The Chicago-Kent Institute for Compliance and the Young Alumni Council will host a Compliance Boot Camp on Thursday, January 17, for practitioners, in-house counsels, and prospective professionals. The half-day conference will cover topcis such as:
For more information or to register for this free event, visit the Institute for Compliance website.
A roundup of faculty appearances in news sources this week.
1/14 – Professor Carolyn Shapiro was quoted in a Chicago Daily Law Bulletin article on the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in favor of Nike in the Already LLC v. Nike Inc. trademark case (“‘Naked license’ questions develop after justices’ decision on Nike”). Despite Nike’s win, Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote that Nike’s strategy to enter into a broad covenant not to sue Already after filing for trademark infringement could lead to a “naked license” situation—Nike now faces the risk of potentially invalidating its “Air Force 1” trademark should it attempt to assert that trademark in the future. Whether or not a naked license argument could be argued with success in a potential future lawsuit, Shapiro mentioned a concurring opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy that would discourage lawyers from copying Nike’s tactic.
1/14 – Professor Ronald Staudt was quoted in a Chicago Daily Law Bulletin article on Lisa Colpoys, executive director of Illinois Legal Aid Online (ILAO) (“Colpoys pushes online legal aid”). Staudt commended Colpoys and spoke of her time at ILAO when it was housed at Chicago-Kent.
The Chicago-Kent Research Paper Series (RPS) is an SSRN ejournal publication, distributed monthly, that highlights abstracts, works in progress, and published articles by Chicago-Kent faculty.
Click here to see the Series' abstract page and to subscribe to the ejournal.
From January 24-26, the University of Texas School of Law will host a symposium titled Is America Governable?, which will bring together scholars, journalists, and politicians to "[confront] basic questions about the health of the American political system." Professor Mark Rosen will participate in the panel "So How Well Did Our Electoral System(s) Do in 2012?"
Click here to access a description of the symposium and a full list of scheduled events and participants.
The Daily Progress, a Charlottesville news source, highlighted a recent study by Professor Christopher Buccafusco and colleague Chris Sprigman (University of Virginia) in an article this week (“Study: Artists and buyers are often at odds”).
The article outlines Buccafusco and Sprigman’s two-year research project analyzing artists’ tendency to attribute more value to their work than the market recognizes. The project’s results were detailed in an academic paper titled What’s a Name Worth?: Experimental Tests of the Value of Attribution in Intellectual Property (forthcoming Boston University Law Review).
All information taken from AALS 2013 Annual Meeting Final Program.
Four Chicago-Kent faculty members presented at the 2013 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools, Global Engagement and the Legal Academy, held January 4-7 in New Orleans. Below are the list of faculty members and the descriptions of the panels in which they participated.
César Rosado Marzán – Participated in “Workers After the Ascendancy of Global Financial Capital,” a Joint Program of Sections on Comparative Law and Labor Relations and Employment Law. Professor Rosado Marzán was featured in the program’s second panel:
“The second panel will bring a comparative perspective to the evolutions of labor and employment law following the rise of financial capital and the financial crisis. How have different legal orders facilitated and/or responded to the rise of ‘precarious’ or ‘contingent’ work, the decline of the standard employment contracts, and the burdens of the crisis on the most vulnerable workers, such as migrant workers? How might we evaluate the broader developments in law and public policy in fields such as corporate governance, as they affect the status of workers? How does comparison across national and supranational legal orders illuminate the varieties of capitalism? How has the global financial crisis affected workers in China and the developing world?”
The papers from this program’s panels will be published in the Employee Rights & Employment Policy Journal.
Sarah Harding – Participated in “Reconsidering the Institutional Role and Purpose of the Research Dean (‘Who Are We, and Why Are We Here?’),” an AALS Roundtable for Research Deans:
“Twenty years ago, most U.S. law schools did not feature a person appointed as ‘Associate Dean for Faculty Research,’ yet today, such positions are quite commonplace. Although the nomenclature of the position varies from place to place, the role and duties generally encompass helping colleagues—and particularly junior colleagues—develop and execute their scholarly agendas. To date, however, the precise nature and scope of a research dean’s duties have not received much, if any, sustained attention. Given the ubiquity of this new position, the time has come to ask—and attempt to answer—the ‘Admiral Stockdale’ question, namely ‘who are we, and why are we here?’ Precisely what is the institutional role and purpose of having a research dean? What sorts of expectations are reasonable and achievable? What pitfalls exist? What kind of institutional support should someone considering appointment to such a post seek from her dean? Do conflicting duties exist, e.g., as a mentor versus an evaluator in the promotion and tenure process? If so, how should one attempt to navigate them? The panelists for this presentation are all current research deans or have recently served in this capacity; they also have done so at various stages of their academic careers. In a roundtable format, these current and recovering research deans will address these and other pertinent issues related to this new administrative position.”
