The Journal of Catholic Legal Studies has published papers from a symposium on state-sponsored religious displays that the St. John’s Center for Law and Religion co-sponsored with the Libera Universita Maria SS Assunta (LUMSA) in Rome last year. The papers compare the treatment of such displays in the United States and Europe. Contributors include Silvio Ferrari of the University of Milan (“State-Supported Display of Religious Symbols In The Public Space”); Thomas Berg of the University of St. Thomas (“Can State-Sponsored Religious Symbols Promote Religious Liberty?”); Monica Lugato of LUMSA (“The ‘Margin of Appreciation’ and Freedom of Religion: Between Treaty Interpretation And Subsidiarity”); and Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain of the US Court of Appeals (“Religious Symbols and the Law”). There’s also an introduction by Professor Mark Movsesian, the Center’s Director. You can download the articles here.
Christopher Borgen, Professor and Associate Dean for International Studies, has written this piece on Opinio Juris on the recent protests in Ukraine. Professor Borgen analyzes the tug of war between the EU and Russia over Ukraine, and what it tells us about the evolution of geopolitics and international norms.
For the tenth year in a row, Elayne Greenberg, Assistant Dean for Dispute Resolution Programs, Professor of Legal Practice, and Director of the Hugh L. Carey Center, has been named one of the Best Lawyers in America in the practice area of mediation. Best Lawyers, which compiles the annual list of top attorneys in various fields, is a peer-review publication in the legal profession that identifies outstanding attorneys through confidential peer-review surveys.
Professor Greenberg regularly shares her renowned expertise with students in and out of the classroom. The New York State Unified Court System’s Office of ADR Programs recently approved under Part 146 her forty-two hour Divorce Mediation and Commercial Mediation courses. Upon completion of each course, students will receive a certificate of participation that can help them satisfy the training requirements to serve as a mediator in court-connected mediation programs.
Professor Edward “Ned” Cavanagh has recently published an article in the Loyola University Chicago Law Journal entitled Antitrust Law and Economic Theory: Finding a Balance. In the article, Professor Cavanagh argues that economic theory has taken precedence over facts in antitrust analysis in the courts and that a re-calibration is in order. Here’s the abstract:
Over the past forty years, the federal courts have relied more and more on economic theory to inform their antitrust analyses. Economic theory has indeed provided guidance with respect to antitrust issues and assisted the courts in reaching rational outcomes. At the same time, infusion of economic evidence into antitrust cases has made these cases more complex, lengthier, more expensive to litigate, and less predictable. This Article argues that courts need to restore the balance between facts and economic theory in undertaking antitrust analysis. The problem is not that judges and juries cannot reach good outcomes in antitrust cases, but rather that courts have become too reliant on economic theory in deciding them. Just as courts of an earlier generation became too enamored of per se rules in antitrust cases, some courts today have become too enamored of economic theory in addressing and resolving antitrust issues. Some courts have lost sight of basic antitrust goals and have gotten bogged down in arcane
economic tests—relevant market and proof of common impact in class action cases are two examples—which have become obstacles to, instead of tools for, resolution of antitrust disputes. Antitrust is a body of law enacted by Congress and construed by the courts; it is not a compendium of the latest thinking in economic theory. The role of the courts is not to decree economic policy, but rather to implement antitrust policies enacted by Congress. Antitrust has always been a
fact-specific enterprise, and courts need to restore the proper balance between fact finding and economic theory by confining economic theory to those areas where it assists antitrust analysis and discarding such theory where it gets in the way. In short, courts need to return to simple, predictable, and administrable—but informed—antitrust rules.
Professor Eva Subotnik’s paper, Intent to Fair Use, was accepted for an Intellectual Property workshop to be held at NYU Law School in early January. The Workshop brings together intellectual property law scholars from the tri-state region. Approximately 5-10 papers are selected for presentation and feedback in advance of the spring 2014 law review submission cycle. In her paper, Subotnik focuses on the degree to which recent fair use case law and scholarship that suggest that the evaluation of a challenged use of a copyrighted work be made principally from the perspective of a reasonable observer (rather than from the perspective of the defendant artist herself) advances the goals of copyright policy and provides predictability for those contemplating future uses of copyrighted works. Information about the Workshop can be found here http://tristate.nyuengelberg.org/
The editors of the ABA Journal have named the Center for Law and Religion Forum, produced by St. John’s Center for Law and Religion, one of the top 100 best blogs for a legal audience. CLR Forum is one of 15 blogs selected for the “Niche” blog category. The full list appears in the December issue of the magazine.
Regularly updated, the Center for Law and Religion Forum offers a comprehensive compilation of new law and religion scholarship, put together daily by the Center’s student fellows – the latest American law review scholarship as well as foreign and comparative pieces and new books in law and religion. It also provides engaging commentary by Center faculty on law and religion issues in the news and around the web, along with useful links to research centers, blogs, and news sites.
Professor Mark Movsesian, Frederick A. Whitney Professor of Contract Law, produces and contributes to the blog as Director of the Center, together with its Associate Director, Professor Marc O. DeGirolami.
The New York Times published Professor Jeff Sovern‘s letter in its Sunday Dialogue feature titled “Academia’s Two Tracks.” The letter addresses the validity of student evaluations in assessing the performance of tenured and tenure-track professors versus adjuncts. Professor Sovern states:
Student evaluations are a better measure of popularity than competence. Adjuncts may in fact be better teachers, but studies not based on student evaluations are needed to prove it.
Gina Calabrese, Professor of Clinical Education, was recently named to the Board of Directors of Catholic Migration Services. CMS provides legal representation and other services to immigrants living in Brooklyn and Queens. St. John’s offers its Bread and Life Legal Clinic in partnership with CMS. CMS also does impact litigation through its Immigrant Tenants Advocacy Project as well as assistance with the naturalization process. It is a non-profit corporation affiliated with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn.
On Friday, November 8, Michael Perino, Dean George W. Matheson Professor of Law, was in Chicago to present a paper at the First Annual Corporate and Securities Litigation Workshop, sponsored by the University of Illinois College of Law. Professor Perino co-authored the paper, Private Ordering Versus Judicial Regulation of Attorneys’ Fees in Securities Class Actions: An Empirical Assessment, with University of Texas Law School professors Lynn Baker and Charles Silver.
On November 7th, Professor John Q. Barrett was a principal speaker at the Brandeis Association’s program on “Law, Justice and the Holocaust: How the Courts Failed Germany.” At this program, which commemorated the 75th anniversary of Kristallnacht, Dr. William Meinecke of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum spoke about German law and judges under the Nazis and Professor Barrett spoke about the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals following World War II. The program was held at the Queens County Civil Courthouse in New York City.