On October 16, 2017, Professor Kevin O’Neill joined U.S. District Court Judge Dan Aaron Polster as co-presenters at a CLE seminar on First Amendment law hosted by the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association. The seminar, entitled “Politics on Social Media: First Amendment Implications,” focused on the use and abuse of social media by American politicians. Though more and more elected officials are using Twitter, Facebook, and other social media to communicate with their constituents, some politicians are blocking or censoring constituents who respond with criticism. The seminar reviewed and analyzed recent cases in which politicians were sued after trying to suppress criticism on social media, including a suit against President Trump for blocking some antagonistic Twitter followers.

On October 13, 2017, at an appellate practice CLE seminar staged in the Moot Court Room at Cleveland-Marshall, Professors Jonathan Witmer-Rich and Kevin O’Neill gave a presentation entitled, “Ethical Pitfalls: Discovery Abuse and Spoliation of Evidence.”

Professor and Associate Dean Milena Sterio was interviewed by the BBC World Service on October 11, on the issue of the Catalan independence referendum and declaration of independence.  Professor Sterio had blogged about this issue on iCONnect blog and on Intlawgrrls.  Her interview was featured as part of a news-hour program entitled “Top UN Official in Myanmar Recalled,” starting at minute 30.

Professor and Associate Dean Milena Sterio published a blog post on I-CONnect, an academic blog of the International Journal of Constitutional Law, on the topic of “Catalonia: Is There a ‘Right” to Secession?” Professor Sterio’s post, available here, is part of a on online symposium organized by I-CONnect on the issue of Catalan independence.

Professors Browne Lewis, Alan Weinstein, Doron Kalir, Stephen Lazarus, and Kevin O’Neill presented on October 2, as part of the Cleveland-Marshall faculty lunch presentation series, on the topic of “Recent Supreme Court Cases.”

Professor Lewis reviewed Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a case about reproductive rights in which the Supreme Court struck down a newly-imposed Texas regulation on abortion providers.

Professor Weinstein discussed Murr v. Wisconsin, a case in which the Supreme Court announced a new test for determining the “relevant parcel” for a takings claim.

Professor Lazarus reviewed Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, which held that state rule of evidence 606(b) (patterned on the same-numbered federal rule) was unconstitutional under the 6th’s and the 14th Amendment’s right to a jury trial.   

Professor Kalir discussed United States v. Lee, a “crimmigration” case in which the Supreme Court clarified the rights of a non-citizen in a criminal case (where the admission of guilt by a non-citizen may lead to deportation).

Professor O’Neill reviewed Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017), where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of trademark registration for “The Slants,” an Asian-American rock band, striking down the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act as facially invalid under the Speech Clause of the First Amendment. 

On October 2, Professor Doron Kalir Presented on the issue of “should we support a right to counsel for immigrants facing deportation?” The presentation was to the Board of the Anti-Defamation League of Cleveland, as well as its Civil Rights Committee. Professor Kalir opined that, despite the logistical and financial hardships involved in such a task, a right to counsel in deportation proceedings is warranted and should be supported. He also admitted, however, that under current circumstances, the likelihood of such an initiative to succeed is extremely low. Professor Kalir is a member of the ADL Cleveland’s Board.

Professor and Associate Dean Milena Sterio published a blog post on Intlawgrrls entitled “Catalan Independence Referendum and the Kosovo ‘Precedent.'” In this blog post, Professor Sterio discusses the recent Catalan independence referendum and analyzes it within the context of international law, and within the context of other secession, such as the one in Kosovo in 2008.  The post is available here.

Retired Cleveland-Marshall College of Law Professor and Co-Founder of the Center for Cybersecurity and Privacy Protection, Candice Hoke, was recently quoted in a story published on Huffington Post entitled “States Accuse DHS of Giving Them Bad Information About Russian Hacking.”  According to Professor Hoke, “[t]he key point here is that hackers are quite knowledgeable about network configuration blunders that allow access to a sought system or resource — like election operations — via a less valuable asset that is internet facing or less well defended,” and “[u]nquestionably, hackers will attempt to gain access to election and other mission critical governmental systems through systems having no connection to elections. They often are simply exploring to see what’s possible, what network architecture mistakes can be exploited.”

On September 29, 2017, Professor Kevin O’Neill hosted and judged a mock oral argument in a First Amendment public employee speech retaliation case to be heard one week hence by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati. The lawyer arguing the case was C|M|Law alumna Michelle Sheehan, a partner at Reminger, and she was very capably opposed by 3L Aaren Host of our Moot Court Team, who presented the plaintiff’s arguments. Joining Professor O’Neill as judges were Reminger partners Holly Wilson and Brian Sullivan. Attending the argument were Ms. Sheehan’s clients, Tim Dobeck and Tim Miller of the City of Parma’s Law Department. The argument was conducted at Cleveland-Marshall in the Trial Court Room.