Gender and economic policy

ndh5@law.georgetown.edu (Nan Hunter) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:58:15 GMT

From the Columbia's Gender and Sexuality Law blog, Katherine Franke on gender issues in the policy responses to the economic crisis:The hard work we need to do RIGHT NOW is make it clear to the Obama Administration that a serious commitment to gender equality requires that they tie the funding of road construction, school rebuilding, development of green technologies - and even the financial services industry - to non-discrimination on the basis of sex and race, but also to data collection and reporting on who is getting the money. Who...

From the Columbia's Gender and Sexuality Law blog, Katherine Franke on gender issues in the policy responses to the economic crisis:

The hard work we need to do RIGHT NOW is make it clear to the Obama Administration that a serious commitment to gender equality requires that they tie the funding of road construction, school rebuilding, development of green technologies - and even the financial services industry - to non-discrimination on the basis of sex and race, but also to data collection and reporting on who is getting the money. Who owns the companies that get stimulus funding, who gets hired by those companies,and what work they're doing.

Read the entire post here.

NY Times: Law Deans Personally Call Admitted Applicants

paul.caron@uc.edu (Paul L. Caron) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:30:29 GMT

New York Times: The Dean Is on the Line, by Victoria Goldman: "Let me be the first to congratulate you." That’s Michael J. States’s greeting to applicants after they’ve been accepted at the University of North Carolina School of Law....

Security Council Adopts Resolution on Gaza

Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:39:00 GMT

file photoLate Thursday evening, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1860. The vote was 14 in favor, with the United States abstaining. The Resolution provides:

EU study shows that aerosol pollutants have been underestimated

smiths@willamette.edu (Susan L. Smith) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:29:58 GMT

According to a recent study by Hoyle and colleagues, funded in part by the EU, levels of global secondary organic aerosol (SOA) in the Earth's atmosphere have increased by 60 per cent since pre-industrial times, suggesting that the effects of...

Ninth Circuit rejects variance based on fast-track disparity

berman.43@osu.edu (Douglas A. Berman) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:22:11 GMT

The Ninth Circuit has issued a significant ruling that rejects fast-track disparity as the basis for a variance in US v. Gonzalez-Zotelo, No. 08-50010 (9th Cir. Jan. 8, 2009) (available here). Here is how the opinion starts: The government appeals...

The Ninth Circuit has issued a significant ruling that rejects fast-track disparity as the basis for a variance in US v. Gonzalez-Zotelo, No. 08-50010 (9th Cir. Jan. 8, 2009) (available here). Here is how the opinion starts:

The government appeals the 30-month sentence the district court imposed on Juan Gonzalez-Zotelo after his conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The U.S. Attorney’s Office did not offer Gonzalez-Zotelo a fast-track plea bargain because of his prior conviction for lewd and lascivious acts with a child. The district court nonetheless gave Gonzalez-Zotelo the same sentence given earlier that day to a fast-track defendant with armed robbery priors, to promote “consistency.” Because the district court erred when it imposed a lower sentence on Gonzalez-Zotelo based solely on what it misperceived to be unwarranted sentencing disparity, we vacate the sentence and remand for re-sentencing. Under our cases, the disparity in question is indeed warranted, because it is justified by Congress’s approval of fast-track plea bargaining programs. This conclusion is not undermined by Kimbrough v. United States, which allows judges to disagree with Guidelines sentencing policy, not with congressional sentencing policy.

The Ninth Circuit opinion notes that its work in Gonzalez-Zotelo is in accord with opinions from the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits, but in tension with an opinion from the First Circuit.

Fourth Circuit finds federal sex offender civil commitment law unconstitutional

berman.43@osu.edu (Douglas A. Berman) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:12:31 GMT

As reported here at How Appealing, "a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit [Thursday] declared unconstitutional ... a federal statute intended to allow the federal government to place in indefinite civil commitment 'sexually dangerous' persons who have completed serving their federal prison sentences." Here is a snippet from the start of US v. Comstock, No. 07-7671 (4th Cir. Jan. 8, 2009) (available here):

After carefully considering the Government’s arguments, we conclude, for the reasons set forth below, that § 4248 does indeed lie beyond the scope of Congress’s authority. The Constitution does not empower the federal government to confine a person solely because of asserted "sexual dangerousness" when the Government need not allege (let alone prove) that this "dangerousness" violates any federal law.

