Friday, September 18, 2020
"Law Like Love": Jeffrie Murphy, RIP
I was very sorry to learn of the passing from this life of Prof. Jeffrie Murphy (RIP). Here's the Arizona State University announcement. For me, Murphy's punishment-theory and criminal-law work was influential -- formative, really -- and he was also a kind and generous advisor and mentor. My Criminal Law students (thanks to Joshua Dressler and Stephen Garvey) have, for years, encountered a bit of his work with Jean Hampton, and I've used his little essay, "Law Like Love", as well as "Christianity and Criminal Punishment", to conclude my class in recent years. If you're a Crim teacher, and you want a bracing read, check out his "'In the Penal Colony' and Why I Am Reluctant to Teach Criminal Law." May his memory be a blessing.
UPDATE: I really should have quoted this, from the ASU announcement:
For those who knew Murphy, he was always larger than life: a big man with a booming voice and a strength of conviction in his work and scholarship that was never outmatched. His early experiences as head of the Philosophy Department led to a deep and abiding hatred of administration — which gave him ample time to explore his greatest passions: the teaching of gifted students and exploring the contours of moral philosophy and its connection to the law.
Posted by Rick Garnett on September 18, 2020 at 02:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
Thursday, September 17, 2020
Guilty Minds: A Virtual Conference on Mens Rea and Criminal Justice Reform, September 25-26, 2020
The following post is by Michael Serota, who is a Visiting Assistant Professor at the ASU Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law and a Deputy Associate Director of the Academy for Justice.
Why does the criminal law care about mental states, and do they have a role to play in criminal justice reform? Come join the Academy for Justice and the Arizona State Law Journal next Friday and Saturday for an extended conversation about mens rea policy and reform.
The discussions will revolve around a collection of papers that will be published in a special symposium issue of the Arizona State Law Journal. Topics that will be covered include: strict liability, felony murder, complicity, intoxication, mental illness, willful blindness, ignorance of wrongdoing, malice, hate crimes, statutory interpretation, and the politics of mens rea reform. For balance and diversity of perspective, every conference panel will include a mix of criminal law scholars and practitioners. To maximize the opportunities for group discussion, conference panelists have pre-recorded video presentations.
All aspects of this event are open to the public. The event will be broadcast via Zoom webinar on September 25-26, 2020 from 9am to 3pm PST. To attend, please register here. The conference papers and presentations are available on the conference website, which has additional details—including a list of the more than 30 scholars and practitioners participating in the event.
Additionally, the Academy for Justice is sponsoring two different student competitions in conjunction with the event. More details about those contests (please share with your students!) can be found here.
Posted by Ethan Leib on September 17, 2020 at 12:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Monday, September 14, 2020
Dorf on ending the anthem at sporting events
Michael Dorf considers the argument, floated by former NBA coach Stan Van Gundy, for eliminating the national anthem from sporting events. We do not do it at any other public or entertainment gatherings (movies, plays, concerts); it is not the type of event requiring public ritual (compare, e.g., a government proceeding); and it is creating more problems than it solves. It also is an historical accident--a band played it spontaneously during the Seventh Inning Stretch at a game in the 1918 World Series (in the closing month of World War I)--that caught on.
I confess that I enjoy the anthem as part of the game. But I see Dorf's and Van Gundy's point.
Posted by Howard Wasserman on September 14, 2020 at 09:58 AM in First Amendment, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (18)
Two Pieces on Algorithms and Institutions
This is a good time to be writing about institutions, which I have done for some time--and a depressing time for those who think institutions are valuable and are watching them suffer in real time, as much from the inside as the outside. Via the invaluable Arts & Letters Daily, here are two recent pieces on the effects of metrics and algorithms on two "First Amendment institutions."
The first, from the LA Review of Books, is by Mario Biagioli, a professor of law and communication at UCLA. In it, Biagioli discusses new and old forms of academic misconduct, largely but not exclusively around publication and citation practices, and their relationship to various forms of ranking or influence metrics. (The focus here is on other disciplines, especially the sciences and social sciences, not on law. I would be interested in seeing a similar piece from him about legal academic practices, although I think the difficulty here would be getting people to see some practices as academic misconduct, or at least institution- or discipline-damaging conduct, rather than as baseline or even commendable practices.)
The second is an essay in The Walrus by Russell Smith, a former columnist for The Globe and Mail. It discusses the effects on newspapers of algorithms tracking reader interest in various stories, including the looming presence in newsrooms of large screens monitoring "engagement, in real time, with the stories currently on the paper’s website"--where "engagement" means something other than any meaningful definition of the word--and their effect on editorial judgment and resource allocation in the major press. (Any online reader of the New York Times, whose decline as a quality newspaper is steady, remarkable, and far-reaching in its effects on the business and content decisions of the institution, can see the traces of these practices daily. They are evident not only in the devotion of prime space to things like recaps of late-night monologues, but in the practice of using and testing different and increasingly clickbait-y headlines for same op-ed pieces and other stories. This is the kind of practice that major media organizations used to worry about rather than engage in with seemingly untroubled enthusiasm.)
I recommend both pieces, dispiriting though they may be.
Posted by Paul Horwitz on September 14, 2020 at 09:36 AM in Paul Horwitz | Permalink | Comments (0)
Call for Papers: Akron Law Review
Akron Law Review seeks articles for a symposium on Criminal Justice Reform. Relevant Relevant topics
include exploring new and existing ways of holding police accountable; collateral consequences of conviction; and recent efforts in and new ideas regarding bail reform.
