</p> <h2>Q. Why did you write this?</h2> <p>A. I was curious. I was intrigued by the question, what explains the pattern of voting of Supreme Court justices in the most important decisions in recent years? I tried to figure out a simple way of doing this, so I asked several colleagues to tell me what they thought were the most important Supreme Court decisions since 2000. I then selected the 20 with the most “votes” and looked at how the justices voted in these cases. The hypothesis was that justices are most likely to be driven by ideological preferences in the most important cases. In cases that are not so important, they’re more likely to follow the law, so long as there’s law to be followed. But the temptation to stretch to reach the “right result,” based on what they think is the best public policy, is likely to be the greatest when the stakes are the highest. I had a research assistant go through the votes in all these cases and tabulate in each one who voted to uphold the law and who voted to strike down the law.</p> <h2>Q. What did you find?</h2> <p>I found that justices voted in a highly ideologically predictable manner in these cases. The cases cut across a broad range of constitutional questions, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, search and seizure, equal protection, due process, commerce clause, and the like. What I discovered was that the justices who are generally regarded as “conservative”– Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito – voted together 99 percent of the time in these cases. The only vote that departed from this pattern was Chief Justice Roberts’ vote in the Affordable Care Act case, which is no doubt why all the conservatives in the country were so upset with him. I also found that the justices who are thought of as “liberal” – Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor – voted together 97 percent of the time in these cases. Justices Kennedy and O’Connor were the only justices who did not vote in a consistent, invariable pattern. They voted, each independently, roughly two-thirds of the time with the conservative justices and roughly one-third of the time with the liberal justices. This explains and ratifies the perception that O’Connor and Kennedy were the “swing votes” in this era. They were, quite clearly, the ones who ultimately determined the outcomes in these cases.</p> <h2>Q. Is this ideological pattern a problem?</h2> <p>A. One likes to think that judges decide cases according to legal principles, precedents, methodologies, and so on. That would often lead them to reach results different from the ones they would prefer to reach as a matter of their own personal, political ideologies. But what came across in this set of decisions is that the justices pretty consistently voted in ways that tracked their own policy preferences. This is certainly disconcerting. &nbsp;</p> <h2>Q. What can we do about that?</h2> <p>A. One thing we can do is to make this explicit, which is one of the reasons for writing this piece. The reason it was published in <em>Judicature </em>is because that journal published a set of essays about a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Behavior-Federal-Judges-Theoretical/dp/0674049896">book</a> published by <a href="http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/posner-r">Richard Posner</a>, <a href="http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/landes">William Landes</a>, and <a href="http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/lee-epstein">Lee Epstein</a>, about the behavior of federal judges. It is an empirical study of the voting pattern of the federal judges and justices over a long period of time. My piece asked different, though similar, questions. By confining my inquiry to these most important decisions, I was able to highlight a pattern that was evident, but not as dramatic, in their analysis. That’s why I published this piece as part as this collection of essays.</p> <h2>Q. Can these votes be explained outside of ideology?</h2> <p>A. I asked that question in the paper. I found that it was possible to explain the votes of the more liberal justices by identifying a familiar theory of constitutional interpretation, which was first enunciated by Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone in 1938 in his famous “footnote 4,” in a case called <a href="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1937/1937_640"><em>Carolene Products</em></a>. He suggested that, in general, when interpreting and applying the Constitution, judges should defer to the elected branches of the government and take a relatively restrained view of their authority. Stone recognized that the central question was when judges should depart from that general presumption and be more aggressive, or more “active,” in reviewing the constitutionality of government action. Stone identified two situations in which it made sense for judges to be more muscular. First, judges should be less deferential, and more skeptical, when a law disadvantages a group that has historically been oppressed or subordinated. Second, judges should be less deferential, and more skeptical, when a law poses risk of political capture – that is, when those in authority enact laws that might be designed to perpetuate their own authority. Footnote 4 suggested that courts should not be restrained in evaluating the constitutionality of law in those two circumstances, because in those situation the risk of majoritarian abuse or dysfunction is greatest, and it is in precisely those circumstances that judicial review is most important.