Eugene Volokh and Ilya Somin and Corey Yung all have extended and very thoughtful comments on the Comstock ruling. I share their collective instinct that this could end up before the Supreme Court.

The angry mob coming to solve the market's problems

lribstei@gmail.com (Larry E. Ribstein) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 05:31:23 GMT

Blogging's been light while I'm at the AALS, but I had to join the chorus noting Tom Kirkendall's dissection of the Fifth Circuit's whitewash of the Skilling conviction, and Roger Parloff's reminder that the same angry mob that got Skilling is now on the prowl for a host of current financial executives. Parloff puts this into helpful perspective:

To be clear, we're not talking here about sensational, not conceivably legal, out-and-out Ponzi schemes, like the $50 billion one that former Nasdaq chairman Bernard L. Madoff has been arrested for, or brazen forgery and criminal impersonation, like the $100 million spree that glitzy New York litigator Marc S . Dreier has been accused of. Crimes like those typically have only one of two defenses: (a) "It wasn't me," or (b) "Okay, it was me, but I was sleepwalking on Ambien at the time." This article is, rather, about an entirely different category of accusation.The probes being discussed here concern statements that ultimately proved incorrect, but which reasonable, straight-faced people can, and vigorously do, contend were honest when made.

* * * To the chagrin of John Q. Public, there will be serious defenses in most of these cases. To begin with, bad business models - even business models that in retrospect look like prescriptions for disaster - are not crimes as long as they are fully disclosed to investors.

The problem is that the Skilling trial and appeal suggests that the line between crime and non-crime is even thinner than Parloff suggests. What we need is a system that protects the non-Madoffs from the mobs. What I fear is that instead of water, as the song goes, the legal system is going to bring more gasoline.

And worse, after the mob leaves, and the prosecutors have gotten their smoking guns, none of the problems will be fixed.

Blackberry As A Security Risk! Sorry I Don't Bye It

professorrubenstein@gmail.com (Mitchell H. Rubinstein ) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 05:03:01 GMT

Risky For All Executives is an interesting Jan. 5, 2009 National Law Journal article about the so called security risks posed by Blackberrys.The article notes that Blackberrys can be lost or stolen and provides: The risk from BlackBerrys is exacerbated...

Labor Unity??

professorrubenstein@gmail.com (Mitchell H. Rubinstein ) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 05:02:46 GMT

Labor Calls For Unity After Years Of Division is a very interesting Jan. 7, 2009 New York Times article by reporter Steven Greenhouse. Apparently, what sparked this was President-Elect Obama's preference for dealing with a united labor movement. As the...

Muslim Associate States Cause of Action Against Large Law Firm For Post 9-11 Discrimination

professorrubenstein@gmail.com (Mitchell H. Rubinstein ) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 05:02:17 GMT

Hasan v. Foley & Lardner, ___F.3d___(7th Cir. Dec. 15, 2008), is an interesting decision where a Muslim associate stated a cause of action for employment discrimination based upon his post 9-11 termination. Interestingly, after 9-11, this associate went of T.V....

Assistant Principal Whistleblower States 1983 Cause of Action

professorrubenstein@gmail.com (Mitchell H. Rubinstein ) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 05:01:31 GMT

Moore v. Middletown Enlarged City School Dist., ___A.D.3d___(2d Dep't. Dec. 19, 2008), is an important decision to be aware of. An Assistant Principal averred that the District retaliated against him by eliminating his position after he reported his concerns regarding...

Today at the Supreme Court | 1.9.09

jharrow@akingump.com (Jason Harrow) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 05:00:51 GMT

The Justices will hold a private conference at 10 a.m., any grants from which could be released this afternoon. To view our list of petition’s to watch at today’s conference, click here. Oral arguments will resume Monday, January 12.

