Professor Milena Sterio presented her paper, “Women at the International Criminal Court,” at a session on July 22 of the Feminist Legal Scholarship series. The Feminist Legal Scholarship series is a bi-monthly workshop/presentation series; papers were selected from a competitive call-for-papers.
Category Archives: Faculty in the Media
Professor Kalir Discusses Supreme Court Term on WURD Radio Philadelphia
On July 16, 2020, Clinical Professor of Law Doron Kalir was interviewed by Charles Ellison on WURD Radio Philadelphia on the recent Supreme Court Term. The conversation spanned various issues from Justice Ginsburg’s current health condition to Chief Justice Roberts’ move to the Court’s center, and from DACA, abortion rights, and LGBTQ’s recent opinions to the significance of federal judicial nominations. This has been Professor Kalir’s fourth appearance on the show.
Professor Robertson Publishes Article on Natural Gas Pipeline Routing
Professor Heidi Gorovitz Robertson has published Cities Seethe: A Case Study of Local Efforts to Influence Natural Gas Pipeline Routing Decisions, in the West Virginia Law Review. The article considers the efforts of local jurisdictions to influence the routing of a natural gas pipeline through Ohio. In particular, it evaluates the largely unsuccessful efforts of the City of Green, Ohio, to work with other jurisdictions and the judicial and administrative processes to move the Nexus/Spectra Energy pipeline away from Green to a less densely populated area. The article is available at 122 W. Va. L. Rev. 881 (2020), or here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3652422
Robertson is the Steven W. Percy Distinguished Professor of Law at Cleveland-Marshall, and Professor of Environmental Studies at the Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University.
Appellate Practice Clinic Secures Another Win in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
The Appellate Practice Clinic has secured a victory for its client, Richard Lemoine, in the appeal of a habeas petition before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Lemoine was convicted for both receipt and possession of child pornography materials. In his Habeas motion before the District Court he argued several constitutional violations, which were all denied. The Sixth Circuit granted a Certificate of Appealability (COA) and appointed the Clinic to represent Lemoine on appeal.
In its Briefs, the Clinic argued that Lemoine’s convictions for both receipt and possession violated the Double-Jeopardy Clause. The Clinic also argued that Lemoine had the right to appeal his original conviction and failed to do so due to ineffective assistance of counsel. While the Sixth Circuit denied that right-to-appeal claim, it accepted in full the Double-Jeopardy claim and remanded the case for further consideration with the District Court. The court’s opinion is available here.
Students Gareth Kleiber and Jed Chedid (Clinic Fall 2019) and Halie Evans, Mara Hirtz, and Kelley Taurig (Clinic Spring 2020) worked on the Opening and the Reply Briefs, respectively. Clinical Professor Doron Kalir supervised the work and served as Attorney of Record.
Professor Ray Speaks on Privacy and Digital Contact Tracing
Professor Brian Ray participated in two recent webinars discussing the privacy issues raised by digital contact tracing applications. The first, in May, was hosted by The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law’s Program on Data Governance.
The second, on July 9, was titled “Health Surveillance, Privacy, and the Future of Democracy.” This program was part of the City Club of Cleveland’s “Happy Dog Takes on the World” series; a recording is available here.
Witmer-Rich Publishes Essay on Consent
Professor Jonathan Witmer-Rich published an essay titled “Consentability, Autonomy, and Self-Actualization,” in the Loyola Law Review. This issue is devoted to a collection of invited essays responding to Professor Nancy S. Kim’s book, “Consentability: Consent and Its Limits,” recently published by Cambridge University Press. Other invited authors include Brian H. Bix (University of Minnesota), Philip J. Cook (Stanford University), and Kimberly D. Krawiec (Duke University), among others.
Professor Witmer-Rich’s essay evaluates several competing principles underlying consent, such as self-interest, self-sovereignty, and self-actualization. He argues that the nature of consent depends heavily on which of these underlying values consent is believed to serve. He concludes that “self-actualization–the ongoing human project of creating and embodying coherent and meaningful values and choices–is the most fundamental good of autonomy and is the good that society should seek to further in the law of consent.”
Professor Green Publishes Op-Ed on Bostock Decision
Professor Matthew W. Green Jr. published an op-ed today in Attorney-At-Law Magazine on the Supreme Court’s recent Bostock v. Clayton County decision. Bostock held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s proscription against sex discrimination encompasses claims of sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination as well.
Professor Green lauded the Court’s opinion for several reasons. Prior to Bostock, LGBTQ individuals grappling with workplace discrimination faced a patchwork of protections that depended on geographic location. Most states, like Ohio, do not protect employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Bostock provides employees such protection as long as they work for an employer that falls within the scope of Title VII. Professor Green also notes the significance of Bostock in light of Obergefell v. Hodges, which barred states from prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying. Bostock makes Obergefell even more meaningful because employees no longer have to fear being fired for exercising their constitutional right to marry.