</p> <p>If you accept this theory as stating an appropriate approach to constitutional interpretation, as I do, and if you then examine all 20 of the laws that were at issue in the cases I examined, you would to tend to invalidate almost of the laws that the “liberal” justices struck down, and to uphold almost of laws that the “liberal” justices upheld. A reasonable inference, then, is that these justices are applying somewhat quite akin to the footnote 4 approach to constitutional interpretation. This suggests that they are pretty neutrally applying a principled theory of constitutional law that was proposed 75 years ago, rather than just voting their personal ideological preferences in each case.</p> <p>On the other hand, when I looked at the votes of the “conservative” justices in these cases and asked whether I could imagine some principled methodology that one could apply in a consistent manner to get the results they reached, I could not conjure any such theory. Originalism certainly does not get you there, nor does a commitment to judicial restraint. To the best of my knowledge, no judge, lawyer, or scholar has ever articulated a principled approach to constitutional interpretation that would lead to this particular set of 20 votes. I’ve asked several of my conservative friends, “can you come up with such a theory?” Apparently, they can’t, other than to say, “these justices are making sound decisions” – which just happen to coincide with their personal ideological preferences.</p> <h2>Q. Do your conservative friends accuse you of picking on conservatives?</h2> <p>A. It’s a perfectly fair question. And I say, OK, fine, answer the question. And sometimes they don’t even get back to me, because they don’t have a good answer. And sometimes they say, well, it’s a combination of originalism and judicial restraint and precedent, it’s a whole bunch of things. But that’s not very persuasive, because they’re picking and choosing competing theories and explanations on a case-by-case basis in order to justify a set of preferred results. There’s nothing consistent about it. Which leads me at least tentatively to conclude that the pattern of votes of the conservative justices in these 20 cases cannot be explained in any fair-minded, neutral, or principled manner. It is, rather, I suspect, a product of the personal, political, and ideological value judgments of these individual justices, which is, indeed, troubling.</p> <h2>Q. Isn’t it possible the liberal judges are acting out of ideology too, and not in deference to footnote 4?</h2> <p>A. Absolutely. It is possible that the specific judgments of twenty-first century liberal justices just happen coincidentally to track the results you would predict if you neutrally applied the 1938 footnote 4 theory. That seems statistically unlikely, however. Of course, I don’t know what’s going on in the justices’ minds. But it is comforting to me to think there is, in fact, a sensible, principled theory of constitutional intepretation that seems plainly to explain – and justify – their results. So even if they’re being “bad,” they’re somehow, inadvertently, being good.</p> Wed, 16 Apr 2014 21:33:29 +0000 mheagney 21342 at http://www.law.uchicago.edu Lior Strahilevitz, "Personalizing Default Rules and Disclosure with Big Data" http://www.law.uchicago.edu/video/strahilevitz040714 <p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/1-UNhY2DXDk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p>The laws of intestacy are the same for men and women even though preferences for how one's estate should be divided differ by gender. Peanut-allergic octogenarian men and gluten-allergic pregnant women see the same warnings on consumer products even though they are interested in seeing information that is much better tailored to them. Companies have made enormous strides in studying and classifying groups of consumers, and yet almost none of this information is put to use by providing consumers with contractual default terms or disclosures that are tailored to their preferences and attributes. This lecture will explore the costs and benefits of personalizing various parts of American law and business practices.&nbsp;<br />This talk was recorded on April 7, 2014. Lior Strahilevitz is Sidley Austin Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School.