Seeking guidance from a higher authority on Bible-influenced capital sentencing

berman.43@osu.edu (Douglas A. Berman) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 05:00:33 GMT

I have previously noted in prior posts how lower courts have split over the consequences of juror consideration of biblical passages during the penalty phase of a capital trial. Indeed, as noted here, nearly three years ago, Karl Keys of CDWsuggested that it is "past time time for SCOTUS action" on this issue. Now, thanks to a helpful reader, I have learned that a new cert petition (available for download below) presents the Justices with a new opportunity to take up this issue.

The new petition involves a Texas case, Oliver v. Quarterman, that has already worked its way through federal habeas. Here are the first two questions presented in the Oliver petition:

1. Does juror consultation of the Bible during sentencing deliberations deprive a defendant of his federal constitutional rights?
2.When evaluating possible prejudice to a defendant resulting from juror consultation of the Bible during sentencing deliberations, what standard of proof should apply, or should there be an irrebuttable presumption of prejudice?

Download Final Oliver Petition

Some related prior posts:

Jan Paulsson to Join UM Law Faculty

Froomkin@law.tm (Michael Froomkin) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 05:00:11 GMT

I’m very pleased to announce a major appointment by the our law school: starting next year, international arbitration scholar and arbitrator extraordinaire (and repeat University of Miami Visiting Professor) Jan Paulsson, will join our faculty as the first holder of the new Michael Klein Chair in Law. This is a big deal for us in several ways. First, Jan is globalization personified: born a Swedish national, he grew up in Africa but attended high school in California, eventually wound up at Yale Law School. He has worked primarily in Paris, most recently as the head of the Paris-based arbitration practice of one of London’s (and Europe’s) leading law firms, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. He has extensive contacts and experience in Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, and the Caribbean (and for all I know the rest of the world too). Second, Jan is arguably the leading arbitration advocate, and arbitrator, of his generation although Jan himself would be far too modest to claim any such thing. Multi-lingual, he is also an incredible multi-tasker, holding or having held many of the key jobs in the international arbitration world, including the Presidency of the London Court of International Arbitration and the World Bank...

This is a big deal for us in several ways.

First, Jan is globalization personified: born a Swedish national, he grew up in Africa but attended high school in California, eventually wound up at Yale Law School. He has worked primarily in Paris, most recently as the head of the Paris-based arbitration practice of one of London’s (and Europe’s) leading law firms, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. He has extensive contacts and experience in Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, and the Caribbean (and for all I know the rest of the world too).

Second, Jan is arguably the leading arbitration advocate, and arbitrator, of his generation although Jan himself would be far too modest to claim any such thing. Multi-lingual, he is also an incredible multi-tasker, holding or having held many of the key jobs in the international arbitration world, including the Presidency of the London Court of International Arbitration and the World Bank Administrative Tribunal while moonlighting every few years as an on-the-spot arbitrator for the Olympic Games (someone has to be on tap to decide doping challenges). He has also written very extensively in the field, authoring two scholarly books and a slew of articles, as well as editing or contributing to the major practitioner works in his field. Indeed, I’m told that when he joins us Jan will be the most-cited member of the faculty.

Third, he’s coming to Miami to head up a new institute that will focus on international arbitration, with a particular focus on Latin America. I will have more to say about this in the future, but I think there’s every reason to believe that under his leadership we should be able to build something world-class.

International arbitration is something of a poor stepchild in the US academy – we in the US are neither the primary users of it nor do we supply a particularly large share of the leading advocates (at least in private law), arbitrators, or scholars – although we do have a few domestic stars. But my sense is that US legal academics in particular do not have a visceral sense of the extent to which arbitration has come to play an essential role in the settlement of international commercial and financial disputes. (This may be because we have a reasonably functional domestic legal system or because historically so much of our trade was domestic.)

At UM we already have a healthy international arbitration curriculum, but bringing Jan Paulsson to Miami as the head of a new center will put us in the first rank of the US institutions focused on this increasingly important area of transnational law. Starting next year we will be offering an LL.M. concentration in arbitration as part of our comparative and international LL.M programs.

But to top it all, it turns out that Jan Paulsson is a very nice person – so when I say it’s going to be a pleasure to have him on our faculty, that’s no formality.

Formality can, however, be found below, where I quote the official announcement being issued by the law school today.

