News & Media http://www.law.uchicago.edu/feeds/newsandmedia.rss en Evidentiary Privileges in International Arbitration http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/research/tom-ginsburg-evidentiary-privileges-international-arbitration <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/GinsburgThomas.jpg </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-type-text field-field-lead"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <p><span>&nbsp;</span></p> </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> Tom Ginsburg </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-type-text field-field-facultyresearch-nonfacauth"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <div class="field-label-inline-first"> with:&nbsp;</div> Richard M. Mosk </div> </div> </div> <p>Evidentiary rules employed in judicial proceedings are not strictly applied in international arbitration. Although this flexibility with regard to evidentiary matters is often considered a benefit of international arbitration, in certain situations it can lead to unpredictability and conflicts with national law. One such area is the application of evidentiary and testimonial privileges in international arbitration. There is very little authority addressing how international arbitrators should proceed when presented with a claim of privilege.</p> Fri, 18 Apr 2014 21:36:28 +0000 arester 21398 at http://www.law.uchicago.edu George Dawson '69 Named University of Florida Levin College of Law's Professor of the Year http://www.law.uchicago.edu/alumni/accoladesandachievements/george-dawson-69-named-university-florida-levin-college-laws-profess <div class="field field-type-text field-field-aa-source"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <div class="field-label-inline-first"> Original source:&nbsp;</div> <p><a href="https://www.law.ufl.edu/flalaw/2014/04/law-students-pick-incoming-dean-as-professor-of-the-year/" title="https://www.law.ufl.edu/flalaw/2014/04/law-students-pick-incoming-dean-as-professor-of-the-year/">https://www.law.ufl.edu/flalaw/2014/04/law-students-pick-incoming-dean-a...</a></p> </div> </div> </div> <p>From the UF website:</p> <blockquote><p>UF Law’s largest student group has voted Professor George Dawson, the law school’s incoming interim dean, as Levin College of Law’s Professor of the Year.</p> <p>The 400-member John Marshall Bar Association announced Wednesday that it chose Dawson for the honor thanks to his clear explanation of law cases and consistent attention to student needs.</p> <p>“I just found he was the most engaging professor,” said Alisha Feldman, the group’s public relations director who took Dawson for her first-year contracts course. “Somehow the way he taught wasn’t so scary, but he really ingrained the information in our heads, the way he talked through cases.”</p> <p>Dawson, who is traveling in Vienna, Austria, this week with the International Commercial Arbitration Moot team, has been popular among UF Law students for years. It’s the fourth time he has been chosen as professor of the year.</p> </blockquote> <p><a href="https://www.law.ufl.edu/flalaw/2014/04/law-students-pick-incoming-dean-as-professor-of-the-year/">Read the rest of the article.</a></p> Fri, 18 Apr 2014 21:14:25 +0000 arester 21393 at http://www.law.uchicago.edu End-of-Week Blog Roundup http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/UChicagoLawFaculty/~3/x5z7wT-XIn4/end-of-week-blog-roundup.html <p>Eric Posner discusses <a href="http://ericposner.com/dignity-as-a-value-in-cost-benefit-analysis-by-rachel-bayefsky/" target="_self">dignity as a value in cost-benefit analysis</a> and <a href="http://ericposner.com/russian-stock-prices-jan-apr-2014/" target="_self">recent Russian stock prices</a>; Brian Leiter <a href="http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2014/04/signs-of-the-times-oregon-edition.html" target="_self">discusses</a> a dispute over faculty pay at Oregon; and Will Baude has <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/17/further-reading-on-the-problem-of-dishonest-law-enforcement-agents/" target="_self">two</a> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/18/judges-weigh-in-on-credibility-findings-for-law-enforcement/" target="_self">posts</a> on the credibility of law enforcement officials and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/17/hugo-black-and-norm-pattis-on-bravery-sacrifice-and-the-legal-profession/" target="_self">one</a> on Hugo Black's dissent in the case of George Anastaplo '51.</p><div class="feedflare"> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/typepad/UChicagoLawFaculty?a=x5z7wT-XIn4:vuhD6MOy9H0: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=x5z7wT-XIn4:vuhD6MOy9H0:V_sGLiPBpWU"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/typepad/UChicagoLawFaculty?i=x5z7wT-XIn4:vuhD6MOy9H0:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/typepad/UChicagoLawFaculty?a=x5z7wT-XIn4:vuhD6MOy9H0:gIN9vFwOqvQ"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/typepad/UChicagoLawFaculty?i=x5z7wT-XIn4:vuhD6MOy9H0:gIN9vFwOqvQ" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/typepad/UChicagoLawFaculty?a=x5z7wT-XIn4:vuhD6MOy9H0: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=x5z7wT-XIn4:vuhD6MOy9H0:F7zBnMyn0Lo"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/typepad/UChicagoLawFaculty?i=x5z7wT-XIn4:vuhD6MOy9H0:F7zBnMyn0Lo" border="0"></img></a> <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/typepad/UChicagoLawFaculty?a=x5z7wT-XIn4:vuhD6MOy9H0: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=x5z7wT-XIn4:vuhD6MOy9H0: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/x5z7wT-XIn4" height="1" width="1"/> Fri, 18 Apr 2014 20:54:46 +0000 UChicagoLaw tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d8341c031153ef01a73dadb666970d Ambassador’s Life, Gifts Inspire Service http://www.law.uchicago.edu/alumni/magazine/spring14/hormel <div class="field field-type-text field-field-lead"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <p>A substantial gift from James C. Hormel, ’58, will provide a three&shy;-year full-&shy;tuition scholarship each year to an entering student who has demonstrated a commitment to public service.