</p> <div class="field field-type-text field-field-sidebar-position"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> Right </div> </div> </div> Wed, 16 Apr 2014 21:30:20 +0000 arester 21341 at http://www.law.uchicago.edu Young Center Helps Secure Victory for Teenager Facing Unsafe Repatriation http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/young-center-helps-secure-victory-teenager-facing-unsafe-repatriation <div class="field field-type-text field-field-news-title"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> Law Clinic Students at the Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights Help Secure Victory for Teenager Facing Unsafe Repatriation </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-type-text field-field-news-publication"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> Young Center for Immigrant Children&#039;s Rights </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-type-date field-field-datepublished"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <span class="date-display-single">April 16, 2014</span> </div> </div> </div> <p>Until February 28, 2014, Leslie, a sixteen-year-old girl residing in California, faced deportation to Mexico because the Superior Court of Orange County refused to find that deportation was contrary to her best interests—a necessary finding to apply for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS), a form of immigration relief for children who were abused, neglected, or abandoned by a parent. This despite evidence that her only relatives in Mexico were an abusive mother and a father who had abandoned her. The California State Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District issued a writ of mandate vacating the order that had denied Leslie relief. The appellate court directed the juvenile court to enter a new order sustaining the requisite findings and enabling Leslie to apply for SIJS. The Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights filed an <em>amicus</em> brief in the case, drafted by University of Chicago Law School students Courtney Cox (’14) and Kate Long (’14) and supervised by Policy Director Jennifer Nagda (’04), which argued that Leslie’s petition for a writ should be granted.</p> <p>Congress created SIJS in 1990 to provide protection for abused, neglected, and abandoned undocumented minors for whom it is not in their best interests to return to their countries of origin. This status allows these children to become lawful permanent residents of the United States. While the federal government retains the authority to grant or deny a child’s SIJS petition, state juvenile courts are charged with making a preliminary determination of the child’s dependency and best interests, a prerequisite to applying for SIJS. In this case, Leslie, who had lived most of her life in California with her grandmother, faced deportation to Mexico, where there was no responsible adult to care for her. The juvenile court declined to issue the predicate order, erroneously finding that Leslie did not meet the dependency criteria, that parental reunification was viable, and that it would be in Leslie’s best interests to be returned to her parents in Mexico, despite uncontroverted evidence to the contrary.</p> <p>In their <em>amicus</em> brief Young Center clinic students Cox and Long argued that the juvenile court erred in basing its best interests determination on stereotypes about Mexican immigrant families, rather than making an individualized decision based on Leslie’s unique history. In its opinion, the court speculated that Leslie would be better off returning to Mexico because Mexican immigrant families with “minors who have encountered difficulty with the law” frequently “send their children back to Mexico to get them out of the negative environment that has placed them in the juvenile court.”&nbsp; The Young Center argued that such generalizations undermine a best interests analysis. We also argued that because a child’s safety and the availability of a responsible adult caregiver are paramount considerations in any best interests determination, separating Leslie from her grandmother would violate fundamental principles of family unity found in domestic child welfare law and international law, and reflected in recent changes to federal immigration policy.</p> <p>In granting Leslie’s writ relief, the appellate court embraced the Young Center’s arguments, explaining that the juvenile court’s findings were improperly influenced by “misplaced policy conclusions” and based on “anecdotal impressions, untethered to any evidence in [the] case.” The appellate court explained: “A state court’s role in the SIJ process is not to determine worthy candidates for citizenship, but simply to identify abused, neglected or abandoned alien children under its jurisdiction who cannot reunify with a parent or be safely returned in their best interests to their home country.” The appellate court concluded that Leslie met the dependency criterion, that “the facts overwhelmingly establish Leslie’s reunification with one or both of her parents was not viable due to abuse, neglect, and abandonment,” and that “nothing in the record supported the juvenile court’s conclusions that repatriation to Mexico was in Leslie’s best interests.” The appellate court noted that Leslie “as an unaccompanied minor ha[s] no one to return to safely in Mexico,” and agreed that “[b]y all accounts, Leslie’s grandmother [is] her only refuge.”