Heidi Gorovitz Robertson, Steven W. Percy Distinguished Professor of Law, wrote a Letter to the Editor entitled “Fracking not as safe for water supply as EPA study claims,” which was published by the Plain Dealer in its June 11th edition. A copy of the letter is available here.
Professor Lewis Presents at Health Law Professors’ Conference at St. Louis University School of Law
Leon M. and Gloria Plevin Professor of Law Browne Lewis participated in a panel discussion on reproductive technology at the Health Law Professors’ Conference held at Saint Louis University School of Law. Professor Lewis’ presentation dealt with the adverse impacts the lack of regulation of assisted reproductive technology has on women and children. In particular, Professor Lewis discussed the use of human oocyte cryopreservation (HOC).
In 2012, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine ASRM declared that HOC should no longer be considered to be experimental. Thus, that new reproductive technology provides a viable option for women seeking to preserve their fertility. Women who want to focus on their careers or those who have not let met “Mr. Right” may choose to have their oocytes frozen, so that they can defer motherhood. Other women are forced to have their oocytes frozen when faced with potential infertility as a consequence of medical treatment or military service. Women, men, and children may benefit from a technology that permits women to pause their biological clocks. If women do not have to worry about potentially becoming infertile, they can postpone motherhood until they are ready to parent. Unplanned pregnancies and infertility also negatively impact men. The availability of HOC will serve the best interests of children by permitting them to be born to parents who want them and who are able to care for them. Persons oppose to the use of HOC are concerned about the safety of the woman, the oocyte and the resulting child. Based upon the low percentage of live births resulting from the use of cryopreserved oocytes, opponents also argue that it is unethical to give women false hope. Those persons advocate banning the use of HOC or limiting it to use by women who are of child-bearing age. However, bans or strict restraints on the availability of HOC may infringe on a woman’s reproductive freedom and violate her right to be treated the same as a similarly situated man.
Professor Witmer-Rich Quoted in National Media Regarding Tamir Rice Case
Professor Jonathan Witmer-Rich was quoted in various national and local media outlets regarding a Cleveland Municipal Judge’s decision to find probable cause supporting various charges against the police officers involved in the Tamir Rice shooting, and the investigation report from the Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s Office. He was quoted on NPR’s Morning Edition, Yahoo news, and News Channel 5.
Professor Kalir Delivers Lecture on Professionalism at CLE Seminar
On Saturday, June 6, Clinical Professor of Law Doron Kalir delivered a lecture to new attorneys on Professionalism. The lecture was part of the Continuing Legal Education Series hosted by Cleveland-Marshall Alumni Association in partnership with the Federal Bar Association. It focused on the four groups of stake holders with which new attorneys are likely to communicate: clients, supervisors, the court, and opposing counsel.
Sagers Quoted in New York Times in Airlines
Chris Sagers, the James A. Thomas Distinguished Professor of Law, was quoted in James Stewart’s “Common Sense” column this week in the New York Times. Stewart questioned statements made at an airline trade association last week, and how they might relate to continued high fares and record high industry profits following the merger of American Airlines and US Airways in 2013. He sought Sagers’ views on the antitrust implications of the executives’ statements and the industry’s conduct overall.
The article is available online here.
Professor Daiker-Middaugh Joins Inns of Court for 2015-16
Clinical Professor Pamela Daiker-Middaugh was invited to join the American Inns of Court for 2015-2016. The Inn is a group of judges and lawyers that meets once a month at the City Club of Cleveland, with the goal of fostering excellence in professionalism, ethics, civility, and legal skills. Professor Daiker-Middaugh’s invitation letter is available below:
Professor Sterio Publishes Post on Maritime Piracy: Are Sea Shepherds Pirates?
Sea Shepherds Engaging a Japanese Whaling Vessel
Professor and Associate Dean Milena Sterio published a blog post on Communis Hostis Omnium, an academic blog dedicated to a discussion of maritime piracy legal issues, entitled “Are Sea Shepherds Pirates? The United States Supreme Court May Decide Soon.” In this post, Professor Sterio discusses a recent petition for a writ of certiorari, filed by Sea Shepherds, a marine conservationist not-for-profit organization, asking the Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit decision and injunction.
