News featuring a faculty member
The U.S. Supreme Court granted review in Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections on a preliminary question of whether the parties who brought suit had standing under Article III of the Constitution to invoke the power of the federal courts in the first place. Writing at Justia Verdict, Professors Jason Mazzone and Vikram Amar offer analysis as to how the Court should approach the issues raised by Bost, and why it should rule in plaintiffs’ favor.
Professor Matthew Finkin was an invited lecturer at a pair of European institutions this October. At the Institut de Recherche Juridique de la Sorbonne (IRJS), part of the Sorbonne Law School of Université Paris, Finkin presented a lecture on labor law in the United States on October 15; at the University of Frankfurt, in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Finkin spoke to the European Academy of Labour on October 20 about the impact of the Trump Administration on American Labour Law.
Speaking about his new book, “Debt’s Grip,” Professor Robert Lawless sat down with WBGL’s Community Matters program. He discussed the research that went into the work, how bankruptcy affects the lives of everyday Americans, and common misconceptions about the bankruptcy process. He concluded with advice for how to support those going through financial hardships.
One of the cases before the U.S. Supreme Court in its latest term is already moot, Professors Jason Mazzone and Vikram Amar argue in a new editorial published at Justia Verdict. Little v. Hecox present the justices with the question of whether laws to protect women’s and girls’ sports by limiting participation based on sex assigned at birth violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Examining the facts in the case, they find that the justices should find the case moot and order vacatur.
Tariffs, voting rights, conversion therapy—these are a few of the biggest issues that will be debated before the U.S. Supreme Court in their new term, which began in October. Professor Jason Mazzone, writing at the News-Gazette, shares his take on these issues, as well as the Court’s use of the emergency docket. With this term, “the justices are plainly not interested in keeping a low profile,” he writes.
Since the 1960s, the number of jury trials a judge presides over has been steadily decreasing, with state courts only seeing one or two percent of cases resolved by a jury. This significant shift has great effects, such as depriving the public of a view on how the justice system works. A recent article about this trend cites the work of Professor Suja Thomas and her work exposing significant problems with the justice system.
Professor Richard Kaplan recently presented his paper, entitled “The Law and Economics of Financing Long-Term Care: An Unrecognized Impediment to Wealth Transmission,” at a symposium on The Law and Economics of Wealth Management and Transmission sponsored by the George Mason University Law School. The paper will be published in the George Mason Law Review.
Professor Ralph Brubaker ’89 and Jamie Sprayregen ’85 had a collegial debate about current bankruptcy issues at the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges in Chicago in late September. The conversation was moderated by Bankruptcy Judge Michelle Harner.
In an opinion piece written for Stars and Stripes, Professor Yulanda Curtis shares her feeling that rebranding the Department of Defense as the “Department of War” is a damaging decision. She draws on her background as the daughter of service members as well as the founder of the Veterans Legal Clinic at the College of Law to share uncommon insight into the issue. “I see firsthand the mental and physical sacrifices service members make. As the daughter of veterans, I watched my parents serve this country for decades,” she writes. “There’s a high risk our troops will experience a lasting moral injury as they are ordered to act as political instruments.”
Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) allows abused, abandoned, or neglected children a pathway for lawful permanent residence, and eventually US citizenship, once a state court judge determines they have suffered maltreatment and it was not in their best interest to return home. The Trump administration stopped considering SJIS applicants for deferred action, stating “a juvenile court determination relating to the best interest” of children is not a “sufficiently compelling” reason to protect them from deportation and allow them to legally sustain themselves while here. Writing at Common Dreams, Professor Lauren Aronson shares her view of this shift in policy.
“Many SIJS kids, like Sonia, lived their entire lives dreaming of this kind of freedom, which those of us born in the United States take for granted. They deserve, as all children do, the chance to be children,” Aronson writes.