ICYMI: Bond on Representations of Law and Race Revisited: An Updated Survey of Recent American Film

ICYMI: Cynthia D. Bond, UIC School of Law, has published Representations of Law and Race Revisited: An Updated Survey of Recent American Film at 30 Denver Sports and Entertainment Law Journal 51 (Spring 2025). Here is the abstract.

This article revisits the author's Laws of Race/Laws of Representation: The Construction of Race and Law in Contemporary American Film, 11 Univ. Tex. Rev. of Sports and Ent. L. 219 (2010), surveying recent developments in mainstream films' depiction of the interrelated narratives of law and race. This article applies to current film the 2010 article's paradigm, which articulated three key narrative aspects of depictions of race and law in popular film: 1.) the raced construction of the lawyer-hero; 2.) the denial or displacement of the law's role in constructing race and race-based discrimination; and 3.) the suppression or revision of politics and political history. Using this paradigm as a point of departure, the article examines a range of films, TV shows, and streaming series that grapple with race under law. Particular focus is paid to films created post-2020, in light of social movements like Black Lives Matter and the attendant increased public dialogue regarding racialized legal disparities in American life. Beyond displaying a mere statistical uptick of racially diverse casting, films and series of the last fifteen years reveal that popular culture can engage notions of race and its place under law in a more direct and nuanced way.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Chowdhury on Toward a Historical Materialist Account of British Constitutional Change

Tanzil Chowdhury, Queen Mary University of London, School of Law, is publishing Toward a Historical Materialist Account of British Constitutional Changee in the International Journal of Constitutional Law. Here is the abstract.

This paper argues that British constitutional reforms are the historically specific expression of the mediation of significant antagonisms between social forces and shifts in the modalities of capitalism, the aim of which is to ensure the conditions for commodity exchange and capital accumulation. While most conventional theories of constitutional reform recognise the heteronomous nature of law reform as responding to extra-legal or economic forces, this paper, drawing on a renascent Marxist turn in legal studies, examines how historical materialist accounts might help to inform understandings of constitutional development. Outlining but ultimately rejecting an economistic orthodox Marxist reading of law, this paper instead conceptualises constitutions as a 'moment' in the contradictory totality of capitalist social relations;. Arguing that reforms to the British constitution are often preceded by significant social antagonisms, the paper attempts to explain constitutional reforms as the capitalist states mediation of such antagonisms to secure the future conditions for capital accumulation, offering a reappraisal of the lead up to and creation of the Parliament Act 1911 as an example.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Call For Abstracts: Human Studies and Free Speech Adjudication: From Theory To Practice

From Laura Little, Professor of Law, Temple University School of Law:

The International Society for Humor Studies is soliciting abstracts for its upcoming conference (36th ISHS conference) in Niterói, Brazil, 6-10 July 2026. The Special Interest Group focusing on Humor, Free Speech, and the Law is convening a panel titled Humor Studies and Free Speech Adjudication: From Theory to Practice. We welcome proposals for 20-minute papers addressing one or more of the following questions: • How can insights from humor research help judges, lawyers, or social media regulators develop a fair and nuanced approach to judicial decisions regarding humorous expression? • How can these insights be translated into actionable guidelines for judicial training, attorney counseling, advocacy or online content moderation? And how can this ‘translation’ exercise, in turn, open up new avenues for humor research? • What are the challenges and opportunities offered, in this respect, by a closer dialogue between different branches of humor scholarship (interdisciplinarity), as well as between academic research and everyday judicial practice or content moderation (transdisciplinarity)? Should you be interested in participating, please send an abstract (max. 300 words) and a short biographical note to both Dr Alberto Godioli (a.godioli@rug.nl) AND Prof. Laura E. Little (laura.little@temple.edu) by February 10th, 2026. For more information on the Special Interest Group’s activities, please visit the website of ForHum: Forum for Humor and the Law.

Walker on Vagueness' Three Faces

Alexander Walker, Columbia University Law School, has published Vagueness' Three Faces as a Columbia Public Law Research Paper. Here is the abstract.

