Washington and Lee Law professor Christopher Seaman was interviewed recently by Law360. Professor Seaman, along with David S. Levine, Elon University and Sharon Sandeen, Hamline University discuss their arguments against passing the Trade Secrets Protection Act (in the U.S. House of Representatives) or the Defend Trade Secrets Act (in the U.S. Senate.)
Read the full article here.
Read Professor Seaman’s study The Case Against Federalizing Trade Secrecy here.
Washington and Lee Law professor David Baluarte is presenting this week at The Hague, the Netherlands at the first Global Forum on Statelessness. The three-day event is co-hosted by UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Statelessness Programme of Tilburg University. The program contains presentations and discussion on three major themes: Stateless Children, Statelessness and Security, and Responses to Statelessness.
Professor Baluarte will speak at two presentations:
“Denationalization as Persecution in the United States”
This presentation will provide an overview of the situation of stateless asylum seekers in the United States and specifically explore the question of whether deprivation of nationality qualifies as persecution under US asylum law. This presentation will unfold in three parts. First, the presentation will describe the legal limbo that stateless persons in the United States often occupy, and the vulnerability that characterizes their existence both as a matter of law and fact. Second, the presentation will review the application of US asylum law to stateless persons, and specifically elaborate on the jurisprudence that has explored whether denationalization constitutes persecution under US law. Finally, the presentation will conclude with recommendations for legal representatives, adjudicators, and US government agencies on how to achieve a necessary, uniform recognition of denationalization as persecution under US law.
“A Statelessness Law Clinic in the United States”
This presentation will share the findings of the first legal representation project for stateless persons in the United States. In 2013, Prof. Baluarte initiated a pilot project to assist UNHCR in the design of an intake and referral procedure for the stateless persons, who have no status in the US and enjoy no legal protection. The goals of this project were to assist stateless individuals in addressing the legal challenges that they face, systematizing information about these challenges, and devising advocacy strategies and model advocacy documents.
This presentation will provide an overview of the legal challenges faced by stateless persons in the United States; review some of the advocacy strategies that can be utilized to protect their rights; and describe the educational significance of doing this in the context of a law school clinic in the US.
The Washington and Lee Law Review has recently been cited by noteworthy scholars in two important publications.
First, the Law Review’s symposium Restitution Rollout: The Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment is cited in the preface and in many of the essays published in Restatement Third: Restitution and Unjust Enrichment: Critical and Comparative Essays, Edited by Charles Mitchell and William Swadling (Hart Studies in Private Law 2013). The preface to the book cited the Law Review’s symposium as evidence of important American scholarship on restitution.
Second, an article by visiting professor Stephen Gilles, The Judgment-Proof Society, 63 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 603 (2006) was cited by University of York Professor Philip Morgan. The paper was presented at Obligations VII in July 2014. Obligations is the premier private-law conference in the common law legal world, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc. Professor Morgan’s paper Judgment Proofing of Charities and other Voluntary Sector Organisations from Liability in Tort, (abstract) relied on extensive citations to Stephen Gilles’s work published in the Law Review.
Congratulations to the Law Review for this well deserved recognition!
From the abstract:
Recent revelations have shown that almost all online activity and increasing amounts of offline activity are tracked using Big Data and data mining technologies. The ensuing debate has largely failed to consider an important consequence of mass surveillance: the obligation to provide access to information that might exonerate a criminal defendant. Although information technology can establish innocence—an ability that will only improve with technological advance—the fruits of mass surveillance have been used almost exclusively to convict. To address the imbalance and inform public dialogue, this Article develops the concept of “digital innocence” as a means of leveraging the tools of Big Data, data mining, ubiquitous consumer tracking, and digital forensics to prevent wrongful convictions and to provide hard proof of actual innocence for those already convicted.
Download the full article here.
Washington and Lee law professor Lyman Johnson is co-author on an amicus brief, filed yesterday, September 2, 2014. The brief supports the respondents in Omnicare Inc., et al. v. Laborers Dist. Council Constr. Indus. Pension Fund, et al. a case currently before the United States Supreme Court, docket no. 13-435.
This securities law case, appealed from the sixth circuit, addresses whether a statement of opinion or belief is actionable under 1933 Securities Act §11 only if the speaker knew its disclosures were untrue.
Download the brief here.
On Monday, August 4, 2014 Washington and Lee Law professor Victoria Shannon presented two papers at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Association of Law Schools (SEALS).
As Washington and Lee’s delegate to the SEALS New Scholars Program, Prof. Shannon presented a draft of her forthcoming article proposing revisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to address the participation of third-party litigation funders.
As a participant in the discussion group entitled “Corporate Compliance After the Crisis,” she presented a short discussion paper in which she explored whether third-party funding transactions are derivatives and whether third-party funders should therefore be regulated under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
Read more of Professor Shannon’s work here.
Professor Brian Murchison reviewed the 2013-14 U.S. Supreme Court Term as guest of the Federal Bar Association chapter in Roanoke on August 21, 2014. This was Murchison’s third annual review for the FBA. Among the cases he discussed were: Kaley v. United States (rejecting, as destructive of grand jury independence, an indicted party’s challenge of a pre-trial order freezing assets for legal fees); Riley v. California (deciding that the Fourth Amendment requires police to obtain a warrant to search digital contents of cellphone seized incident to a lawful arrest); NLRB v. Noel Canning (finding that the President’s appointment of agency heads during a three-day Senate adjournment violated the Recess Appointments Clause); Town of Greece v. Galloway (rejecting Establishment Clause challenge to a town council’s practice of allowing sectarian prayer by clergy at the opening of council meetings); and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Inc. (finding that HHS regulations imposing ACA’s contraceptive mandate on closely held corporate plaintiffs violated Religious Freedom Restoration Act).