Chris Sagers, the James A. Thomas Distinguished Professor of Law, has joined as junior co-author a leading treatise in antitrust, just released by West Publishing, called The Law of Antitrust: An Integrated Handbook
(3d ed. 2015) (available here http://www.westacademic.com/Professors/ProductDetails.aspx?NSIID=3339). First published by the late Lawrence Sullivan of the University of California at Berkeley during the 1970s, the treatise rose to leading prominence and has been cited extensively by the U.S. Supreme Court, other federal courts, and hundreds of books and articles. In this third edition, Sagers and co-author Warren Grimes of Southwestern Law School continue the tradition, in a thoroughly revised text, including several completely re-written chapters.

Professor Jonathan Witmer-Rich

Professor Jonathan Witmer-Rich recently published “‘Sneak and Peek’ Searches: Critique and Reform,” in Volume 42 of the Search and Seizure Law Report. Search and Seizure Law Report is a legal periodical targeted at judges and practitioners, and focuses on constitutional policing issues under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. In the article, Professor Witmer-Rich explains some of the serious flaws in the current statute, passed as part of the USA PATRIOT Act, that authorizes covert searches and seizures with delayed notice search warrants. He then proposes several amendments to the statutory scheme that would better regulate delayed notice searching.

On Friday, October 24, 2015, Professor Jonathan-Witmer-Rich presented at a conference at the Case Western Reserve Law School, titled “Whren at Twenty: Systemic Racial Bias in the Criminal Justice System.” Professor Witmer-Rich presented a paper titled “Arbitrary Law Enforcement is Unreasonable.” Other conference presenters included Devon Carbado (UCLA School of Law) and Davis Harris (University of Pittsburgh School of Law). Conference papers will be published in a symposium issue of the Case Western Reserve Law Review.

Professor Jonathan Witmer-Rich published an opinion article on cleveland.com, titled, “Tamir Rice case should go to a jury.” He warns again over-reliance on expert opinion in situations that essentially involve judgment, not expertise. In that regard, he argues that the question of the police use of force in the Tamir Rice is primarily a case of judgment–a judgment that should be made by a jury–not a case of special expertise. The op-ed concludes, “pay careful attention to when experts are speaking on matters for which their unique knowledge and training gives them special insight, and when they are simply offering the same sort of opinion that any person on the street might give. Do not defer to someone on matters of common judgment merely because they are given the title ‘expert.'”

The article is available here: http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/10/tamir_rice_case_should_go_to_a.html#incart_river.

Professor and Associate Dean Milena Sterio presented at the American Society of International Law Research Forum in Washington, D.C. on October 24.  Professor Sterio presented on a panel entitled “International Law as a Shield,” and her paper was entitled “Humanitarian Intervention ‘Exception and its Applicability to the Refugee Crisis in Iraq and Syria.”  The other panelists included Victoria Stweart-Jolley from Cambridge University, Shiri Krebs from Stanford University, and Karima Bennoune from UC Davis School of Law as a discussant.  Professor Sterio’s paper had been selected from a competitive call for papers.

In addition, Professor Sterio completed a peer review for The International Journal for Human Rights, a United Kingdom-based peer reviewed journal published by Routledge/Taylor and Francis.  Professor Sterio reviewed an article discussing self-determination under international law in the context of Crimea and the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in Ukraine.

Professor David Forte published an article discussing Islamism and free speech on the blog Law and Liberty.  Professor Forte’s article, entitled “Taking the Measure of the West,” is available here.

On October 22, 2015, Browne Lewis, Leon M. and Gloria Plevin Professor of Law, chaired a  panel and presented at the UNESCO 11th World Bioethics, Medical Ethics, and Health Law Conference in Naples, Italy. Professor Lewis’ presentation was entitled “Disposal People: Physician-Assisted Suicide and Vulnerable Patients.” First, Professor Lewis gave a brief history of the right to die movement in the United States and compared that with what is happening in the rest of the world.  Then, she discussed the current legal landscape of physician-assisted suicide in the United States.  Presently, physician-assisted suicide is legal in Oregon, Washington, Montana, Vermont and California.  It is specifically illegal in Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, North Dakota and Rhode Island.  The law in New Mexico is in limbo because the New Mexico Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case on the issue on October 26, 2015.  The final part of Professor Lewis’ presentation focused upon the impact the legalization of physician-assisted suicide may have on terminally ill patients who are elderly, physically disabled, mental ill, low-income and of color. With the exception of California, all of the states that have legalized physician-assisted suicide are predominately white and upper-middle class.  Since California is the first racially and economically diverse state to make physician-assisted suicide legal, it will be a good test case to see if there are adequate safeguards in place to protect terminally ill patients who are vulnerable in some other way.

Professor David Forte’s essay, “A Speaker Must Be a Member of the House,” has been published on the Federalist Society’s blog.  The essay, available here, argues that the Speaker of the House must be a member of the body that chooses him or her for this leadership role.

Professor Deborah Geier published a short piece entitled “Business Interest Deduction and 100 Percent Expensing” at 148 Tax Notes 1555 (Sept. 28, 2015). Several recent tax reform proposals, including that of candidate Jeb Bush, recommend eliminating the interest deduction but allowing the cost of long-lived property to be deducted entirely in the purchase year (rather than depreciated over time). Professor Geier here criticizes the tendency of some commentators (particularly in the popular press) to assume that these proposals have separate justifications and are packaged together simply to make the elimination of interest deductions more palatable. She explains that the point of these reform proposals is not to tweak the income tax but to shift from an income tax base to a cash-flow consumption tax at the business level, where denial of interest deductions is necessary to prevent inefficient (and costly) rent-seeking behavior under 100 percent expensing.

Professor and Associate Dean Milena Sterio published a blog post on Intlawgrrls discussing the recently-filed ACLU lawsuit against two psychologists who, as C.I.A. contractors, devised and implemented a harsh interrogation plan used against detainees at secret agency prisons.

“According to the lawsuit, defendants Mitchell and Jessen committed  torture, human experimentation, and war crimes because of their roles in the secret interrogation program.  The torturous interrogation techniques devised by Mitchell and Jessen included waterboarding, sleep deprivation, isolation and stress positions. These techniques  inflicted severe physical and mental pain on detainees to induce a state of  “learned helplessness,” where detainees become passive and fully compliant with all of their interrogators’ demands.  According to the complaint, these techniques amounted to torture and cruel, degrading and  inhuman treatment as well as war crimes.  In addition,  the complaint alleges that Mitchell and Jessen kept detailed logs of interrogation sessions in order to analyze detainees’ reactions to torture, calibrate the methods used, and provide the Bush administration with false assurances that such practices were “safe” and “effective.”  According to the complaint, collecting such information without informed consent constitutes unlawful research and experimentation.”

Professor Sterio’s post is available here.