In the law of interpretation, context is king. There is widespread consensus that the interpretive act requires knowing more than just the words on the page. Jurists might disagree about how important certain features of context are, but no one, we are told, is a literalist anymore. This essay challenges the received wisdom that the law has moved away from literalism by looking at doctrines that are triggered by a finding of a lack of clarity. These doctrines—variously called clear statement rules or clarity doctrines—require a court not to determine the best meaning of a legal text but rather whether that text is unclear. This essay uncovers that doctrines spanning criminal, administrative, contract, Federal Indian Law, and constitutional law employ three different theories of language to determine whether a text is clear. One is communal. One is individualistic. But one is decidedly literalist. While there is nothing per se wrong with different theories in different contexts, this essay argues that the literalism currently present in certain doctrines—notably the rule of lenity and void-for-vagueness doctrine—is either illogical or illegitimate. Instead, using Federal Indian Law as a paradigm, courts should fashion an understanding of clarity that is in the general case communal but admits individualistic considerations when justice so requires, patterning off the law-equity divide. This approach avoids the rule-of-law concerns where beliefs about efficiency sneak into discussions of language while also respecting the complexity of language.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Franks on Little Fascists Everywhere: The National Socialist Playbook of Trump's War on Universities

Mary Anne Franks, George Washington University Law School, is publishing Little Fascists Everywhere: The National Socialist Playbook of Trump's War on Universities in Academic Freedom in the Era of Trump (Lee Bollinger and Geoffrey Stone eds., 2026) (forthcoming). Here is the abstract.

While there is no real predecessor in U.S. history for the breadth and depth of the MAGA movement to destroy higher education—even the McCarthy period pales in comparison in fervor and scope—the Nazification of German universities in the 1920s-30s provides eerie and instructive parallels. The Nazification movement, like the MAGA movement, was organized around unquestioning obedience to a single leader and, correspondingly, hostility toward democratic ideals. The frontline soldiers of Hitler’s war on universities were students resentful of progressive changes to higher education, and the tactics they used to convert German universities into right-wing propaganda factories closely resemble the ones used today to lay siege to American universities: disrupting classrooms, surveilling professors, and monitoring curricula for “undesirable” ideas; countering the “liberal indoctrination” of students with external speakers promoting far-right talking points; purging “degenerate” books from schools and libraries; and organizing watchlists, harassment campaigns, and public exposures of allegedly biased or immoral professors, with the goal of having them removed from their positions. And, in a crucial moment in their push for totalitarian control, the Nazis used the murder of a young, charismatic Party member known for his provocative debate style as a pretext to escalate their ruthless repression of dissent and violence against critics of the regime. Among the urgent and important lessons to be learned from this historical precedent is that totalitarian impulses cannot, in fact, be tamed, and that when universities succumb to them, the rest of society will follow. The preservation of democracy requires the uncompromising rejection of all efforts to interfere with academic freedom and to zealously defend the autonomy of institutions of higher education.

Download the chapter from SSRN at the link.

Lerer on Law as Language: From Scandinavian Realism to Evolutionary Jurisprudence

Ignacio Adrian Lerer has published Law as Language: From Scandinavian Realism to Evolutionary Jurisprudence. Here is the abstract.

This paper traces the intellectual trajectory from early twentieth-century Scandinavian legal realism through contemporary analytical jurisprudence to propose an evolutionary theory of legal language. Building on the Scandinavian insight that legal concepts are linguistic phenomena rather than metaphysical entities, and extending the analytical tradition developed by Hart, Carrió, and the Alchourrón-Bulygin-Nino synthesis, I argue that legal systems exhibit evolutionary dynamics analogous to natural languages. Legal rules function as cultural replicators subject to variation, inheritance, and selection pressures operating through judicial interpretation, legislative modification, and administrative implementation. This framework provides theoretical foundation for understanding both the persistence of apparently dysfunctional legal institutions and the mechanisms through which legal systems adapt to changing environmental pressures. The paper concludes by proposing evolutionary jurisprudence as a research program that integrates insights from analytical philosophy of law with contemporary evolutionary approaches to cultural phenomena.

Download the paper from SSRN at the link.