</p> <p>“Working on this case was such a great experience,” third-year law student Kate Long explained. “I hope that the precedent set by the appellate court will ensure that other children in Leslie’s situation receive the individualized best interests determinations they are entitled to.” Third-year law student Courtney Cox added: “We are particularly pleased to have succeeded on facts that might appear unsympathetic—if you forget that the petitioner was a child who survived severe abuse and faced permanent separation from her grandmother, the only adult who had ever cared for her. Leslie came before the juvenile court as a juvenile delinquent, and the juvenile court failed to consider her best interests individually as a result. But the appellate court rightly recognized that a child’s mistakes should not result in her permanent separation from family or her repatriation to an unsafe situation in home country.” The Young Center’s <em>amicus</em> brief was filed in collaboration with the Los Angeles-based Esperanza Immigrant Rights Project and was joined by the University of California Hastings College of the Law’s Center for Gender &amp; Refugee Studies.</p> Wed, 16 Apr 2014 21:19:57 +0000 arester 21340 at http://www.law.uchicago.edu The Behavior of Supreme Court Justices When Their Behavior Counts the Most http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/research/geoffrey-r-stone-behavior-supreme-court-justices-when-their-behavior-counts-most <div class="field field-type-text field-field-facultyresearch-photo"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/imagecache/sidebar-image/image/Stone,%20Geof.jpg </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-facultyresearch-author"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <div class="field-label-inline-first"> Author:&nbsp;</div> Geoffrey R. Stone </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-facresearch-qanda"> <div class="field-label">Q&amp;A about this work:&nbsp;</div> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <a href="/faculty/research/geoffrey-r-stone-behavior-supreme-court-justices-when-their-behavior-counts-most/qanda">Research Matters: Geoffrey Stone on “The Behavior of Supreme Court Justices When Their Behavior Counts the Most” </a> </div> </div> </div> <p>In this paper, Geoffrey Stone examines the votes of 13 Supreme Court Justices in 20 important constitutional cases since 2000 to compare the differences between liberal and conservative approaches to constitutional interpretation.</p> <p> While liberals have often been associated with judicial activism and conservatives have rhetorically embraced judicial restraint, Stone argues that the Court’s “most important recent constitutional decisions” belie this “traditional understanding of how liberal and conservative justices behave.” Stone argues instead that the moderately liberal justices employ a method of “selective judicial activism deeply rooted in the original understanding of the essential purpose of judicial review in our system of constitutional governance” and reflective of the Court’s famous footnote four in <em>United States v. Carolene Products Co.</em> The conservative justices, on the other hand, while “articulat[ing] two quite different theories of constitutional interpretation,” judicial restraint and originalism, are unable to demonstrate any consistent interpretive theory capable of explaining their votes in important constitutional decisions.</p> <p> Stone concludes that the moderately liberal justices apply an approach in line with “the original concerns of the Framers of the Constitution and in their distinctive understanding of the special responsibility of courts in our constitutional system,” while the Court’s conservatives’ “votes cannot be explained by any consistent theory of constitutional interpretation” but are instead driven by their own policy preferences.</p> Wed, 16 Apr 2014 19:55:50 +0000 mheagney 21334 at http://www.law.uchicago.edu Human Rights Clinic Earns Delhi Center Grant http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/human-rights-clinic-earns-delhi-center-grant <div class="field field-type-text field-field-news-author"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> Meredith Heagney </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-type-text field-field-news-publication"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> Law School Office of Communications </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-type-date field-field-datepublished"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <span class="date-display-single">April 16, 2014</span> </div> </div> </div> <p>Clinic Fellow <a href="http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/citro">Brian Citro</a> has been awarded a $30,000 grant from the newly opened <a href="http://www.uchicago.in/">University of Chicago Center in Delhi</a> to help fight tuberculosis in India. Citro, who works in the Law School’s <a href="http://ihrclinic.uchicago.edu/">International Human Rights Clinic</a>, is part of an interdisciplinary team that will develop a rights-based approach to prevent and treat tuberculosis, a global epidemic among the world’s poor.</p> <p>The project will explore how human rights, and particularly the right to health, can be used as tools to increase access to testing and treatment of tuberculosis in India. They will work to articulate the rights of people with the disease, and those at risk of contracting it, as well as the obligations of government and the private sector in providing treatment and prevention. Finally, they will develop methods to bring a rights-based approach to the fight against tuberculosis that can be used in India and other developing nations.