Submissions should be sent to [email protected] by October 15, 2020.
Posted by Howard Wasserman on September 14, 2020 at 09:31 AM in Law Review Review | Permalink | Comments (0)
Saturday, September 12, 2020
Testing the Koufax Curse
In anticipation of the High Holy Days, the Forward has published a summary version of my longer study of Jewish players' and teams' performance on Yom Kippur.
Posted by Howard Wasserman on September 12, 2020 at 10:58 AM in Howard Wasserman, Sports | Permalink | Comments (0)
Friday, September 11, 2020
Cancel culture as a circle of baseline hell
Thinking out loud.
Skip Bayless' comments on Dallas Cowboys quarterback Dak Prescott ("being quarterback of the Cowboys is too important a position for someone who struggles with mental-health issues, or at least not for someone who wants to talk about those issues") are so stupid that they are unworthy of a response. They are noise--an "inarticulate grunt or roar that, it seems fair to say, is most likely to be indulged in not to express any particular idea, but to antagonize others." They certainly are too stupid to have been spoken in a media outlet that purports to be a forum for serious discussion, even of sports. And they suggest that Bayless is an unserious person.
Continue reading "Cancel culture as a circle of baseline hell"
Posted by Howard Wasserman on September 11, 2020 at 10:46 AM in First Amendment, Howard Wasserman, Sports | Permalink | Comments (14)
Thursday, September 10, 2020
Bostock, Cline, and the SCOTUS's Repression of Textualism's Unresolvable Contradictions
This week in “Legislation and the Regulatory State,” I taught General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. v. Cline and Bostock v. Clayton County. Reading these two opinions together reveals a truly weird omission in Bostock: Neither the majority nor dissenting opinions in Bostock cite or discuss Cline. This is such an extraordinary omission that it cannot be an accident. It is, instead, most likely the jurisprudential version of Freudian repression: Cline is the earlier traumatic precedent that exposes painful contradictions at the heart of textualism, so it is conveniently ignored for the sake of preserving the illusion, believed by some to be necessary for the “rule of law,” that “plain” text somehow can be construed without attributing to it some statutory purpose.
Consider, first, how Justice Souter’s majority opinion in Cline seems to provide near-perfect support for Justice Kavanaugh's argument in his Bostock dissent that the narrow ordinary understanding of "discriminate...because of sex" trumps the phrase's broad literal meaning. Cline held that "discriminat[ion]...because of...age" in ADEA did not include General Dynamics' discriminating against Dennis Cline in favor of older workers, because the ADEA did not cover discrimination that favored older over younger workers. Cline reached this conclusion despite the fact that, "[i]n the abstract, the phrase is open to an argument for a broader construction, since reference to 'age' carries no express modifier and the word could be read to look two ways." The literal meaning of "age," however, did not govern, because that broad reading "does not...square with the natural reading of the whole provision prohibiting discrimination." According to the Cline majority,"Congress used the phrase 'discriminat[ion] … because of [an] individual’s age' the same way that ordinary people in common usage might speak of age discrimination any day of the week," because the "commonplace conception of American society in recent decades is its character as a 'youth culture,' and in a world where younger is better, talk about discrimination because of age is naturally understood to refer to discrimination against the older." Because "we are not asking an abstract question about the meaning of 'age'" but instead "seeking the meaning of the whole phrase 'discriminate … because of such individual’s age,'" Cline looked to the "social history" of that phrase, which "emphatically reveals an understanding of age discrimination as aimed against the old."
Cline’s reasoning is obviously helpful to Justice Kavanaugh’s claim that "discriminat[ion] ... because of...sex" does not include discrimination based on sexual orientation, because ordinary people do not understand the latter to be an instance of the former. So why would Justice Kavanaugh ignore Cline? The most obvious hypothesis: Justice Thomas‘ dissent in Cline suggested to Justice Kavanaugh that Cline represents a sort of "Textualism Lite" that good textualists must not endorse. After the jump, an argument that Cline does indeed suggest the incoherence of drawing a sharp line between context-based "social usage" of a whole statutory phrase and a statute's overall purpose. That incoherence suggests that Bostock's majority opinion would have been more persuasive if it had not repressed all memory of Cline but instead pondered more deeply the purpose of Title VII separate from the word games that feature so prominently in Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion.
Posted by Rick Hills on September 10, 2020 at 08:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (12)
JOTWELL: Mangat on Weinstein-Tull on local courts
The new Courts Law essay comes from guest Leonard Mangat, reviewing Justin Weinstein-Tull, The Structure of Local Courts (Va. L. Rev., forthcoming), analyzing the hidden-but-consequential practices of local courts.
Posted by Howard Wasserman on September 10, 2020 at 10:26 AM in Article Spotlight, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (0)
Look! A Gift Horse
One unusual fact about where I live (West Lafayette, Indiana) is that C-Span's Archive is about five minutes from my house. (Brian Lamb, the founder of C-Span, is from West Lafayette and went to Purdue.). I drive by the archive a few times a week to pick up my daughter from school.
Yesterday as I was doing so I thought to myself, "I really should try to design a research project that would actually use the archive. I mean, it's right here." But what should I do? A project on Congress is the most obvious thought, but in what sense? Maybe how televising the House (and then later the Senate) changed how Congress operated. Or is there is some particular event that I should look at from the past forty years where watching wall-to-wall coverage would help. I'd be curious to hear from anyone who is doing research that involves looking at old C-Span footage to hear what you are doing.
Posted by Gerard Magliocca on September 10, 2020 at 08:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)