</p> </div> </div> </div> <p>A substantial gift from James C. Hormel, ’58, will provide a three&shy;-year full-&shy;tuition scholarship each year to an entering student who has demonstrated a commitment to public service.</p> <p>Mr. Hormel’s commitment to supporting Law School students and graduates working for the public interest began with a 1986 gift that he has generously supplemented in subsequent years to create the foundation for many of the substantial forms of financial support that the Law School offers today.</p> <p>“Even back in 1986,” Hormel says, “it was clear that debt burdens were deterring some graduates from pursuing public service jobs and careers. Today the financial challenge is considerably more severe, even as our country needs more of its brightest lawyers to apply their talents for the public good.”</p> <p>Hormel’s own record of service is exemplary. He was US ambassador to Luxembourg, and he served on two United Nations delegations. He is a founding board member of Human Rights Campaign, the largest civil rights organization working to achieve equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, and he financed the Gay and Lesbian Center at the San Francisco Public Library, which includes the world’s largest collection of LGBT materials. He has established a faculty chair in social justice at his college alma mater, Swarthmore, and has been a member of Swarthmore’s board of managers almost continuously since 1988. He also serves on five other nonprofit boards and is one of only four people to have received a lifetime appointment to the Law School’s Visiting Committee.</p> <p>His 1999 appointment as ambassador to Luxembourg capped Hormel’s five&shy;year quest, against fierce opposition, to become the first openly gay US ambassador. He says that he realized when he was sworn in to his position that he was the highest&shy;ranking openly gay official in the US government. “That was a big moment,” he has said, “not just for me but for a whole constituency that had been held back for all of our history.” His 2011 memoir, <em>Fit to Serve</em>, describes both the political struggle to attain that ambassadorship and his personal struggles to acknowledge, come to terms with, and eventually declare his sexual orientation.</p> <p>From 1961 to 1967, he served as the Law School’s first full&shy;time dean of students and director of admissions. He recalls his experiences at the Law School fondly: “As a student, I received a rigorous, challenging, and inspiring education from a magnificent faculty. That education has served me well in all that I have done. I loved my time at the Law School, and when Dean Levi invited me to return as dean of students, it was like being readmitted to paradise.”</p> <p>As admissions director, he worked to increase the representation of women and people of color at the Law School. Regarding LGBT issues, he says, “It might have benefited more students if I had been openly gay then, but I had spent my life trying not to be gay, and I still had not really recognized sexual orientation as a legitimate equality issue. Maybe it’s worth remembering that I was living in a world in which it was difficult for anyone who was gay to imagine there wasn’t something wrong with them.”</p> <p>By the end of his tenure as dean, he says, “I had gone from being a model husband and father to a divorcé; from a Republican to a very left&shy;wing Democrat; and from a timid person to someone on the verge of taking charge of his life.” He moved to New York, then to Hawai’i, increasing his self-&shy;assurance and deepening his political convictions as the years passed.</p> <p>In 1977, he settled in San Francisco, where he founded his investment and philanthropy company, Equidex, and where he lives today with his life partner Michael Nguyen. He enjoys warm relationships with his former wife and their five children, fourteen grandchildren, and seven great&shy;grandchildren.</p> <p>“I wrote my book primarily to help all people, not just those who are gay, recognize that they have the power within them to make a difference in this world,” he says. “I hope that these new Hormel Scholarships, along with the other aid the Law School offers, will help more people to make a positive difference through public service.”</p> <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/hormel.jpg" type="image/jpeg; length=53051">hormel.jpg</a></div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-thumbnail"> <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/thumbnail/hormelthumb.jpg" type="image/jpeg; length=12535">hormelthumb.jpg</a></div> </div> </div> </div> Fri, 18 Apr 2014 16:14:55 +0000 arester 21390 at http://www.law.uchicago.edu 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. Lesli