</p> <p>The project, which will begin this summer, will include a research trip to India and a conference in Delhi this fall. International Human Rights Clinic students will work alongside Citro.</p> <p>“India has the highest TB burden in the world. More than 1,000 people on average die a day from TB in India,” Citro said. “But the disease is easily curable and at a low cost. Social and economic factors, including poverty, poor sanitation, and lack of access to appropriate testing and treatment, drive the epidemic.”</p> <p>Citro, a 2010 graduate of the Law School, worked in Delhi for two years as senior research officer to the United Nations special rapporteur on the right to health. He was also project manager of the <a href="http://www.globalhealthrights.org/">Global Health and Human Rights Database</a>, a project of the HIV/AIDS Unit of the <a href="http://www.lawyerscollective.org/">Lawyers Collective</a>, a nongovernmental organization in India. He worked on right-to-health issues with the United Nations, including efforts studying tuberculosis in Azerbaijan and Tajikistan.</p> <p>His co-organizers include two University of Chicago doctors, Assistant Professor of Medicine Evan Lyon and Research Fellow Kiran Raj Pandey, and attorney Mihir Mankad, health policy advisor for <a href="http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/">Save the Children United Kingdom</a>, which promotes children’s rights around the world. The team is currently developing partnerships in India, including with the Public Health Foundation of India, Jindal Global Law School, and the Lawyers Collective.</p> <p>The University of Chicago Center in Delhi, which <a href="http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2014/03/28/university-chicago-community-celebrates-opening-center-delhi">opened March 29</a>, is an interdisciplinary center for research in India and southeast Asia. The University also has centers in Paris and Beijing.</p> <p>In the grant proposal, Citro and his fellow researchers described the scope of the tuberculosis epidemic. They pointed out that in 2012, there were approximately 8.6 million new cases of tuberculosis and 1.3 million deaths. That same year, more than a quarter of all global incidences of tuberculosis occurred in India, they said.</p> <p>Tuberculosis is relatively easy to prevent and treat. But for the poor and marginalized, the disease is devastating. These patients face many barriers to treatment, and even when treatment is begun, it often isn’t finished for financial or other reasons. As a result, difficult to treat drug-resistant strains of tuberculosis have developed.</p> <p>The researchers want to develop methods for reducing the devastation of tuberculosis that prioritize human rights and personal autonomy. They aim to mimic similar initiatives that made progress in the global effort to lessen the impact of HIV. Such an effort requires participation from the government, private health care providers, and pharmaceutical companies.</p> <p>“A rights-based approach has been effective in the global movement to fight HIV/AIDS in increasing access to life-saving medicines, protecting the rights of people living with HIV, and reducing stigma associated with the disease. A similar approach, using the courts, policy advocacy, and grassroots activism, can be just as successful in the fight against TB,” Citro said.</p> <p>The tuberculosis project is not the International Human Rights Clinic’s only work in India. Over Spring Break, Citro and Clinical Professor <a href="http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/kalantry">Sital Kalantry</a>, who directs the clinic, took three students to Delhi to study housing policy. They <a href="http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/uchicago-law-students-study-human-rights-advocacy-field">developed litigation and policy strategies to improve the living conditions of slum dwellers and presented their work to The Law Commission</a> of India, which is considering drafting a national housing rights bill.</p> <div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-faculty-news"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <div class="field-label-inline-first"> Faculty:&nbsp;</div> <a href="/faculty/citro">Brian Citro</a> </div> </div> </div> Wed, 16 Apr 2014 19:21:50 +0000 mheagney 21333 at http://www.law.uchicago.edu Geof Stone Argues for a Journalist-Source Shield Law http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/geof-stone-argues-journalist-source-shield-law <div class="field field-type-text field-field-news-title"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> Democracy Demands a Journalist-Source Shield Law </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-type-text field-field-news-author"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> Geoffrey R. Stone </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-type-text field-field-news-publication"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> The