Christopher Schmidt – Participated in a Section on Legal History panel titled “New Directions in Southern Legal History”:
“This panel will examine innovative and original research being done into the legal history of the American South. Drawing on their current work and also insights from a forthcoming edited collection, Signposts: New Directions in Southern Legal History (University of Georgia Press), this panel asks new questions and considers new approaches to issues that have long dominated the field, including the role of the law in maintaining and then eradicating slavery, in providing for racial equality, voting rights, property rights and the role of law in the creation and maintenance of a Southern culture. The panelists bring renewed attention to the role of Southern moderates in ongoing legal battles, to alternative conceptions of legal pluralism, and to a greater understanding of Southern history from the ‘bottom-up’ as well as new analysis of the legal reasoning at work in cases like Bakke and San Antonio v. Rodriguez. A broad sweep of history will be considered, and the panelists will discuss work that ranges from the 17th century to the late 20th century.”
Lori Andrews – Participated in a Section on Intellectual Property panel titled “Intellectual Property and Social Media”:
“Social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and 23andMe, have changed the ways we communicate, create, innovate, and advertise. As the components of creation and branding become more social, collaborative, instantaneous, and atomistic, various legal doctrines that have long governed copyright, patent, and trademark law may need to be rethought. Social media are being used to further genetic research, change how content is made, and draw users into the innovative process. This panel considers the challenges raised by social media to traditional intellectual property law, and explores the doctrinal implications of those challenges.”
In addition to the Chicago-Kent speakers, papers from a Section on Commercial and Related Consumer Law panel titled “Aberrant Contracts: Fringe Economy Lending and Other Atypical Consumer Agreements” will be published in the Chicago-Kent Law Review.
A roundup of faculty appearances in news sources this week.
1/7 – Professor Felice Batlan was mentioned in a Chicago Daily Law Bulletin article on the Women’s Bar Association of Illinois, which hosted a delegation from the Beijing Municipal Women’s Federation last December ("Lawyers, delegation find common ground"). Batlan spoke to the group about the influence of popular culture on girls’ and women’s opinions of themselves. She referenced the results from one of her own studies, showing that even in today’s classrooms women are often beset by lower confidence levels than are men.
1/7 – Professor Mark Rosen was quoted in a Chicago Daily Law Bulletin article on an Illinois bill seeking to reform the state’s underfunded pension system (“Legislators remain split on pension bill”), saying that courts could uphold a “reasonable bill” if there were “sufficiently important facts” to justify it. The story was also picked up by the AP on 1/8 (“Illinois pension proposal faces uncertain future”) and was continued in a 1/8 CDLB article titled “Pension bills remain alive on the final day of session in Springfield.”
1/7 – Professor Douglas Godfrey was quoted in the Christian Science Monitor about the trial of the Colorado theater shooter. He said that the uncommon five-day hearing, intended in part to increase the amount of eyewitness testimonies, reflects a recent movement in criminal law toward giving victims a voice and a chance to find closure.
1/8 – Professor Ronald Staudt, director of the Center for Access to Justice & Technology (CAJT), and John Mayer, executive director of the Center for Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction (CALI), were profiled by the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin for their involvement in a pilot project called Access to Justice Clinical Course Project. The project seeks to promote the teaching and open distribution of technology, developed at Chicago-Kent by CALI and CAJT, that creates easy-to-use online legal forms for low-income people. Click here for the project homepage.
Professor Sheldon Nahmod has uploaded a new working paper to SSRN titled Section 1983 Is Born: The Supreme Court Stories of Tenney v. Brandhove and Monroe v. Pape. In the paper, Professor Nahmod outlines "the birth of section 1983 jurisprudence through the stories of these two cases."
"Section 1983, enacted in 1871, famously provides a damages remedy against state and local government officials and local governments for violations of constitutional rights. But it was only in 1951, in the seminal decision of Tenney v. Brandhove, a legislative immunity case involving an admitted Communist, that the Supreme Court for the first time expressly interpreted the language of section 1983. Ten years later, in 1961, the Court handed down another seminal section 1983 decision: Monroe v. Pape involved a section 1983 claim brought by an African-American alleging police misconduct. Both cases pitted two influential Supreme Court justices and FDR appointees, Felix Frankfurter and William Douglas, against one another in majority and dissenting opinions. Justice Frankfurter was an unremitting advocate of federalism, deference to politically accountable bodies, and judicial restraint. In contrast, Justice Douglas was an ardent proponent of individual rights who had relatively little concern for federalism.
I tell of the birth of section 1983 jurisprudence through the stories of these two cases. Their stories are contained in the papers of Justices Frankfurter and Douglas and in their majority and dissenting opinions. They are also contained in the parties’ petitions for certiorari and briefs and in Monroe’s oral argument. Finally, these stories can only be understood against the background of the political and social settings in which Tenney and Monroe arose. The Cold War and anti-Communist sentiment situate Tenney while the Civil Rights movement and the post-Brown era situate Monroe.
These stories are of interest both to section 1983 scholars and to historians of civil rights and constitutional law. First, Justice Frankfurter played an outsized role in both decisions. Second, these decisions demonstrate that the early and deep tension between individual rights and federalism — a tension that began with the Fourteenth Amendment and continues to this day — was present at the very beginning of the development of the Supreme Court’s section 1983 jurisprudence. The certiorari petitions and briefs in these cases and the oral argument in Monroe also articulate this tension. Finally, the different political and social contexts in which Tenney and Monroe were decided illuminate the decisions themselves."