Newsweek Magazine quoted Clinical Professor of Law, Doron Kalir, regarding the new Supreme Court pick by President Biden. The article, which explores the political ramifications of a possible appointment, suggests that a Supreme Court seat may carry implications long beyond the Court itself.
On Wednesday, January 26, the Plain Dealer published Professor Doron Kalir’s op-ed on Constitutional Supremacy and the Texas abortion law (known as SB.8). The op-ed is titled, “Sotomayor is right – the high court has a duty to defend Constitution’s supremacy.” Professor Kalir argues that Justice Sotomayor was correct in her admonition of the Supreme Court’s refusal — for the fourth time in a row — to block SB.8 despite its being “patently unconstitutional.”
Professor Milena Sterio contributed an article titled “U.S. Recognition Practice: Realism, Legitimacy, or Pragmatism?” to the George Mason International Law Journal. Professor Sterio’s article was an invited contribution; she had presented an earlier draft of this article at the George Mason International Law Journal’s symposium on the topic of “The New U.S. Recognition Policy” in December 2021.
Professor Milena Sterio moderated a panel titled “Civil Society Documentation: Use of Digital Evidence in International Courts” on January 21. The panel was hosted by the Public International Law and Policy Group and it focused legal issues related the use of digital evidence by various international criminal courts. A recording of the panel is available here:
Professor Karin Mika served as a grader for the briefs in the Stetson International Environmental Moot Court Competition.
Professor Milena Sterio moderated two different sessions at the AALS Annual Meeting. On January 5th, she moderated a discussion and networking session hosted by the Women in Legal Education section (Professor Sterio serves on the section’s Executive Committee). In addition, also on January 5th, Professor Sterio moderated a panel titled “The January 6th Insurrection: National Security Issues,” hosted by the National Security Law Section (Professor Sterio just completed her term as the section’s Chair).
Cleveland-Marshall College of Law is pleased to announce that it has entered into a 3+3 partnership with Kent State University. These agreements permit students to complete both their undergraduate and law degrees in six years rather than seven, with their first year of law school satisfying the student’s final year of undergraduate credits, as well, saving students both time and money. Providing this opportunity is consistent with the value proposition inherent in everything we do.
With the size of Kent State University, we hope that this latest agreement opens up many opportunities to the students of northeast Ohio to become lawyers in a timely and cost-effective manner so that they can, in the words of our motto: “Learn Law. Live Justice.”
Since 2014, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law has created an internal 3+3 program at Cleveland State University and entered into external 3+3 agreements with Lake Erie College, the University of Findlay, Ursuline College, Notre Dame College, Mercyhurst University (in Pennsylvania), Trine University (in Indiana), Hiram College, Marietta College, Wagner College (New York), Rust College (Mississippi), Baldwin Wallace University, and now Kent State University.
Professor Deborah Geier has published the 2022 edition of her textbook, “U.S. Federal Income Taxation of Individuals.” In an effort to reduce student cost, Professor Geier has published this textbook each year since 2014 with CALI (Computer-Assisted Legal Education) as both a free e-textbook (in pdf, ePub, and mobi formats) and as a print-on-demand hard copy (at cost) for approximately $35.
As in each year, Professor Geier incorporated new law and all inflation adjustments in her latest edition, as well as new economic data and charts. One of the real joys of crafting her own textbook is that Professor Geier can provide more data than typically found in traditional tax law textbooks to provide illuminating context for tax policy discussions. Even better, she can add, subtract, and update the data she chooses to incorporate each year as new data becomes available, which can be easily achievable only in a free textbook that is updated annually. She believes that providing such data to students adds richness to their study so that they can think more deeply about the wisdom (or folly) of the tax system in general (or particular provisions within it). Information regarding our tax history, how we got to where we are today, income trends over time, wealth trends over time, effective tax rates, deficits (or, once upon a time, surpluses), Federal debt, economic growth factors, and more help to ensure that tax policy discussions are factually and historically informed rather than ad hoc in a vacuum.
You can download the free e-textbook or order the print-on-demand copy from this link:
Howard E. Katz, Legal Educator in Residence, was a guest on the January 13 EdUp Legal podcast hosted by Dean Patricia Roberts of St. Mary’s University School of Law. They discussed a variety of topics, including teaching advice for newer professors and how legal education can be improved, both in terms of pedagogy and curriculum reforms.
In December, Professor Katz began his service on the Planning Commission in Pepper Pike.
Professor Jonathan Witmer-Rich was quoted extensively in an article on Law360 titled “Attorneys Take Kitchen Sink Approach in Fighting Jan. 6 Charges.” The article discusses pretrial release and detention of January 6 defendants, as well as several defenses that defendants have attempted to raise.
Professor Witmer-Rich commented on various defenses raised by January 6 defendants, such as the claim that they did not know the Capital grounds were “restricted” at the time of the riots. He observed, “Sometimes you raise things when you’re not sure how the facts are going to develop. Or it’s a novel situation, so you make any argument you can make.” But on the question of whether the grounds were restricted at the time of the protests, he noted that “having seen the videos, it seems kind of obvious that they were. There were officers who were trying to prevent people from entering.”
Professor Witmer-Rich also discussed the litigation over whether specific defendants should be detained due to their dangerousness. He noted that the question of “dangerousness” is an “amorphous standard” and that it’s “not unusual to see the parties really disagreeing about that and disagreeing about what kind of evidence really indicates dangerousness.”
Several January 6 defendants have challenged their detention orders on appeal, and at least one defendant has been released as a result. Professor Witmer-Rich noted that this is relatively unusual: “we have a lot of indigent defendants who sit in pretrial detention, often for very long periods of time. Rarely are there cases being appealed to a court of appeals to determine whether that detention order was really valid or not.”