Chris Sagers, the James A. Thomas Professor of Law, made several recent appearances in academic symposia, podcasts, and the media.

He presented his views at a symposium of the George Mason Law Review entitled “Tech Platform Cases: Sound Enforcement, Politics, or Both?”, in which panelists discussed the flurry of recent U.S. and European antitrust actions against Big Tech platform firms.  And he appeared on a symposium sponsored by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and the University of Kentucky College of Law, entitled Inframarginalism & Internet, organized to consider problems of wealth, power, and digital markets. Presenting on a panel called “The Meaning and Control of Bigness,” Sagers discussed a famous lawsuit against the Apple computer corporation, that happened to be the topic of his book United States v. Apple: Competition in America. 

He was featured on an episode of “Cybersecurity and Data Privacy: The New Frontier,” a new podcast of the American Bar Association, hosted by Jordan Fischer of the law firm Beckage and Drexel University School of Law. He discussed online data privacy and its significance as a problem in competition policy, and whether antitrust enforcement could be a solution to problems it poses. He also appears in an upcoming episode of the Mike Meltser Podcast with the prominent sports broadcaster Mike Meltser, to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court’s pending consideration of an antitrust case involving amateur athletics, called NCAA v. Alston.

Sagers also published the essay “A Proposed Pro-Labor Step for Antitrust” in Competition Policy International, with Russell Pittman, an economist at the U.S. Justice Department, and spoke with the National Journal about the opening of a new round of House Judiciary Committee hearings on antitrust reform legislation.

Professor Milena Sterio moderated an expert roundtable discussion on “Human Rights Documentation: An Insider’s View” on Feb. 26th. The expert roundtable was hosted by the Public International Law and Policy Group. A recording of the discussion is available here: Expert Roundtable: An Insider’s View of Human Rights Documentation — PILPG (publicinternationallawandpolicygroup.org)

Professor Milena Sterio is contributing a chapter to The Routledge Handbook on Self-Determination and Secession. The handbook will be published by Routledge in late 2021. Professor Sterio’s chapter focuses on the theoretical underpinnings of the legal principle of self-determination.

In addition, Professor Milena Sterio will serve as co-author of the third edition of the Wolters/Kluwer “Examples and Explanations: International Law” publication.  The third edition of this publication is expected at the end of 2021.  

Professor Michael Borden was recently appointed by Chief Judge Patricia Gaughan to serve on the Northern District of Ohio’s Advisory Group, a committee of attorneys who advise the court on various matters, including changes to the court’s Local Rules.  Professor Borden Chairs the Advisory Group’s ADR Committee.

Professor Christa Laser is one of the founding “Masters of the Bench” for the newly-created Kathleen M. O’Malley Inn of Court, a new Inn based in Cleveland focused on Intellectual Property issues and practice.  The Inn is named after the Honorable Kathleen M. O’Malley, who started her judicial career as a judge on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, in Cleveland, and now serves as one of the twelve active Circuit Judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  The Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over most federal appeals involving intellectual property claims, among other areas of law.

Professor Christa Laser is presenting her work-in-progress article, “Rethinking Federal Circuit Exclusive Jurisdiction in Patent Law,” at two upcoming events. On February 19, she will present the paper at the 2021 Works-In-Progress Intellectual Property Conference. On February 24, she will present the paper at a Temple University seminar hosted by Professor Paul Gugliuzza.

Professor Doron Kalir has published an op-ed on Cleveland.com titled, “Stop calling it a ‘trial.’ Senate impeachment proceedings had no resemblance to one.” Professor Kalir points out many striking differences between the Senate impeachment proceedings and an ordinary legal trial. He notes that the many of the “jurors” were either victims of or witnesses to the attack. In addition, some of those supposedly neutral jurors actively met with the defense team during the trial–and others made a public display of disregarding the evidence as it was presented. Several Senators announced their decision before the “trial” even began.

Finally, Professor Kalir calls out “the most ostentatious” departure from a real trial, the conduct of Senator Mitch McConnell. Professor Kalir explains that Senator McConnell took two remarkable steps that would be unheard of in an ordinary trial: he first delayed the trial so that it would not start until after President Trump was no longer in office, and he then relied on that very fact as a reason to vote against conviction.

Professor Kalir concludes, “please, stop calling it a ‘trial.’ It is demeaning to the very concept of a legal proceeding. Instead, just call it a GOP free-for-all. This would be a much more appropriate description.”

Professor Reginald Oh has published two op-eds on Demcast.

The first is titled “The Constitutionality of Convicting a Former President for High Crimes,” and argues that the Senate has the authority to convict a former president. He concludes, “Ultimately, whether the Senate acquits or convicts Trump, they should do so on the merits, not on jurisdictional grounds. The Constitution demands it.”

The second op-ed is titled “The Postmaster General is Unconstitutional,” and argues that the current process for appointment of the postmaster general is unconstitutional, because this office should be viewed as “a principal officer.” As such, Professor Oh explains, “the only person who has the power to appoint him is the president,” and the “[t]he statute authorizing the Board of Governors to appoint the Postmaster General . . . violates the Appointment Clause.”

On Feb. 15, 2021, Business Insider published a piece discussing the possible application of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment on former President Trump. In the interview, Professor Kalir discussed the historical, political, and legal background of Section 3.

Section 3 provides that “No person” may hold “any office” in the United States (or any state) if, having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution, they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States, or gave “aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”  

Professor Kalir opined that invoking the section today — more than a century after it was last applied — in an attempt to prevent a person from running to the office of President of the United States may raise several significant legal issues — including constitutional text, separation of powers, and precedent.

Professor Milena Sterio published a blog post on Opinio Juris, on the topic of “Civil Society Documentation Efforts: Working Together to Identify and Find Solutions” (co-authored with Dr. Brianne McGonigle Leyh, Utrecht University, and Dr. Gregory Noone, Fairmont State University).  The post discusses human rights documentation efforts led by civil society organizations, as well as the recent Public International Law and Policy Human Rights Documentation Report, which Professor Sterio and her co-authors have contributed toward.  The blog post is available here: http://opiniojuris.org/2021/02/09/civil-society-documentation-efforts-working-together-to-identify-and-find-solutions/