On February 25, 2012, Professor Douglas Branson gave a presentation to the Travel Club of Seattle on “Vietnam: Past, Present and Future.” The presentation was based upon Professor Branson’s new book Three Tastes of Nuoc Mam – The Brown Water Navy and Vietnam (2012).
Monday, March 18, 2013 - 9:19pm
Monday, March 18, 2013 - 9:08pm
Professor Jules Lobel was quoted in Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle in conjunction with his oral argument before Chief Judge Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in the case of Ruiz v. Brown, a class action challenge to prolonged solitary confinement in California. Professor Lobel is lead counsel in the case. After the argument, the Judge indicated that she was going to deny defendants motion to dismiss or to stay the case with an order and decision to follow.
Read the San Francisco Chronicle article here.
Monday, March 18, 2013 - 9:01pm
Professor John Burkoff’s new, co-authored casebook, Criminal Procedure: Cases Problems and Exercises: Investigative Processes (West 2013), will be published on March 25. This softcover casebook is an adaptation from Professor Burkoff’s co-authored, hardcover casebook, Criminal Procedure: Cases Problems and Exercises (5th ed. West 2013), which will be published later this Spring. Professor Burkoff's co-authors are: Russell Weaver (Louisville), Catherine Hancock (Tulane), Janet C. Hoeffel (Tulane), Stephen Singer (Loyola-New Orleans), Steven Friedland (Elon).
For more information on the book, click here.
William Carter and David Harris Speak at the Pennsylvania Bar Association's Minority Attorney Conference
Sunday, March 17, 2013 - 9:15pm
Dean William Carter and Professor David Harris spoke at the 25th Annual Pennsylvania Bar Association's Minority Attorney Conference on March 15 in Philadelphia. Dean Carter's keynote address, "Post-Racialism and Equal Protection," addressed the Supreme Court's jurisprudence regarding affirmative action, voting rights, employment discrimination, and school desegregation. Professor Harris spoke on "Ending Racial Profiling: Perspectives for Change."
Wednesday, March 13, 2013 - 9:07pm
Professor Vivian Curran has been informed by the French Embassy that by decree of the Prime Minister of France, she has been made a "Chevalier dans l'Ordre des Palmes Academiques" in recognition of her efforts in promotion of France's language and culture in the United States.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013 - 10:18am
Professor Pat Chew, the Judge J. Quint Salmon and Anne Salmon Professor of Law, participated in a March 8, 2013 conference at University of California Berkeley around issues raised in a new book by Angela Harris, Carmen Gonzales, and others entitled "Presumed Incompetence." The book considers the experiences and challenges facing minority women in academia. Professor Chew presented on a "First Generation" panel of scholars who were pioneers in legal academia, offering some historical context to the issues. The conference was hosted by the Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law, and Justice.
For a description and more information about the conference, click here.
Monday, March 11, 2013 - 10:15am
Professor Anthony Infanti presented his work at a symposium at the University of Iowa College of Law. The symposium, called "Modern Families: Changing Families, Challenging Law," was sponsored by the Journal on Gender, Race and Justice. Professor Infanti was part of a panel on LGBT families; here is the abstract for his paper, "LGBT Families, Tax Nothings:"
The federal tax laws have never been friendly territory for LGBT families. Before the enactment of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal tax laws turned a blind eye to the existence of LGBT families by tacitly embracing state law discrimination against same-sex couples. When it enacted DOMA in 1996, Congress ensured that it would be able to continue to turn a blind eye to LGBT families even if one or more states were to legally recognize families headed by same-sex couples. In a real sense, LGBT families have been, and continue to be, tax outlaws.
This overt discrimination has not, however, proven to be an insurmountable hurdle for enterprising LBGT families wishing to obtain (at least in some measure) the same tax treatment as “traditional” families. The federal income tax laws provide tax benefits to relationships of dependency in many (though not all) of the same circumstances in which they afford benefits to married different-sex couples. These relationships of dependency are typically between the taxpayer, in the role of parent or caregiver, and a child or other person who cannot care for himself/herself. Often, the only means for same-sex couples to avoid otherwise discriminatory and burdensome tax consequences is for one spouse to qualify as the “dependent” of the other.
Despite its inevitability, dependency is stigmatized in the United States. Take, for example, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s comments regarding the “47%” (i.e., those who, he claimed, pay no income tax and are dependent on government). Against this rhetorical background, the dependency provisions in the tax laws realign “lucky” LGBT families so that we do not see a family headed by two same-sex spouses working together to care and provide for their children, but only a taxpayer who has a number of dependents that he or she must support. From this perspective, no matter how great the actual contribution of the “dependent” same-sex spouse, that contribution counts for nothing. Thus, the price imposed upon LGBT families for obtaining tax benefits that “traditional” families take for granted is a reconfiguration of the family structure that paints an inaccurate picture of LGBT families and deprecates the “dependent” spouse’s contribution to the family and society while simultaneously stigmatizing him or her.
In contrast, the marriages of different-sex spouses are both legally recognized and valued for tax purposes. No matter how great or small the financial contribution of each spouse to the marriage, the tax laws are based on the assumption that both different-sex spouses are actively contributing to the relationship (and, in turn, to society) because, by definition, a taxpayer’s different-sex spouse cannot qualify as his/her dependent. This treatment stands in stark contrast to that of LGBT families and highlights the privileging of the traditional family in and through the federal tax laws.
It is worth noting that the repeal or invalidation of the portion of DOMA that applies to the federal tax laws would not redress this disparate treatment. It would have an effect only on a subset of LGBT families—those whose relationships would be legally recognized for federal tax purposes in the absence of DOMA, which is in no way a self-defining group but instead itself a complicated question with no clear answer. The repeal or invalidation of DOMA would be of no help either to the many same-sex couples whose relationships would still not be recognized for purposes of federal law or to those couples who choose not to seek legal sanction of their relationships. In other words, this is a problem that cannot be solved simply by eliminating DOMA; it is a problem that requires a more fundamental rethinking of how the tax laws approach questions of family status.
Monday, March 11, 2013 - 10:06am
Professor David Garrow commented on the U.S. Supreme Court's likely reaction to a new wave of restrictive abortion legislation in the states. Justice Kennedy would probably be the crucial fifth vote in any abortion case that makes it to the Supreme Court, and he has always stated that the right to an abortion before fetal viability is protected. According to Professor Garrow, "Kennedy has never indicated a move away from viability."
See the article on Bloomberg News here.
Thursday, March 7, 2013 - 10:21am
Professor David Garrow will speak at a conference, "Roe at 40: What Have We Learned?" at Stanford Law School's Constitutional Law Center on March 7 and 8. Professor Garrow will present his remarks as part of a panel on "Roe v. Wade in History."
See the conference agenda here.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013 - 9:04pm
Professor Rhonda Wasserman joined an amicus brief submitted to the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor (12-307), one of the same-sex marriage cases before the Court this term. The brief provides the Court “with a more complete understanding of the history of law and policy with respect to the relationship between marriage and procreation.” It explains “that the purported justifications for the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) . . . that pertain to procreation, childrearing, and child welfare lack a ‘footing in the realities’ of the law, policy, history, or logic of marriage and do not provide a rational basis for DOMA.” The brief also demonstrates “how DOMA undermines and is inconsistent with other federal and state laws and policy regarding families and childrearing.”
Click here to read the brief.