Brian Ray, Leon M. & Gloria Plevin Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Faculty Development and Online Programs, chaired the drafting group for the Sedona Conference’s U.S. Biometric Systems Privacy Primer (“Primer“) (download here). Recently published for public comment, the Primer provides a general introduction to biometric systems and a summary of existing U.S. laws regulating the collection, use, and sharing of the biometric information these technologies collect.

The Primer is written as a resource for lawyers, judges, legislators, and other policymakers. It provides a general guide to the relationships among the technical, legal, and policy aspects of biometric systems – with a particular focus on privacy and related concerns these systems may raise.

Professor Chris Sagers, the James A. Thomas Professor of Law, wrote and filed a brief on behalf of himself and other academics in United States v. American Airlines Group, a Justice Department antitrust challenge pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

The case involved a remarkable tie-up between two air carriers in the Northeast, where air travel markets were already quite congested, and on the government’s allegations it would have severely injured competition there. Upon request from the Justice Department and State Attorneys General, Professor Sagers drafted the brief, which garnered support from 25 professors specializing in law, business, and economics from esteemed institutions such as Stanford, NYU, George Washington, USC, UC Irvine, among others.

Professor Milena Sterio collaborated with colleagues Joshua Smith, Melike Tokatlioglu, Marie-Eve Plamondon (Sullivan & Cromwell), and Tara Ohrtman (Public International Law and Policy Group) to co-author a collection of blog posts recently released on Just Security, a leading international law blog. These posts were featured as part of an online symposium focused on the consolidation of current residual international criminal tribunals into a unified residual mechanism.

The symposium posts are available here: https://www.justsecurity.org/93284/consolidating-the-aftermath-of-justice/

On March 8, Professor Milena Sterio participated in a workshop held at City University of London in the UK. The workshop centered around the theme of “Gender Parity at the International Court of Justice.” This event was a component of a broader initiative aimed at enhancing gender equality at the International Court of Justice, which has seen only five female judges out of over one hundred since its establishment in 1945.

Professor Milena Sterio’s co-authored article, Prosecution of Russian Corporations for War Crimes in Ukraine, (with Professor Michael Kelly, Creighton University Law School, Federica d’Alessandra, Oxford University, Dmytro Koval, Stanford University and Lydia Korostelova, Harvard University) has been accepted for publication by the Texas International Law Journal.

The article proposes a litigation framework that enables U.S. courts to enforce civil judgments issued by Ukrainian courts against Russian corporations implicated in war crimes committed in Ukraine. The ultimate objective is to utilize assets acquired through these judgments to aid Ukrainian reconstruction and recovery efforts.

On March 16, Professor Milena Sterio, along with a group of experts, submitted Commentary to the International Criminal Court’s Office of the Prosecutor. This submission was in response to the ICC’s call for Commentary regarding its latest policy initiative, which aims to establish a new policy promoting accountability for environmental crimes. Professor Sterio and her colleagues concentrated their Commentary on exploring the potential prosecution of environmental offenses as crimes against humanity or war crimes under the ICC’s Rome Statute.

On March 2, Legal Educator-in-Residence Howard E. Katz made a presentation on teaching for a plenary session of the inaugural Northeastern University School of Law Junior Scholars Conference. The conference featured over 100 participants workshopping their papers, along with panels on tenure and promotion, hiring, and writing, as well as the panel on teaching, which featured Howard and co-panelist Professor Hiba Hafiz of the Boston College Law School.

Last week, Professor Milena Sterio participated the in conference on the “Legacy of the Special Court for Sierra Leone” in Freetown, Sierra Leone last week. Established through an agreement between the government of Sierra Leone and the United Nations, the Special Court for Sierra Leone was an international tribunal situated in Freetown. Its purpose was to prosecute individuals deemed most accountable for the atrocities committed during the Sierra Leone civil war (1991-1999). Commencing in 2002, the court transitioned into its residual phase in 2013.

The conference at which Professor Sterio spoke focused on examining the legacy and the major achievements of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, through various panels composed of both international experts and Sierra Leonian judges and other legal professionals. Professor Sterio led a discussion group with the victims of conflict in Sierra Leone and other West African states; in addition, she spoke at a panel on the topic of building judicial capacity in Sierra Leone and other states, and she also moderated a panel on the future of residual and investigative mechanisms.

Following the Supreme Court’s Order granting Cert. in the Trump “complete immunity” case, Business Insider interviewed several legal experts regarding the implications of such an Order.

In his comments, Professor Doron Kalir made three points: First, unlike some court watchers who predicted that the Court may not take this case, it was quite clear that the Court would not pass on the opportunity to rule on this momentous, first-of-its-kind case, which raises, for the first time, several fascinating constitutional issues.

Second, from the way the Court defined the issue presented, it seems that – while not overruling both lower courts’ opinions, that Trump enjoys no immunity – the Court is poised to send a more nuanced, and narrow rulings regarding the presidential criminal immunity case. Such a ruling would be of help for future DOJ officials and Courts when coming to decide such cases.

And finally, the timeline that the Court has provided – Oral Arguments to be heard in the last week of April, coupled with its prior refusal to hear the case on an expedited basis – all but guarantees that Trump’s lawyers tried and true tactic of “delay, delay, delay” has worked again. There’s very little likelihood that this case will ever be heard by Judge Chatkan of the District Court prior to the 2024 Presidential elections.