Daily Beast </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-type-date field-field-datepublished"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <span class="date-display-single">April 15, 2014</span> </div> </div> </div> <p><em>The&nbsp;</em><em>Guardian</em><span>&nbsp;and&nbsp;</span><em>The&nbsp;</em><em>Washington Post</em><span>&nbsp;were each awarded the Pulitzer Prize for public service Monday for their reporting based on classified documents leaked by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. This will no doubt annoy many in the intelligence community who believe that Snowden,&nbsp;</span><em>The&nbsp;</em><em>Guardian</em><span>, and the&nbsp;</span><em>Post</em><span>&nbsp;have done serious damage to the national security of the United States.</span></p> <p>Unlike most disclosures of classified information, this reporting has not raised any central issues about the legitimacy or value of a journalist-source privilege, because Snowden chose to make no secret of his identity. Nonetheless, the bestowal of the Pulitzer Prize presents a good moment to reflect on the appropriate relationship between the government, the press, and source.</p> <p>The issue is particularly timely at the moment because Gabriel Schoenfeld,<strong>&nbsp;</strong>a senior fellow at the&nbsp;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Institute" target="_blank">Hudson Institute</a>&nbsp;and a former adviser to presidential candidate Mitt Romney, recently published an article in the journal&nbsp;<em>National Affairs</em>&nbsp;in which he concludes that for Congress to enact a federal journalist-source privilege would be “a bad idea.” Although I admire and respect Schoenfeld, in this, he is wrong.</p> <div class="field field-type-text field-field-news-source-url"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <div class="field-label-inline-first"> Read more at:&nbsp;</div> <p><a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/15/democracy-demands-a-journalist-source-shield-law.html" title="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/15/democracy-demands-a-journalist-source-shield-law.html">http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/15/democracy-demands-a-jou...</a></p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-faculty-news"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <div class="field-label-inline-first"> Faculty:&nbsp;</div> <a href="/faculty/stone-g">Geoffrey R. Stone</a> </div> </div> </div> Tue, 15 Apr 2014 19:34:59 +0000 arester 21325 at http://www.law.uchicago.edu Monday/Tuesday Blog Roundup http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/UChicagoLawFaculty/~3/B26TpEjbS6E/mon.html <p>Eric Posner posts on <a href="http://ericposner.com/the-civil-war-in-ukraine/" target="_self">Russia's invocation of 'civil war'</a> in Ukraine and <a href="http://ericposner.com/reply-to-my-post-on-social-security-overpayments-and-a-reply-to-the-reply/" target="_self">shares a response</a> to his post on social security overpayments; Will Baude <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/15/five-police-officers-found-lying-and-why-its-so-rare/" target="_self">looks at a recent case</a> in which police were caught lying; and Richard Epstein discusses <a href="http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/175766" target="_self">"the problems with 'equal pay.'"</a></p><div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/typepad/UChicagoLawFaculty?a=B26TpEjbS6E:H6n8SA3QHPM:yIl2AUoC8zA"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/typepad/UChicagoLawFaculty?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/typepad/UChicagoLawFaculty?a=B26TpEjbS6E:H6n8SA3QHPM:V_sGLiPBpWU"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/typepad/UChicagoLawFaculty?i=B26TpEjbS6E:H6n8SA3QHPM:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/typepad/UChicagoLawFaculty?a=B26TpEjbS6E:H6n8SA3QHPM:gIN9vFwOqvQ"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/typepad/UChicagoLawFaculty?i=B26TpEjbS6E:H6n8SA3QHPM:gIN9vFwOqvQ" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/typepad/UChicagoLawFaculty?a=B26TpEjbS6E:H6n8SA3QHPM:dnMXMwOfBR0"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/typepad/UChicagoLawFaculty?d=dnMXMwOfBR0" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/typepad/UChicagoLawFaculty?a=B26TpEjbS6E:H6n8SA3QHPM:F7zBnMyn0Lo"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/typepad/UChicagoLawFaculty?i=B26TpEjbS6E:H6n8SA3QHPM:F7zBnMyn0Lo" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/typepad/UChicagoLawFaculty?a=B26TpEjbS6E:H6n8SA3QHPM:l6gmwiTKsz0"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/typepad/UChicagoLawFaculty?d=l6gmwiTKsz0" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/typepad/UChicagoLawFaculty?a=B26TpEjbS6E:H6n8SA3QHPM:qj6IDK7rITs"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/typepad/UChicagoLawFaculty?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"></img></a> </div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/typepad/UChicagoLawFaculty/~4/B26TpEjbS6E" height="1" width="1"/> Tue, 15 Apr 2014 19:22:24 +0000 UChicagoLaw tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d8341c031153ef01a73dab52c7970d