Professor Rosemary Salomone’s Essay, The End of French?, has appeared in Inside Higher Ed. The piece explores recent changes in French law on restrictions on teaching in English in French universities.
Professor Marc DeGirolami’s book, The Tragedy of Religious Freedom (Harvard University Press), was released on Amazon.com earlier this week (official publication date June 1). The Tragedy of Religious Freedom analyzes the First Amendment religion and explores more general questions about the relationship of legal theory and legal practice.
Here’s an excerpt from the Harvard University Press webpage about the text:
When it comes to questions of religion, legal scholars face a predicament. They often expect to resolve dilemmas according to general principles of equality, neutrality, or the separation of church and state. But such abstractions fail to do justice to the untidy welter of values at stake. Offering new views of how to understand and protect religious freedom in a democracy, The Tragedy of Religious Freedom challenges the idea that matters of law and religion should be referred to far-flung theories about the First Amendment. Examining a broad array of contemporary and more established Supreme Court rulings, Marc DeGirolami explains why conflicts implicating religious liberty are so emotionally fraught and deeply contested.
Twenty-first-century realities of pluralism have outrun how scholars think about religious freedom, DeGirolami asserts. Scholars have not been candid enough about the tragic nature of the conflicts over religious liberty—the clash of opposing interests and aspirations they entail, and the limits of human reason to resolve intractable differences.
Here’s what two noted law and religion scholars have said about the text:
“The Tragedy of Religious Freedom is a first-rate contribution to the law-and-religion conversation. This conversation—how to think about, and how to effectively protect in law, religious freedom in a constitutional democracy—is a lively and timely one, and DeGirolami is an impressive participant.”—Richard W. Garnett, Notre Dame Law School
“A sophisticated and thoughtful book, which offers fresh insights on a central question of religious liberty.”—Philip Hamburger, author of Separation of Church and State
Professor Christopher J. Borgen has authored a chapter, “Public International Law and the Conflict Over Transnistria,” in Managing Intractable Conflicts: Lessons From Moldova and Cyprus. The project was supported by the Open Society Institute and involved Moldovan and Turkish think tanks.
Professor Janai Nelson will present her paper, The First Amendment, Equal Protection, and Felon Disenfranchisement: A New Viewpoint, at CUNY Law School on Wednesday, April 17. The talk is based on her article of the same name, which was recently published in the Florida Law Review. You can find the published version of the article here.
Research Professor Matthew Bruckner’s latest paper, The Virtue in Bankruptcy, was accepted for publication in the Loyola University Chicago Law Journal. Here is the abstract:
In response to a gap in the corporate bankruptcy literature, this article offers a new positive theory of corporate bankruptcy law based on virtue ethics. The dominant theory of corporate bankruptcy law — the creditors’ bargain model — is necessarily incomplete because it does not account for bankruptcy courts’ equitable and discretionary powers, or for Congress’ decision to privilege decision-making criteria other than economic efficiency. By contrast, virtue ethics can offer insights about corporate bankruptcy law’s most salient features for at least three reasons. First, bankruptcy courts appear to give content to bankruptcy laws by using virtue ethical principles. Virtue ethics’ decision-making process — practical wisdom — can provide insights into how bankruptcy judges balance concerns about, among other things, efficiency, justice and fairness when reaching decisions. This is particularly true when the bankruptcy court’s equitable jurisdiction or discretionary powers are implicated. Third, virtue ethics’ symbiotic consideration of means and ends parallels the process bankruptcy judges are called on to use when exercising their discretionary or equitable powers under numerous provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.
A current version of the paper is available on SSRN (here).
Professor Lawrence Joseph’s poem “So Where Are We?” is included in The Best of the Best American Poetry: 25th Anniversary Edition, chosen by Guest Editor Robert Pinsky, former United States Poet Laureate. The poem, which was originally published in Granta magazine, appeared in The Best American Poetry 2012. Professor Joseph will participate in a Best of the Best American Poetry reading at the New School, Tishman Auditorium (66 West 12th Street, in Manhattan) on Thursday, April 11, at 7 PM.
Professor Jacob Todres recently published an article entitled Fixing the Federal Budget Deficit: A Low-Tech Commonsense Approach in the Bloomberg/BNA Daily Tax Report. Here’s Jerry’s description of the proposal:
The article suggests an approach to prevent any further permanent increases to the federal budget deficit. Initially, Congress would be expected to enact annual budgets that are balanced. If Congress spends more in any year than it raises in revenues, it must pay back the excess during the next four years. If it fails to do so, then a fail-safe mechanism would be put in place that would automatically increase revenues in the fifth year by the amount of the excess spending.
Jennifer Baum has co-authored with Alison Kamhi (Stanford) and C. Mario Russell (Catholic Charities, and an adjunct professor in our Immigrant and Refugee Rights Clinic) Most in Need But Least Served: Legal and Practical Barriers to Special Immigrant Juvenile Status for Federally Detained Minors. The article appears in the Family Court Review and can be downloaded here.
Professor of Legal Writing Patricia Grande Montana’s latest article, Peer Review across the Curriculum, has been accepted for publication in the Oregon Law Review. Here is the abstract:
This paper examines the Carnegie and Best Practices Reports’ recommendation that law schools devote more attention to helping students develop the professional skills they will need in practice and proposes peer review as an attractive option.
Peer review, the process in which law students critique each other’s written work, is a powerful tool to teach students the knowledge, skills, and values essential to becoming a competent and professional lawyer. Through peer review, students improve their legal writing and analysis, enhance their editing skills, learn to cooperate with others, manage and evaluate constructive criticism, and develop a deeper appreciation of audience, among other things. For professors, it is an opportunity to assess their students’ performance and provide additional, useful feedback on their understanding of the legal doctrine and competence in legal analysis and writing.
As writing and professional skills instruction throughout the law school curriculum, not just in writing and skills courses, becomes more prevalent, law professors will need to find new and innovative ways to help their students achieve practical proficiency in the skills needed for legal practice. This paper explores peer review as one effective way.
The paper is not yet available on SSRN.
Janai Nelson’s latest article, The Causal Context of Disparate Vote Denial, has just been accepted for publication in the Boston College Law Review. Janai’s article is not yet available on SSRN, but here is the abstract:
For nearly 50 years, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and its amendments have remedied racial discrimination in the electoral process with unparalleled muscularity. However, modern vote denial practices that have a disparate impact on minority political participation increasingly fall outside the Act’s ambit. As judicial tolerance of disparate impact claims has waned in other areas of law, the contours of Section 2, arguably the Act’s most powerful provision, have also narrowed to fit the shifting landscape. Section 2’s “on account of race” standard to determine discrimination in voting has evolved from one of quasi-intent determined by a totality of the circumstances, to a short-lived intent requirement, followed by an enhanced disparate impact analysis, culminating in a more recent standard that simulates proximate cause. This Article proposes a test for Section 2 vote denial claims that comports with the narrowing construction of disparate impact claims and reclaims the contextual analysis of vote denial that the Voting Rights Act contemplates. The “causal context” test proposed here anchors Section 2 vote denial claims to explicit or implicit bias without requiring proof of intent and identifies circumstances internal and external to elections that give rise to disparate vote denial. This approach is historically consistent with the Act’s totality of the circumstances test, cognizant of courts’ increasing demands for proof of a causal link within disparate impact jurisprudence, and informed by studies of implicit bias in the law. The proposed causal context analysis is also consonant with recent federal proceedings evaluating the racial disparate impact of voter ID laws in Texas, Florida, New Hampshire, and Virginia.