Professor Mary Ann Mason says California’s new anti-discrimination law protecting pregnant grad students could become a model for states across the U.S. Her recent article explains why the law, which orders higher education to abide by Title IX, will help more female students achieve their professional goals.
Grand jury rulings in Ferguson and Staten Island not to indict white police who killed unarmed blacks may reflect trends Ian Haney Lopez noted in 2012. Intentional Blindness tracks a “devolution of equal protection” and jurisprudence “geared toward excluding evidence of the evolving mistreatment of non-Whites.”
While affirmative action may stigmatize students from disadvantaged groups, Prasad Krishnamurthy and Aaron Edlin say group-blind admissions is not the remedy. Erasing social inequality-based stereotypes, their paper argues, would perversely require a higher admission standard for marginalized students.
A report co-written by Steven Davidoff Solomon explains why top plaintiff law firms fare better than their peers in class actions challenging M&A deals. Zealous Advocates or Self-Interested Actors? shows how these firms pursue conflicts of interest, file more documents with the court, and bring more significant motions.
When Ferguson erupted over the police killing of an unarmed black teenager, Sr. Fellow Richard Rothstein investigated how the town became a segregated black suburb. In The Making of Ferguson, he blames old 20th century government housing and zoning policies, among others, as the root of the town’s troubles.
In Intellectual Property, Innovation, and the Environment, editors Peter Menell and Sarah Tran provide insight into the evolving debate over IP law and the environment. The material is considered essential reading for lawyers, economists, and policy-makers working in the fields of energy and climate change.
In his lecture, Our Broken Death Penalty, Judge William Fletcher argues that the practice can’t be repaired and predicts the U.S. will abolish it in time. He says it’s applied erratically, arbitrarily, and unfairly at every rung of the process, from the police investigation to the courts and state execution.
In Awakening the People’s Giant, Asst. Prof. Fred Smith explores the relationship between two constitutional doctrines that have faced withering criticism: sovereign immunity, which protects states from federal lawsuits; and the guarantee clause, which reinforces the principles of representative government.
Disputes over German bonds issued during the Weimar era took decades to resolve, with some cases still in flux. In Back to the Past: Old German Bonds and New U. S. Litigation, Professor Richard Buxbaum follows the trail of these financial instruments and the legal tactics used to settle international claims.
Libraries are reluctant to digitize books whose copyright owners can’t be found, fearful of infringement lawsuits. While some argue for a legislative fix, clinic director Jennifer Urban writes that U.S. Copyright Law’s ‘fair use’ doctrine might offer a more flexible and less costly solution.
In “Land Recording and Copyright Reform,” Professor Molly Van Houweling argues that copyright reformers can look to real property law as a model for reform. For example, she says the copyright system could be improved by incentivizing better record keeping, akin to U.S. land law.
In a paper co-authored by Prof. Katerina Linos and Kimberly Twist, the two discuss results of a survey conducted before and after SCOTUS decisions. Their ‘real-world’ findings show that people are more apt to accept the ruling if they watch news shows that emphasize the court’s majority viewpoint.
In Refracted Justice, Prof. Laurel Fletcher argues that international courts and tribunals consistently frustrate the victims of mass atrocities. In her analysis of transitional justice and victims’ rights, she questions whether the International Criminal Court can live up to its moral commitments.
In Breaking Bad, Prof. Dan Farber examines the government’s reliance on “breakeven analysis” to calculate risks and benefits of agency regulations. He suggests that this type of analysis, although workable on paper, may not be ideal in practice.
In Marriage Equality and Postracialism, Prof. Russell Robinson says the fight for same-sex marriage has aggravated a fissure between black and gay communities. Although the marriage equality movement bills itself as a descendant of the black civil rights movement, he says “it often treats its forefather as dead.”
Prof. David Gamage says the tax provisions of Obamacare will penalize low- and moderate-income workers unless reforms are enacted. In Perverse Incentives Arising from the Tax Provisions of Healthcare Reform, Gamage suggests ways to preserve the act’s benefits, while eliminating its penalties.
In FTC v. Actavis, the U.S. Supreme Court considered antitrust challenges to reverse-payment patent settlements. In Activating Actavis, Prof. Aaron Edlin and his co-authors help clarify the ruling for attorneys and courts involved in antitrust litigation.
Asst. Prof. Prasad Krishnamurthy has co-authored a study of one of the world’s largest food assistance programs in Chhattisgarh, India. The findings contradict popular thought as to which policies increased consumption of food rations. This distinction is critical as India moves to adopt similar programs nationwide.
In Cartels by Another Name, co-author Aaron Edlin notes the dramatic rise in licensed professions. About one-third of U.S. workers are licensed now, up from five percent in the 1950s. State boards decide who can practice, be it doctors or florists. But Edlin says boards often bar competition, resulting in higher prices.
Prof. Elisabeth Semel has led the Death Penalty Clinic to a critical win in a yearlong case against the San Diego D.A.’s office. Weeks ago, the state Court of Appeal granted the clinic’s petition to give a death row inmate access to public records. This is the first time an inmate has won such a ruling against the D.A.
Faculty member Joan Hollinger is the lead author of a brief filed on behalf of 40 law professors opposing Utah’s same-sex marriage ban. The brief offers the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals a thorough understanding of the multiple purposes of marriage and its relationship to procreation and parentage.
In his latest paper, Prof. Prasad Krishnamurthy creates a hypothetical cost-benefit analysis to examine the effectiveness of government banking regulations. In the wake of Dodd-Frank, he looks at specific rules that can help regulators manage risk in the face of market uncertainty.
Prof. Peter Menell proposes a novel way to pre-clear creative works and reduce the risks of relying on the fair use doctrine. The proposal, detailed in Copyright Fee Shifting, encourages copyright owners to take settlement offers seriously and negotiate around inherent uncertainties of the law.
In a law review article, Prof. Mark Gergen challenges the prevailing view of “negligent misrepresentation.” He argues that it’s best understood as a contractual claim. To make this case, he traces debates about contract, tort, and negligence law from the mid-nineteenth century to the present.
In The Significance of Territorial Presence and the Rights of Immigrants, Professor Sarah Song asks how a liberal democracy should treat its noncitizens. She argues that nations need to balance the right to control their borders with the right of people to be treated as equals.
In Behavioral Advertising: The Offer You Cannot Refuse, lead author Chris Hoofnagle finds that advertisers trick consumers into revealing data with tracking techniques users can’t avoid. Even the strongest privacy settings can’t elude the online trackers.
In Democracy and Renewed Distrust, Asst. Prof. Bertrall Ross looks at striking changes in judicial interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause. Ross says SCOTUS now views minority representation in the political process as irrelevant and gives Congress much less leeway in enhancing equal rights.
In Statutory Damages: A Rarity in Copyright Laws Internationally, Professor Pamela Samuelson and co-authors criticize the U.S. for pressuring allies to adopt its own sanctions for copyright infringement. The scholars say countries ought to decide for themselves what damages to impose, if any.