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.

The Florida International University (FIU) Law School recently hosted the third “Law vs. Antisemitism” conference. Over two days, scholars from around the country – and a variety of disciplines – introduced their ideas on how to fight the rising tide of antisemitism with legal means.

Professor Doron Kalir’s presentation, “The Rise of White Christian Nationalism & Antisemitism: A True Threat,” examined the nexus between antisemitism and White Christian Nationalism, particularly highlighting post-Charlottesville antisemitic rhetoric. While content-based regulation of speech is, of course, forbidden, the Supreme Court has recently reframed the three most important exceptions to that rule (See Counterman v. Colorado (2023)).

The three exceptions are: (1) Incitement to an imminent lawless action – which, Kalir’s paper argues, should be resuscitated in the wake of that march; (2) defamation – which has received much legal attention in the wake of the $750M defamation settlement against Fox News, and therefore could be potentially used effectively against antisemitic statements; (3) and finally, and most importantly, the legal notion of a “true threat” – which, as the Supreme Court clarified, could be speech uttered both in real life and on social media. That, perhaps, could signal the direction of future defense against antisemitism statements online.

Professor Milena Sterio was recently quoted in a PassBlue news article titled “Ukraine Warns the World: It’s Now or Never for Prosecuting Putin.” Within the article, Professor Sterio offers insights into the current status of efforts to establish an aggression tribunal for Ukraine.

Most notably, Professor Sterio explains that if a court were to prosecute Putin or Lavrov for aggression while they are in office, such a court would have to be international in order to get over this principle of head of state immunity.

The full article is available here: https://www.passblue.com/2024/02/21/ukraine-warns-the-world-its-now-or-never-for-prosecuting-putin

Professor Milena Sterio was recently quoted in an AFP news article titled “Conservative websites, commentator, misrepresent WEF panel on ecocide.” In the article, Professor Sterio stated “If we are talking about individuals located in the US, and if their ‘crimes’ were committed in the US, then the ICC would not have jurisdiction at all,” said Milena Sterio, an international law professor at Cleveland State University in the state of Ohio.”

The full article is available here: https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.34HC7GU

On February 14th, Professor Milena Sterio delivered a presentation at the International Criminal Law Forum, hosted by several Ukrainian organizations, focusing on “The Treatment of Prisoners of War (POWs) in Accordance with International Humanitarian Law.” The event was held in Kyiv, Ukraine, with Professor Sterio joining remotely.

Professor Milena Sterio recently presented at a conference at Florida International University Law School in Miami, FL, on the topic of “Prosecuting the Crime of Gender Persecution at the ICC” on February 2, 2024. Her presentation was part of FIU Law School’s Symposium entitled “Perspectives on the International Criminal Court and International Criminal Procedure: A Symposium in Memory of Megan Fairlie.”  Additionally, Professor Sterio will author a law review article on the same topic, which will be published by FIU Law Review.

Professor Milena Sterio participated as a panelist in an upcoming episode of the “Talking Foreign Policy” radio show, discussing the topic of “Ukraine Endgame.” The episode will behosted by Dean Michael Scharf from the CWRU School of Law, and other panelists included Daniel Bilak, Partner at Kinstellaw Law Firm in Kyiv, Ukraine; Kevin Nealer, former State Department official; Major General (retired) Darrell Guthrie; and Professor Paul Williams from American University Washington College of Law.

The episode is scheduled to air live on WCPN on Tuesday, Feb. 20, from 9:00 am to 10:00 am and from 9:00 pm to 10:00 pm, with on-demand access available on www.ideastream.org

On Feb. 7, Business Insider interviewed several legal experts about the impending Supreme Court case relating to Clause 3 of the 14th Amendment, also known as the Insurrection Clause. Last year, the Colorado Supreme Court held that former President Trump is disqualified from appearing on the ballot in light of that Clause. Trump appealed, and the Supreme Court heard oral argument on Feb. 8, 2024. In the article, Professor Kalir predicted that the Court will reverse the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court, and will allow the former President to appear on the ballot.

Access the full article here: https://www.businessinsider.com/everything-need-know-trump-supreme-court-colorado-ballot-case-2024-2