Uuniversity of Miami School of Law Appoints Jan Paulsson to Distinguished Chair: Expert in International Law to Launch School’s New Arbitration Institute

CORAL GABLES, FL (January 9, 2009) - The University of Miami School of Law today announced the appointment of Jan Paulsson to the Michael Klein Distinguished Scholar Chair beginning in the academic year 2009-10. Paulsson is head of the public international law and international arbitration groups at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, and has had his professional base in Paris for 30 years. He is currently also the president of both the London Court of International Arbitration and the World Bank Administrative Tribunal.

In his post, Paulsson will head a newly established institute for international arbitration at the University of Miami School of Law, that will include an enhanced international curriculum, LL.M. specializations, training, and CLE programs.

“We are very excited that Jan Paulsson, one of the world’s leading experts on international arbitration, is joining our faculty,” said UM President Donna E. Shalala. “With his leadership, the University of Miami School of Law will be prominently positioned as an important center for the study of international law.”

“Jan is a fascinating combination of academic intellectual and powerful practitioner, who in many ways mirrors the strengths of the person whose chair he will hold - Michael Klein, distinguished UM Law alumnus and former partner of Wilmer Cutler Pickering LLP,” said Acting Dean Paul Verkuil. “We are lucky to have him.”

The school will benefit from Paulsson’s expertise as counsel or arbitrator in over 500 arbitrations in Europe, Asia, the United States and Africa. He has also acted before a great variety of international tribunals, including the International Court of Justice and the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes.

“Knowing Jan for over 20 years as an opponent, a scholar, a teacher, an author and a leader in the field of international arbitration, he is a brilliant advocate, an extraordinary and principled arbitrator and truly one of the leading stars in the international community in terms of substance and ability,” said American Bar Association President-Elect and UM Law alumna Carolyn B. Lamm. “I am certain his scholarship and stature will enable the Law School to establish a pre-eminent Latin American arbitration program.”

Mr. Paulsson holds an A.B. from Harvard University, a J.D. from Yale Law School and a Diplome d’études superieures spécialisées from the University of Paris. His many scholarly publications include the books Denial of Justice in International Arbitration published by Cambridge University Press and (forthcoming) The Idea of Arbitration to be published by Oxford University Press.

Media Contact:
Elizabeth Amore
305-284-6266
eamore@miami.edu

On January 9

Fri, 09 Jan 2009 05:00:00 GMT

On this day in ...
... 1961, Emily Greene Balch died at a nursing home in Cambridge, Massachusetts, 94 years + 1 day after she'd been born into an affluent family in Boston. Her New York Times obituary succinctly told the life story of this American academic/activist/social worker/economist:

Miss Balch lost her college teaching job because she was an outspoken pacifist.
Some years later she won the Nobel Peace Prize for the same reason.

Balch (above right), whose biography marking her 1946 Nobel is here, is the transnational foremother of IntLawGrrls' guest/alumna Chimène Keitner. Balch's IntLawGrrls profile is here. (photo credit)
... 1951, the New York Times reported:

The United Nations today opened the press headquarters at its international enclave on the East River. Simultaneously correspondents filed their first dispatches under the dateline 'United Nations, N.Y.'

Reporters were expected to divide their time between the new building and Lake Success, where U.N. sessions were expected to continue pending full opening of the Manhattan headquarters (left), set for July 1 of the same year.

Fri, 09 Jan 2009 04:47:32 GMT

In response to the Obama transition team, union leaders have decided that a united front is better than the split that resulted with the development of Change to Win. Stephen Greenhouse of the New York Times reports that the unions...

The Great OLC Document Dump of 2009

nsablog@gmail.com (David Glazier) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 04:41:51 GMT

Courtesy of a colleague in the know, I came across this website, where DOJ has today posted a whole bunch of heretofore classified or otherwise undisclosed OLC opinions about lots of interesting war-on-terror and war-in-Iraq stuff, including the original November 2001 memo defending the constitutionality of military commissions, the controversial Goldsmith memo on the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention in Iraq, and a host of other goodies.

And twenty minutes before the AALS Prawfs (et al.) Happy Hour, to boot!

Lots of food for fodder, methinks.

