Professor Brett Frischmann, Charles Widger Endowed University Professor in Law, Business and Economics, Villanova University, and Georgetown Law’s Paul Ohm, in their article Governance Seams, 37 Harv. J. L. & Tech. 1117 (2023-2024), develop the concept of government seams—“friction-by-design” processes of boundaries, obstacles and/or connections that create more deliberative government. The authors discuss how government seams come to exist, are designed and function.
Professor Emily Stolzenberg’s new article, Tribes, States, and Sovereigns' Interest in Children, 102 N.C. L. REV. 1093 (May 2024), uses opposition to Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) to investigate the scope of a political community's interests in children. In doing so, her analysis shows that that a community's interests can conflict with those of a child. This possibility demonstrates a need for identifying and managing such conflicts. Professor Stolzenberg proposes a framework for assessing the ICWA and other issues involved with state involvement with a child’s best interests.
Professor Michael Moreland’s chapter “Christianity and Torts,” in The Oxford Handbook of Christianity and Law, examines Christianity’s relationship with tort law, considering Christian legal thought through the lenses of instrumentalist and noninstrumentalist theories. Professor Moreland shows how a “Christian understanding” of tort law will tend toward the latter.
Professor Ana Santos Rutschman, together with Georgia State University College of Law Professor Yaniv Heled and Maryland University Francis King Carey School of Law Professor Liza Vertinsky, argue judicial and legislative approaches toward genetic issues are ill conceived. In A Theory of Genetic Dimensions in the Law, 99 Ind. L.J. 1341 (2024), the authors examine real-life cases to show how trying to force genetics into old legal boxes can overlook important concerns.
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware cited Professor Jennifer O'Hare's article, Don’t Forget the “G” In ESG: The SEC and Corporate Governance Disclosure, 64 Ariz. L. Rev. 417, 422 (2022), in Texas Pacific Land Corp. v Kinetics Horizon LLC, 2022-1066-JYL (Del. Chan. Dec. 1, 2023).
Professor Ana Santos Rutschman and co author, Duke Professor Jerome H. Reichman, contend the conventional binary approach of intellectual property rights inadequately addresses innovation falling short of patent standards. They suggest that the current system, which favors exclusivity or free competition, fails to incentivize investment in subpatentable innovation, leading to missed opportunities and stifled competition. Proposing a novel solution, they advocate for an intermediate form of protection, akin to liability rules, to balance innovation incentives without overly restricting competition, thus paving the way for a more dynamic and inclusive intellectual property regime. Read all about it in A Codified Liability Regime to Stimulate Greater Investment in Subpatentable Innovation, 57 UC DAVIS L. REV. 2027 (2024).
In the midst of ongoing debates surrounding technology competence in the legal field, there's a growing demand for bar examiners to incorporate it into the examination topics. Dean Amy Emerson’s article, A Threshold Assessment: Is Technology Among the Competencies Tested by the MPRE?, 20 St. Thomas L.J. 345 (2024), analyzes the technology competence’s significance within the current legal landscape and educational system, exploring its potential inclusion in the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (MPRE). She concludes her work with an assessment of the MPRE's technology assessment against the evolving needs of the legal profession.
Undercover journalism can be crucial toward uncovering wrongs when traditional methods of investigative reporting fall short. Despite its merit, such journalism can subject reporters to legal consequences. Professor Doris DelTosto Brogan, in her article, Truth, Lies, and Spelunking: Protecting the Investigative Reporters We Send into the Cave, 102 Or. L. Rev. 163 (2023), proposes protections for important undercover journalism, in specific circumstances, protecting journalists from minor wrongdoings like invasion of privacy or fraud, when there would be no other harm.
Professor Michael Risch, with the Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law, and Professor Lisa Tucker, with the Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of law, examine how U.S. Supreme Court, the Court has use vacatur or vacated over politically and legally significant federal court appellate opinions. Their article, Cancelling Appellate Precedent, 76 Fla. L. Rev. 175 (2024), explores this use of vacatur, presenting its history, a statistical analysis of its use, and a call for more transparency from the Court.
Professor Michael Moreland's article Friendship as the Primary Purpose of Law, 67 AM. J. JURIS. 279 (2022) in now available on Hein. Moreland celebrates Philosopher John Finnis’ revitalization of the concept of friendship in moral, political, and legal theory and explores the significance Finnis’ work on friendship for the legal profession.