Molina Bustos and Pérez Páez on Moral Philosophy and Archetypes in the Symbolic Cohesion of the Tale of Juan Matachin

Francisco Fabiany Molina Bustos and Jenny Alejandra Pérez Páez, both of the Social Sciences Observatory and Human Resources in Ibagué/ Edukivotos, have published Moral Philosophy and Archetypes in the Symbolic Cohesion of the Tale of Juan Matachin. Here is the abstract.

This paper examines the moralizing value of Rafael Pombo’s tale Juan Matachín within the Colombian cultural context, interpreting it as a narrative device for ethical and social regulation. Through an interdisciplinary approach combining literary analysis, moral philosophy, and political theory, the study explores the figure of the “anti-villain” as an ambivalent agent who, through fear, seeks to preserve the common good, social order, and harmony with nature. Drawing on Hobbes’s and Machiavelli’s reflections on fear as a foundation of order, the analysis shows how symbolic terror operates pedagogically to deter harmful behavior and reinforce communal norms. The tale is thus understood as more than children’s literature, functioning as a cultural archive that embeds collective values, mechanisms of social control, and an implicit ethic of ecological protection and community cohesion in the Colombian imaginary.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Cai on The Crime of a Show Girl: An Analysis of the Common Law Underpinnings Behind the Taylor Swift Song No Body No Crime

Xuantong Cai, Abbey Park High School, has published The Crime of a Show Girl: An analysis of the common law underpinnings behind the Taylor Swift Song No Body No Crime. Here is the abstract.

The song No Body No Crime, as the title suggests, involves the law, and where there is the law, there should be legal analysis. The song, as the title says, articulates the tension in the burden of proof required to convict a person and the doctrine of corpus delicti. Moreover, it also highlights the tension between state-enforced justice and vigilante justice as the narrator then takes the law into her own hands.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Reminder: Submissions for ASLCH Annual Conference and Graduate Student Workshop Due January 31, 2026

 From Simon Stern, University of Toronto Faculty of Law and PResident,  ASLCH:

This is a reminder that the Association for the Study of Law, Culture, and the Humanities is currently accepting submissions for its Twenty-Eighth Annual Conference, which will take place at the DePaul University College of Law in Chicago, Illinois from June 17-18, 2026. This year our theme is "Uprooted Law: Reflecting on the Origins and Outgrowths of Law". To view our call for papers and submit proposals, please visit our website here. We are also accepting applications for our annual Graduate Student Workshop, which will take place the day before the conference on June 16, 2026. Graduate students who participate in the workshop are also welcome to submit papers to the conference. Information on how to apply for the workshop can be found on our website here. The submission deadline for both the conference and the workshop is January 31, 2026. Please spread the word and circulate this call for papers in your academic communities! We look forward to an engaging and enriching gathering in June and hope you'll join us. Best regards, Simon Stern, President, Association for the Study of Law, Culture & the Humanities

West Coast Sexuality, Gender & Law Conference: Abstract Submission Deadline January 5, 2026

 Reminder from Yvonne Lindgren, Professor, UMKC School of Law:

Dear all, This is a reminder about and deadlines related to the upcoming third annual West Coast Sexuality, Gender & Law Conference. This year, the conference will be held on March 13-14, 2026 in Irvine, California. ABSTRACT SUBMISSION DEADLINE: The deadline for submitting abstracts for consideration is January 5, 2026. To submit, please submit a CV and an abstract of no more than 500 words here (again by January 5, 2026). Submissions will be vetted by the organizing committee (listed below). Selection will be based on the originality of the abstract as well as its capacity to engage with the other papers in a collaborative dialogue. Participants will be notified of their selection as soon as feasible after the due date. Drafts of papers will be due approximately two weeks prior to the Conference.    If you would like to attend by serving as a commentator: - If you are not submitting an abstract but would like to attend the conference in the role of a commentator on someone else's paper, or if you are presenting a paper and would be willing to also serve as a commentator, please use the same link. Commentators are essential to the success of the conference, so be a good citizen and show up for your fellow scholars!   We look forward to your submissions and participation. Questions can be directed to the organizing committee members at westcoastgslconf@gmail.com.   Thank you!   Luke Boso, Southwestern Andrew Gilden, Southwestern Courtney Joslin, UC Davis Yvette Lindgren, UMKC Kaipo Matsumura, Loyola LA Brian Soucek, UC Davis Ari Ezra Waldman, UC Irvine

