Sunday, September 15, 2019
Conference at Penn Honoring the Scholarship of Ronald Gilson
This Thursday I am excited and honored to be part of a wonderful conference at Penn, co-organized by Stanford Law, Columbia Law, Wharton & the Journal of Corporate Law, honoring the scholarship of Professor Ronald Gilson. There will be six speakers, each presenting a paper that responds to a line of Gilson's scholarship (my paper is about his influential article on noncompetes and the rise of Silicon Valley's high tech region). Gilson will be delivering the luncheon keynote speech and the papers of the conference will all be published in the Journal of Corporate Law. Here is a glimpse of the agenda:
Agenda
9:05 – 9:45 First Paper, Kate Judge, Columbia Law School
Gilson Paper: The Mechanisms of Market Efficiency, 70 Va. L. Rev. 549 (1984) (with Reinier Kraakman)
9:45 – 10:30 Second Paper, Mariana Pargendler, Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) Law School
Gilson Paper: Controlling Shareholders and Corporate Governance: Complicating the Comparative Taxonomy, 119 Harv. L. Rev. 1642 (2006)
10:45 – 11:30 Third Paper, Peter Conti-Brown, The Wharton School
Gilson Paper: Rethinking the Outside Director: An Agenda for Institutional Investors, 43 Stan. L. Rev. 863 (1990) (with Reinier Kraakman)
11:30 – 12:15 Fourth Paper, Orly Lobel, University of San Diego Law School
Gilson Paper: The Legal Infrastructure of High Technology Industrial Districts: Silicon Valley, Route 128, and Covenants Not To Compete, 74 NYU L. Rev. 575 (1999)
12:30 – 1:15 Keynote Address, Ron Gilson
1:30 – 2:15 Fifth Paper, Matt Jennejohn, BYU Law School
Gilson Paper: Braiding: The Interaction of Formal and Informal Contracting in Theory, Practice, and Doctrine, 110 Colum. L. Rev. 1377 (2010) (with Chuck Sabel and Bob Scott)
2:15 – 3:00 Sixth Paper, Colleen Honigsberg, Stanford Law School
Gilson Paper: Value Creation by Business Lawyers: Legal Skills and Asset Pricing, 94 Yale L.J. (1984).
Posted by Orly Lobel on September 15, 2019 at 04:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, September 12, 2019
Dorf on the irrepressible myth of the great scholar/bad teacher
My experience, as a student and faculty member, lines up with Mike's: I have had, as teachers and colleagues, many excellent scholars who also were also excellent teachers. And I would add another category: Great scholars who are not great teachers, but want to be and, even well into their careers, think a lot about teaching and how to improve. The archetype of the "prof who can't be bothered with teaching" is not a thing--or no more of a thing than the insurance salesman who can't be bothered. There are always people who are not good at their jobs.
Posted by Howard Wasserman on September 12, 2019 at 04:48 PM in Howard Wasserman, Teaching Law | Permalink | Comments (12)
Public Ministers and Original Jurisdiction
Article Three, Section Two of the Constitution provides, in part: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction."
Simple question. Has there ever been an original jurisdiction case involving an ambassador, public minister, or consul? I think that the answer is no, but if anyone knows of one I would be much obliged.
Posted by Gerard Magliocca on September 12, 2019 at 03:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)
Asylum injunction stayed, everyone confused
Sam Bray and I agree on the impropriety of universal injunctions--I am the NAIA version of Sam as opponent of universality. But I disagree with Sam's suggestion that Thursday's SCOTUS order staying the asylum regulations portends the end of universal/nationwide/whatever injunctions. This case is too confused and too much of a procedural and analytical mess to be that vehicle or even the canary in the coal mine.
First, the unstayed injunction that reached SCOTUS had been narrowed in the court of appeals to be circuit-wide rather than nationwide. So nationwideness should not have been an issue in this case. The court was staying a narrow injunction against a federal regulation.
Continue reading "Asylum injunction stayed, everyone confused"
Posted by Howard Wasserman on September 12, 2019 at 07:44 AM in Civil Procedure, Constitutional thoughts, Howard Wasserman, Judicial Process, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (1)
Tuesday, September 10, 2019
Interview with Dean Theodore Ruger on Penn Law's Academic Fellowships
I’m excited to announce the latest interview in my series interviewing VAP and fellowship directors. We're coming to the end of this series, but I hope to have one or two more this fall. This interview is with Theodore Ruger, the Dean and Bernard G. Segal Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. He spoke to me about the various fellowship programs at Penn Law, including the George Sharswood Fellowship, the Regulation Fellow, the Center for Technology, Innovation and Competition (CTIC) Fellowship, the Quattrone Fellowship, and a new fellowship with the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law (CERL). An edited transcript of our conversation is below, and I have invited Ted to respond to any questions in the comments. Thanks, Ted, for participating in this series!
You can read more about the structure of these interviews and other caveats related to them here. For more information about law faculty hiring generally, check out the section of the AALS's website devoted to this topic at https://teach.aals.org/.