The Great OLC Document Dump of 2009

phorwitz@law.ua.edu (Paul Horwitz) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 04:40:09 GMT

Courtesy of a colleague in the know, I came across this website, where DOJ has today posted a whole bunch of heretofore classified or otherwise undisclosed OLC opinions about lots of interesting war-on-terror and war-in-Iraq stuff, including the original November 2001 memo defending the constitutionality of military commissions, the controversial Goldsmith memo on the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention in Iraq, and a host of other goodies.And twenty minutes before the AALS Prawfs (et al.) Happy Hour, to boot!Lots of food for fodder, methinks.

And twenty minutes before the AALS Prawfs (et al.) Happy Hour, to boot!

Lots of food for fodder, methinks.

Why I Think Presidents Can Be Impeached Even After Leaving Office

daniel.solove@gmail.com (Cornell Law Review Editor) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 04:31:05 GMT

A while back, I discussed the potential to impeach a president after he has left office. In my prior post, I concentrated on the practical questions—what factors would have to be in place before Congress would reach the unlikely stage of wanting to impeach an ex-president? The bottom line was that late impeachment is pretty unlikely, but not unimaginable.

In this post, I will concentrate on the legal argument for late impeachability. I will devote rather less space to the argument against it. Both arguments have much to commend them, and they are fleshed out (in excruciating detail) in an article that I published a few years ago, as well as a chapter in the book I am writing. As before, I am not suggesting that President Bush, Clinton, Bush, or Carter be impeached and tried—just that if Congress wanted to do so, they could.

In Article II, Section 4, the Constitution specifies that any civil officer of the United States must be removed from office upon impeachment and conviction for high crimes and misdemeanors. Critics of late impeachability take this to mean that a person must be removable to be impeachable. It's a fair reading of the text, but a cleaner reading is that this clause only means to specify the penalty for sitting officers who are convicted. Under this reading, the clause does not limit Congress's impeachment powers (which anyway are specified elsewhere, in Article I) to cases involving sitting officers.

Opponents of late impeachability often respond to this by saying that if Article II isn't a limit on impeachment, it must mean that anybody can be impeached for anything. While it might be tempting to lobby Congress to impeach Bernie Madoff, though, this is not what impeachment is all about. The history of impeachment in England and America suggest that impeachment is concerned with public offenses by public officials; offenses "which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political," as Alexander Hamilton put it in the Federalist Papers.

In other words, it is the nature of the offense, not the timing of the trial, that distinguishes impeachment. Only officers can commit impeachable offenses. If they commit such offenses, but leave office before Congress can finish the case, that doesn't change the public nature of the offenses, or the appropriateness of having Congress as a forum to pursue them.

Thus, the true interpretive conflict is not between those who would impeach only sitting officers and those who would impeach everyone in the world. Rather, it is between those who see impeachment as protecting the office from the bad guy (which makes removal the key and makes late impeachment pointless) and those who see impeachment as the process for dealing with official misconduct qua official misconduct (which makes removal obviously important, but not the only basis for proceeding).

The Constitution provides for mandatory removal of sitting officers, but it also allows for another punishment: disqualification from holding future federal office. The presence of this other possibility not only makes late impeachment more likely to be worthwhile, it also provides some structural evidence in favor of late impeachability. If someone could avoid disqualification simply by resigning from office—perhaps five minutes before he knows the Senate will vote to convict him—then it would be pointless for the Constitution to have provided the penalty.

Allowing resignations to destroy Congress's jurisdiction would also make a mockery of impeachment's intended role as a form of congressional oversight. Consider that the president cannot preempt the impeachment of his subordinates by pardoning them; the Constitution makes that limit clear. This limit stems from a British case in which the king pardoned one of his ministers (Danby) to prevent Parliament from impeaching—and thereby investigating—the king himself. But if a president is restricted from pardoning away an impeachment, it would certainly be odd if he could preempt an impeachment simply by firing the official in question (and potentially rehiring him immediately onto the White House staff, or some other position that does not require Senate confirmation). Presidents are prickly about submitting to congressional jurisdiction for ordinary investigations, but there is no question that impeachment strips such protections away in a unique manner. Structurally, it makes little sense to say that a president facing impeachment could thumb his nose at congressional oversight simply by resigning, or by committing offenses near enough to the end of his term.

