Professor Cheryl Wade will present a book chapter at the Southeastern Association of Law Schools Annual Meeting on August 3rd, 2014. Her presentation is part of a panel on Financial Institutions Law and Regulation.
Professor Marc DeGirolami has a new review of Professor Steven D. Smith’s recent book, The Rise and Decline of American Religious Freedom (HUP 2014).
Professor Rosemary Salomone will speak on Monday, July 21st at the International Political Science Association 23rd World Congress in Montreal. The topic of her paper is “Making New Citizens: Transatlantic Perspectives on Language, Belonging and Immigrant Schooling.” The following is a summary:
Policies on language and schooling in the United States and Western Europe reveal a decided concern for preserving social cohesion in the face of mounting immigration and cultural and religious diversity. This paper examines how that concern finds expression in contrasting discourses on linguistic pluralism and multiculturalism, how the apparent disconnect between the political rhetoric and reality affects the lives of immigrant students, how the distinct ways in which Europeans and Americans talk about language and immigration influence public attitudes and define the range of language policy options, and how the debate over the role of language in the schools, in one way or another, seems to ignore the impact of globalization and transnationalism and the connection among language, belonging, and citizenship. The discussion begins with the United States where the argument for maintaining immigrant languages, predominantly Spanish, in the schools holds diminishing support despite an unofficial “multiculturalism lite” as a heralded aspect of American identity. By way of contrast, it examines the challenges faced by Western European nations under competing pressures of global English for productivity and supranational directives on multilingualism for European integration and job mobility, while at the same time officially rejecting a presumably “thicker” form of multiculturalism as a politically destabilizing force.
Professor Jeff Sovern authored two entries in the recently-published Consumer Survival: An Encyclopedia of Consumer Rights, Safety, and Protection (2014).
The first, on Door-to-Door Sales, appears in volume 1 while the second, on the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, is in volume 2.
Jennifer Baum, Associate Professor of Clinical Legal Education and Director of the Child Advocacy Clinic, has published a new article for the ABA’s Children’s Rights Litigation Newsletter entitled “Ready, Set, Go to Federal Court: The Hague Child Abduction Treaty, Demystified.”
In the article, Professor Baum, who has represented or worked with children on a number of international parental child abduction cases, discusses the need for increased advocacy for children and parents in Hague cases, especially those in which one or both parents raise child safety concerns.
Subotnik’s Article on Pre-1972 Sound Recordings Published and Article on Fair Use Picked Up for Publication
Professor Eva Subotnik’s article, Constitutional Obstacles? Reconsidering Copyright Protection for Pre-1972 Sound Recordings, 37 Colum. J.L. & Arts 327 (2014), co-authored with June Besek at Columbia Law School, has been published in the Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts. In their article, Professors Subotnik and Besek examine the constitutional underpinnings of proposed legislation to bring pre-1972 sound recordings under federal copyright protection, in particular, whether such an amendment would violate due process or constitute a taking pursuant to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. While concentrating on pre-1972 sound recordings, the article timely addresses issues that have implications beyond that context in the digital age, including implications for the comprehensive review of U.S. copyright law currently under way by the House Judiciary Committee.
In addition, Professor Subotnik’s article, Intent in Fair Use, will be published in the Lewis & Clark Law Review this fall. The article explores the role of intent in the context of fair use. Specifically, it examines whether a claim of fair use of a copyrighted work should be assessed solely from an “objectively reasonable” vantage point or should, additionally, allow for evidence from the subjective perspective of the user. The Article first develops a framework for evaluating the degree to which courts, parties, and scholars have deemed conscious compliance with fair use principles relevant to the fair use analysis. It then argues for a limited role for evidence of subjective intent, proposing criteria for when such evidence should, and should not, be weighed in the fair use calculus.
Professor Jeremy Sheff was quoted in an article on today’s decision by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to cancel several trademark registrations owned by the Washington Redskins. The article states in part:
A person (or organization) gets a trademark by using it in commerce, and registration is simply an extra step that confers extra protections. “The Lanham Act gives the senior user of a mark the right to prevent others from using a mark that is likely to cause confusion, regardless of whether the mark is registered,” says Jeremy Sheff, an intellectual property law professor at St. John’s.
. . .
It’s theoretically possible that a judge would restrict the team’s common law rights on the basis that the marks are disparaging, but unlikely — and we probably won’t find that out until the team actually sues someone using the name and logo.
“There’s a chance that the Redskins mark will eventually be found not only unregisterable, but unenforceable,” Sheff says. “But I don’t think it’s a strong one.”
How much deference—or what kind—should courts give to longstanding agency interpretations of statutes? Surprisingly, courts and scholars lack a coherent answer to this question. Legal scholars long have assumed that longstanding agency statutory interpretations are treated with heightened deference on judicial review, and federal courts sometimes have made statements suggesting that this is the case. But in practice, federal court review of longstanding agency interpretations—at both the Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court levels—turns out to be surprisingly erratic. Reviewing courts sometimes note the longevity of an agency’s statutory interpretation as a plus factor in their deference analysis, but at other times completely ignore or dismiss an agency interpretation’s longevity. Moreover, judicial rhetoric about the relevance of longevity in the review of agency statutory interpretations is inconsistent from case to case.
What makes this doctrinal incoherence particularly remarkable is that courts usually care much more about the predictability of statutory interpretations and about upsetting settled institutional practices. In fact, in two analogous contexts—judicial interpretations of statutes and historical executive branch practice in the constitutional arena—courts accord strong precedential effect, or a presumption of correctness, to established legal constructions. This Article provides the first detailed study of federal court treatment of longstanding agency statutory interpretations—illuminating doctrinal inconsistencies and examining longevity-related factors that both favor and disfavor deference. The Article also compares federal courts’ chaotic treatment of longstanding agency statutory interpretations with the precedential effect that courts give to longstanding judicial interpretations of statutes and the historical “gloss” effect that courts give to past executive practice in constitutional interpretation. Ultimately, the Article argues that longstanding agency interpretations of statutes are at least as deserving of heightened judicial deference and that, at a minimum, federal courts’ disparate treatment of such interpretations—without acknowledging or justifying the distinction—is troubling. The Article advocates that longstanding agency interpretations should be entitled to precedential effect by reviewing courts and outlines how such an approach might work.
Professor Jeff Sovern’s letter in the New York Times on June 10, 2014, responds to reports about General Motor’s failure to prevent the loss of life from its defective cars. The letter states in part:
Candice Anderson was charged with manslaughter and ultimately pleaded guilty to criminally negligent homicide for an accident leading to the death of her boyfriend.
Now that G.M. has concluded that the accident was caused not by her but by a defective part, it will be interesting to see if anyone at G.M. is charged with similar crimes.
Professor Nina J. Crimm has published a chapter, Dilemmas in Regulating Electoral Speech of Non-profit Organisations, with Professor Laurence H. Winer in Not-for-Profit Law: Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives (Matthew Harding, et al., eds. Cambridge University Press 2014). The editors describe the chapter as follows
[S]ound[ing] a note of caution . . . Crimm and Winer compare the regulation of electoral speech of not-for-profits in Australia and the United States. The US experience shows how difficult it can be to manage a distinction between acceptable or beneficial electoral speech by not-for-profits on the one hand, and cynical manipulation of the electoral process by vested interests utilizing not-for-profits on the other; it also shows how striving to achieve such a balancing act is apt to generate legal complexity.