While Bostock is momentous, Professor Green explains that because the decision is limited to employment, LGBTQ individuals continue to lack important protections in other areas, such as public accommodations. Bostock also leaves several other issues unresolved. For these and other reasons, Professor Green argues that advocates should continue to push for legislation at the federal and state levels specifically addressing issues of importance to LGBTQ individuals.
Professor Green’s op-ed can be found here: https://attorneyatlawmagazine.com/bostock-welcome-respite-ongoing-battl
Professor Green is the Professor Alan Miles Ruben and Judge Betty Willis Ruben Professor at Cleveland-Marshall.
Professor Sterio Presents at International Criminal Court Scholars’ Forum
Professor Milena Sterio participated as a panelist in the International Criminal Court Scholars’ Forum on June 29th. The ICC Scholars Forum was co-organized by Washington University School of Law, Leiden Law School, the NYU Center for Global Affairs, and the University of Illinois College of Law as a virtual conference this year. Professor Sterio presented her paper entitled “Women at the International Criminal Court.”
Professor Milena Sterio participated as a panelist on a panel entitled “The Future of a US-Sanctioned ICC” on June 29th. This panel was organized by the World Federalist Movement – Institute of Global Policy, and the other panelists included Dean Michael Scharf, Case Western Reserve University School of Law and Wes Rist, Deputy Director, American Society of International Law. Professor Sterio and other panelists discussed the recently issued Executive Order by the Trump Administration which imposes financial sanctions and visa restrictions on ICC personnel.
Professor Sterio Presents at American Society of International Law Annual Meeting
Professor Milena Sterio presented on several panels at the American Society of International Law Annual Meeting. First, she moderated a panel on June 25 on the topic of “Head of State Immunity.” This panel was organized by the International Criminal Law Interest Group at ASIL, and Professor Sterio just finished serving a three-year term as this Group’s Co-Chair, and had, in this capacity, organized this panel. Other panelists included Andrew Boyle, Brennan Center for Justice, as co-moderator, and Professor Leila Sadat, Washington University School of Law (Speaker), Professor Adil Haque, Rutgers University (Speaker), Professor Ingrid Wuerth, Vanderbilt University School of Law (Speaker), and Professor David Scheffer, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law (Speaker).
In addition, Professor Sterio spoke as a panelist on a panel on June 25 on the topic of “The Case for Self-Determination in the 21st Century.” This panel was a mock argument before a fictional International Court for Self-Determination, and Professor Sterio argued on behalf of Catalonia, arguing in favor of its proposed secession from Spain. The panel was presided by Judge James Kateka of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, who acted as mock judge, and other panelists included Professor Marc Weller, University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, Mamadou Hebie of the International Court of Justice, and Nawi Ukabiala, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.
Finally, Professor Sterio served as co-moderator of a session on June 26, organized by the Women in International Law Interest Group, of which Professor Sterio serves as Co-Chair. At this session, the Interest Group delivered the Prominent Woman in International Law Award to Judge Elizabeth Odio Benito (formerly a judge at the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, and currently judge and president of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights). During this session, Professor Sterio and her Co-Chair, Professor Nienke Grossman (University of Baltimore School of Law) engaged in a moderated conversation with Judge Odio Benito.
Witmer-Rich Op-Ed Criticizes Ohio’s Failed Bail Reform Efforts
Professor Jonathan Witmer-Rich published an op-ed today on cleveland.com, titled “Kenta Settles’ lengthy jail stay shows how Ohio bail reform has failed.” He discusses the recent case of Kenta Settles, who was attacked by Garfield Heights police officers and then held for five months in pretrial detention before being released when the police body camera footage was finally disclosed.
Witmer-Rich recounts how after Settles was arrested, the magistrate set a $250,000 bond, an amount clearly chosen to ensure Settles would be detained. Witmer-Rich criticizes the practice of detaining defendants by using money bonds without the due process that would be required for an actual detention order.
Ohio law does allow judges to order defendants detained pretrial, but only after following a detailed set of procedures to protect individuals from unnecessary detention. Witmer-Rich explains that Ohio judges routinely bypass those procedures and instead set high money bail. This is exactly what happened to Settles. Had the judge followed the procedures required for an actual detention order, there is a good chance that the body camera footage would have been disclosed immediately, rather than after five months of unncessary detention.
Witmer-Rich also criticizes a recent decision by the Ohio Rules Commission (of which he is a member) to permit Ohio judges to continue this practice of detaining defendants with money bail. He concludes, “Ohio judges must stop using money bail to detain defendants without following the procedures required to justify pretrial detention. The Ohio Legislature and the Ohio Supreme Court must end this practice.”
CSU Law Faculty 