ICYMI: Berenguer, Jewel, and McMurtry-Chubb on Critical and Comparative Rhetoric: Unmasking Privilege and Power in Law and Legal Advocacy to Achieve Truth, Justice, and Equity

ICYMI: Elizabeth Berenguer, Lucy Jewel, and Teri A. McMurtry-Chubb have published Critical and Comparative Rhetoric Unmasking Privilege and Power in Law and Legal Advocacy to Achieve Truth, Justice, and Equity (Bristol University Press, 2023). Here from the publisher's website is a description of the book's contents.

Through the lenses of comparative and critical rhetoric, this book theorizes how alternative approaches to communication can transform legal meanings and legal outcomes, infusing them with more inclusive participation, equity and justice. Viewing legal language through a radical lens, the book sets aside longstanding norms that derive from White and Euro-centric approaches in order to re-situate legal methods as products of new rhetorical models that come from diasporic and non-Western cultures. The book urges readers to re-consider how they think about logic and rhetoric and to consider other ways of building knowledge that can heal the law’s current structures that often perpetuate and reinforce systems of privilege and power.

Call For Nominations: The Penny Pether Law & Language Scholarship Award 2025

 

Call for Nominations: The Penny Pether Law & Language Scholarship Award 2025 

A passionate advocate for interdisciplinary scholarship in law, literature, and language, Penelope J. Pether (1957-2013) was Professor of Law at Villanova University School of Law and former Professor of Law and Director of Legal Rhetoric at the American University Washington College of Law. Her own scholarship focused not only on law, literature, and language, but also on constitutional and comparative constitutional law; legal theory, including constitutional theory; common law legal institutions, judging practices, and professional subject formation. 

Beginning in November 2013, the Penny Pether Award for Law & Language Scholarship has been given to an article or essay published during the preceding award period that exemplifies Penny’s commitment to law and language scholarship and pedagogy. This year’s award period will be the calendar year 2025.  

We are delighted to report that the Legal Humanities Initiative at the University of California, Santa Barbara, will now be providing much needed administrative support for the award. The selection committee is grateful for LHI’s commitment to Penny’s legacy.  The Committee selecting award recipients from among the articles and essays nominated will look for scholarship that not only embodies Penny’s passion and spirit but also has some or all of the following characteristics: 

1. “[S]cholarship concerning itself with the unique or distinctive insights that might emerge from interdisciplinary inquiries into ‘law’ grounded in the work of influential theorists of language and discourse.” 

2. Scholarship that “attempts to think through the relations among subject formation, language, and law.” 

3. Scholarship that provides “accounts of—and linguistic interventions in—acute and yet abiding crises in law, its institutions and discourses.” 

4. Scholarship and pedagogy, including work addressing injustices in legal-academic institutions and practices, that is “[c]arefully theorized and situated, insisting on engaging politics and law, [and that] charts ways for law and its subjects to use power, do justice.” 

More explanations and descriptions of these characteristics can be found in Penny’s chapter from which these quotations are drawn: Language, in Law and the Humanities: An Introduction (Austin Sarat et al. eds., Cambridge U. Press 2010). 

A list of past winners appears here: https://law.unlv.edu/lawyering-process/penny-pether 

Nominations should be sent by January 31, 2026, to Jeannine DeLombard at jdelombard@ucsb.edu. 

Any article or essay published during the calendar year 2025 is eligible.  You are free to nominate your own work and, apart from self-nominations, may nominate more than one work.  For self-nominations, pick the article published in 2025 that you believe best embodies the characteristics mentioned above. Please provide a citation and a pdf for each work you nominate.   

The Selection Committee includes David Caudill, Jeannine Marie DeLombard, Amy Dillard, Ian Gallacher, Lucy Jewel, Jeremy Mullem, Giuliana Perrone, Anne Ralph, and Kathy Stanchi. Members of the Selection Committee are not eligible for the award.