Q. Thank you for speaking with me about Penn's fellowship programs, I appreciate it.
A. Sure, I'm happy to discuss them. We've really expanded our programs in the past several years. With multiple programs running simultaneously, it forms a great cohort of fellows, but there's not a single director, so as Dean I'm someone who has seen the growth of our fellowships and can speak to all of the different kinds.
Continue reading "Interview with Dean Theodore Ruger on Penn Law's Academic Fellowships"
Posted by Jessica Erickson on September 10, 2019 at 09:36 PM in Getting a Job on the Law Teaching Market | Permalink | Comments (0)
Root, root, root for the new citizens
Thoughts about nationalization ceremonies being held at baseball games? Too informal and non-serious? Does the "frivolity of hotdogs, peanuts and Cracker Jack" detract from the solemnity of the citizenship ceremony? Or is it a subtle recognition that baseball was, at least a century ago, the vehicle through which immigrants and new citizens became American (unfortunately, neither baseball nor welcoming new people to the American policy are as popular as they once were). And what if some jerks at the game decided to jeer or hold "go back where you came from" signs?
Posted by Howard Wasserman on September 10, 2019 at 02:36 PM in Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (4)
I am not alone
Here.
I would add that, based on Ferguson's description of the examples Gladwell uses in the book, he is again trying to squeeze widely disparate examples into a single category. The issue with Chamberlain/Hitler, Madoff, Sandusky, and Cuban spies is that they successfully lied to people about their actions or intentions. The problem with Bland was--at best--a racially charged, power-imbalanced confrontation between a police officer and a person of color--the kind that happens too frequently.
Posted by Howard Wasserman on September 10, 2019 at 10:06 AM in Culture, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (1)
Monday, September 09, 2019
Nicole Garnett JOT on "The War Against Chinese Restaurants"
I'm posting/linking to a short JOT (Download Garnett JOT 2019)written by Prof. Nicole Stelle Garnett on Gabriel Chin's and John Ormonde's 2018 article, “The War Against Chinese Restaurants." (The piece turned out not to be run-able in JOTWELL because, the author and editors realized after the piece was completed, the article had already been JOT-ed. But, that's no reason not to post or read it here!)
Petty Tyrants and their Property-Law Arsenal: A Cautionary Tale
Nicole Stelle Garnett*
Gabriel J. Chin & John Ormonde, “The War Against Chinese Restaurants,”
67 Duke Law Review 681 (2018)
For my friend and colleague, John Copeland Nagle (1960-2019), with whom I shared many Chinese meals, and for Jean Chen, the best chef in South Bend, Indiana, who cooked most of them.
Today, according to the Chinese American Restaurant Association, there are over 45,000 Chinese restaurants in the United States – more than the number of McDonald’s, KFCs, Pizza Huts, Taco Bells, and Wendy’s combined.[1] That statistic surprised me, but not as much as the revelation in Gabriel Chin & John Ormonde’s fascinating article, “The War Against Chinese Restaurants,” that Chinese restaurants have flourished in the U.S. for the past century and a half. Indeed, in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, Chinese restaurants were so successful that that they were considered a cultural menace and became the target of a xenophobic “war” declared by early labor unions and their political allies who employed a variety of legal tools, including the tools of property regulation, to prevent them from opening (or force them to close).[2]
* John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School.
[1] Emelyn Rude, A Very Brief History of Chinese Food in America, Time Magazine, Feb. 8, 2016, available at http://time.com/4211871/chinese-food-history/.
[2] In 1920, AFL President Samuel Gompers (a leader of the Chinese exclusion movement), wrote a book entitled Meat v. Rice: American Manhood against Asiatic Coolieism, Which Shall Survive?
Continue reading "Nicole Garnett JOT on "The War Against Chinese Restaurants""
Posted by Rick Garnett on September 9, 2019 at 10:54 AM in Rick Garnett | Permalink | Comments (2)
Friday, September 06, 2019
Penn State Law Review Symposium
The Penn State Law Review is now accepting articles for its annual symposium, which will be hosted in the Spring of 2020. This year, the topic of the Penn State Law Review Symposium will focus on the legal implications of upcoming technological advances, for example, artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles, and big data.
Continue reading "Penn State Law Review Symposium"
Posted by Howard Wasserman on September 6, 2019 at 11:13 AM in Teaching Law | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, September 05, 2019
"We the People" on universal injunctions
The new episode of the National Constitution Center's "We the People" podcast featured Amanda Frost and I discussing and debating universal injunctions. It was a great conversation.
Posted by Howard Wasserman on September 5, 2019 at 11:43 PM in Civil Procedure, Constitutional thoughts, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (1)
Under color?
An interesting under color question. The officers were in disguise (and thus out of uniform) and presumably off-duty. But their personal vendetta arose from their professional conduct as police officers about which the citizen-victim had complained. Could they have done this but-for their official position? Being police officers did not enable the conduct. But being police officers is the only reason they had to vandalize this guy's property.
Posted by Howard Wasserman on September 5, 2019 at 11:42 PM in Civil Procedure, Constitutional thoughts, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (3)