The Ninth Circuit had issued an injunction sua sponte against Sea Shepherds, prohibiting them from approaching Japanese whaling vessels and from engaging in any violent activity against such vessels in the Pacific Ocean. The Ninth Circuit had determined, in this case, that Sea Shepherds were pirates under international treaty law (because they engage in violent activities on the high seas committed for private ends), and that because of the piracy categorization, the United States’ courts could exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction necessary to support the enforcement of this overseas injunction under the so-called Alien Tort Statute. The piracy categorization is problematic in this case, because it is unclear under international law whether private parties, such as Sea Shepherds, acting for non-pecuniary goals, are truly acting for private ends (does private ends imply that parties are acting for truly private goals, such as robbery/pecuniary gain?) and what level of violence is necessary to support a finding of piracy (do acts such as ramming whaling vessels, which are mildly violent yet fall short of more violent acts of “traditional” piracy, such as robbery/murder/setting vessels on fire, suffice for a finding of piracy?). Professor Sterio’s post explores these issues in the context of the above-mentioned petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Sea Shepherds and their attorneys.
Professor Robertson’s Article on House Bill 8 Published by Crain’s Cleveland Business
Heidi Gorovitz Robertson, Steven W. Percy Distinguished Professor of Law at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law and Professor of Environmental Studies with the Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs, wrote an article for Crain’s Cleveland Business entitled “Proposed law may saddle cities and towns with unwelcome costs and ugly well sites.” Professor Robertson’s article is available on Crain’s website here. In this article, Professor Robertson discusses several issues of concern regarding House Bill 8, which, if passed, would amend Ohio’s laws on unitization.
Professor Mead Takes on Pro Bono Matter in Cooperation with ACLU of Ohio
Assistant Professor Joseph Mead recently sent a letter to Youngstown City Council threatening a lawsuit if the City does not repeal a citywide ban on “begging.” The letter points out that the apparent scope of the law prohibits all charitable requests of any sort anywhere in the city, although it appears that the law is being selectively enforced only against individuals perceived as poor. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has already held that bans on begging violate the First Amendment. In the letter, available here, Professor Mead explained: “Freedom of speech belongs to the rich and the poor alike, and applies whether the community finds the speech or the speaker to be agreeable or not. No one is required to donate to charity or to individuals, but by allowing all voices into the marketplace of ideas, the First Amendment entrusts citizens—not their government—with the choice to decide which causes to heed and which requests to answer.”
Professor Mead has given two media interviews regarding this case: one to WKSU (available here) and another to the Youngstown Vindicator (available here). Most recently, according to press reports, Youngstown has already stopped enforcing this “begging” law.
In a forthcoming article in the Ohio State Law Journal’s online supplement (“First Amendment Protection of Charitable Speech”), Professor Mead explains the First Amendment problems with ordinances that restrict requests for charity (including charitable solicitation, panhandling, and begging), pointing out defects in laws found in Akron, Dayton, and other places in Ohio and across the country. Professor Mead holds a joint appointment as Assistant Professor of Nonprofit Management and Public Administration in the Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs and at the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, and is handling this matter pro bono in cooperation with the ACLU of Ohio.
Professor Mead’s Articles Forthcoming in Administrative Law Review, Pittsburgh Law Review, and Ohio State Law Journal Furthermore
Professor Joseph Mead, who holds a joint appointment at the Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs and the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, has three law review articles slated for publication.
“Choosing a Court to Review the Executive” (with N. Fromherz) is forthcoming in the Administrative Law Review; this article is available here.
“Courts, Constituencies, and Nonprofit Corporations: Enforcement of Fiduciary Duties in the Nonprofit Sector” (with M. Pollack) is forthcoming in the Pittsburgh Law Review; this article is available here.
“First Amendment Protection of Charitable Speech” is forthcoming in the Ohio State Law Journal Furthermore.
CSU Law Faculty 