There is also historical evidence to support late impeachability. British precedent loomed large at the Constitutional Convention. At the same time that the Constitution was being drafted and debated, the British were impeaching and trying Warren Hastings, a former governor-general of India. It was a high-profile case, and the Americans drafting the impeachment clauses were aware of it. Impeachment was rare in Britain, and the only other case that century had, like Hastings's, been a late impeachment. American state impeachment practice differed in important ways from the British tradition (significantly, some states not only allowed but actually required late impeachment), but the British influence was clear. The Constitution places several specific limits on impeachment in a conscious attempt to depart from British practice. However, late impeachment—an obvious, significant part of British practice—was left untouched in the text.

In the decades that followed, late impeachment was in the air. John C. Calhoun and ex-President John Quincy Adams both proclaimed themselves susceptible to it. President Grant's corrupt secretary of war, William Belknap, was impeached despite having resigned just prior to the House vote. The House went ahead anyway, and the Senate debated late impeachability for weeks. The debate covered dozens of arguments from the text, history, and structure of the Constitution that I discuss in my article. Eventually, the Senate decided by a majority vote that it had jurisdiction over former officers and the trial went on. Fortunately for Belknap, there were enough opponents of late impeachability that his pursuers failed to attain the two-thirds vote needed to convict him. The vote was close, though, and the result is a precedent for the notion that people can be impeached and tried after leaving office, even if it is hard to convict them.

Since Belknap's case, Congress has dropped case after case—for practical reasons—after the offender resigned. Even as it has done so, however, it has been careful to expressly reserve its power of late impeachment. In these matters, Congress is saying only that these men should not be impeached, not that they could not be.

Would the Supreme Court rule on a challenge to a late impeachment, or would they declare it a non-justiciable "political question"? It depends. That question could fill a whole other post. Suffice it to say that while the Court would defer to Congress here (and while I would vote that way were I on the Court for some reason), there is plenty of room for the Court to declare that Congress had overstepped its bounds, and that a late impeachment is not an "impeachment" within the meaning of the Constitution.

It is unlikely that an ex-president's opponents in Congress would have large enough majorities to convict a president. If the new president doesn't want to prosecute the old one, odds are pretty good that the old president has the support of either a majority in the House or one-third of the Senate too. (Interestingly, the only time in American history in which the party opposing the president had a House majority and a two-thirds Senate majority was during the presidency of Andrew Johnson; it is no coincidence that he was impeached and nearly convicted.)

It is hard enough to get two-thirds of the Senate to support conviction. Once you subtract the votes of the people who think that late impeachment is unconstitutional, it could become impossible. As I discussed in a previous post, several factors would have to line up just right for a late impeachment to go forward. Still, there is a strong case to be made that in the right circumstances, Congress can impeach and try an ex-president.

Hope for the FLRA?

Fri, 09 Jan 2009 04:24:13 GMT

As most readers are aware, the FLRA is the oft-forgotten cousin of the NLRB. The agency has had a particularly tough time during the current administration, with morale low and serious underfunding. The Washington Post, however, has an article that...

Recent Articles in Law Professor Blogs from LexMonitor

Gender and economic policy

NY Times: Law Deans Personally Call Admitted Applicants

Security Council Adopts Resolution on Gaza

EU study shows that aerosol pollutants have been underestimated

Ninth Circuit rejects variance based on fast-track disparity

Fourth Circuit finds federal sex offender civil commitment law unconstitutional

The angry mob coming to solve the market's problems

Blackberry As A Security Risk! Sorry I Don't Bye It

Labor Unity??

Muslim Associate States Cause of Action Against Large Law Firm For Post 9-11 Discrimination

Assistant Principal Whistleblower States 1983 Cause of Action

Today at the Supreme Court | 1.9.09

Seeking guidance from a higher authority on Bible-influenced capital sentencing

Jan Paulsson to Join UM Law Faculty

On January 9

The Great OLC Document Dump of 2009

The Great OLC Document Dump of 2009

Why I Think Presidents Can Be Impeached Even After Leaving Office

Hope for the FLRA?