Oxford University Press’ International Journal of Constitutional Law recently published a review of Professor Brian Ray’s manuscript Engaging with Social Rights: Procedure, Participation and Democracy in South Africa’s Second Wave written by Professor Sandra Liebenberg, HF Oppenheimer Chair in Human Rights Law at Stellenbosch University and Africa Member, UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 16, Issue 1, 12 May 2018, Pages 289–296, https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moy036

Peace Palace, The Hague (site of the International Court of Justice)

Professor and Associate Dean Milena Sterio participated in the 2018 International Criminal Court (ICC) Scholars Forum, which was jointly organized and sponsored by the Whitney Harris World Law Institute, Washington University School of Law, and the Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies, University of Leiden (Netherlands) on June 15-16 at the Grotius Centre at The Hague (Netherlands).  Professor Sterio served as moderator and discussant for two papers: “Representation and Competence on the International Criminal Bench: A Profile Sketch of the International Criminal Judiciary (Joe Powderly, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Leiden) and “The Gendered Jurisprudence of the ad hoc Tribunals’ Joint Criminal Enterprise Theory of Liability and Article 25(3) of the Rome Statute: Two Trains Running” (Leila Nadya Sadat, Washington University School of Law).

ICC Scholars Forum, Grotius Centre, University of Leiden (Netherlands)

Professor and Associate Dean Milena Sterio presented at the Law and Society Annual Conference in Toronto, Canada, on June 9th.  Professor Sterio presented on a panel entitled “Atrocities, Truth and the Borders of International Human Rights,” and her presentation title was “Self-Determination, Secession, and the ‘Frozen Conflict’ in Nagorno-Karabakh.”

Chris Sagers, the James A. Thomas Professor of Law, spoke last week with both Yahoo Finance and Bloomberg  about the much-anticipated final decision in the Justice Department’s challenge to the merger of AT&T and Time Warner, Inc.

Separately, he spoke with Bloomberg Law about the Justice Department’s decision to approve the merger of Bayer and Monstanto, subject to the largest package of divestitures in U.S. antitrust history.

Clinical Professor of Law Doron Kalir accepted an offer from the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy to publish his article “Rethinking Religious Objections to Same-Sex Marriage” in its Summer 2018 issue. Professor Kalir would like to thank participants in faculty workshops held at the AALS semi-annual meeting, Michigan State Law, Toledo Law, and here at Cleveland-Marshall for their useful comments. In addition, professors Bill Eskridge of Yale, Suzanne Goldberg of Columbia, Sherry Colb of Cornell, Avi Cover of Case, and Dena Davis of the Department of Religious Studies in Lehigh University were kind enough to offer comments, edits, and suggestions.

Professor Kalir would like to thank Professor Browne Lewis and the Summer Grant Committee for their generous support; Mr. Jeromy Simonovic, Esq., C-M Law class of 2015, for helpful research assistance; Associate Deans Professors Heidi Robertson and Milena Sterio for their help in navigating the convoluted world of legal publications; Associate Dean Professor Michael Borden for his words of wisdom and encouragement; and Lee Fisher, our fearless Dean, who consistently and gracefully pushes all of us towards excellence.

Chris Sagers, the James A. Thomas Professor of Law, posted last week at Promarket, the blog of the Stigler Center of the University of Chicago School of Business, on a remarkable antitrust case going to trial in Rhode Island. The case, Steward Health v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island, is striking not only because it survived summary judgment, and thus becomes one of the very rare private monopolization cases to go to trial. It is also because the veteran federal judge overseeing the case sent it to trial on a long, scholarly opinion critical of existing law, taking aim specifically at controversial language of the late Justice Scalia and a leading opinion of then-judge Neil Gorsuch.

As Sagers explains, it is still early for predictions, but if the case proceeds through litigation, and especially if it gets appellate review, we will at a minimum have important new guidance on the law of monopolization. We might also see reconsideration of some of the seemingly settled matters that have rendered this law largely inert, and disagreement among the federal circuits that could trigger the first Supreme Court monopolization case in many years.