Balkin on Rabbi Akiva and the Crowns: A Parable of Constitutional Fidelity @jackbalkin @YaleLawSch @BULawReview

Jack M. Balkin, Yale Law School, is publishing Rabbi Akiva and the Crowns: A Parable of Constitutional Fidelity in the Boston University Law Review. Here is the abstract.

Historian Jonathan Gienapp argues that the Founding generation held very different views about constitutions, law, rights, and judicial review than lawyers do today. His target is conservative originalism, but his arguments are important for originalists and non-originalists alike. How is faithful interpretation of the Constitution possible if we inhabit a very different world from the generation that produced it? This essay answers that question by retelling a famous story in the Gemara about Moses and the Talmudic sage Rabbi Akiva, who lived a thousand years later. The story explains how the rabbis who compiled the Talmud in the sixth century C.E. dealt with the problem of interpreting religious texts that had been written hundreds of years earlier in a very different world. The rabbis argued that faithful interpretation of the law must recognize the distance between past and present and accept the need for creative adaptation in the face of transformations, upheavals, and ruptures. The same lessons hold true for constitutional interpretation today.

Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

Miller on Perfecting Our Submission? Mann and Trump, Ruffin and Roberts @UGASchoolofLaw

Joseph Scott Miller, University of Georgia School of Law, has published Perfecting Our Submission? Mann and Trump, Ruffin and Roberts as University of Georgia School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2024-5. Here is the abstract.

Presidential power is vast, both under law and in practice. Who holds presidents accountable, and by what means? Much turns on the answers we provide, as well as on the justifications we establish for those answers. The majority opinion in the new presidential immunity case, Trump v. U.S., is eerily resonant, rhetorically, with a notorious judgment enhancing one person’s power over others by shielding that power utterly from criminal-law accountability. That judgment, now nearly two centuries old, is Judge Thomas Ruffin’s infamous slavery-law opinion for the North Carolina Supreme Court in State v. Mann. I juxtapose the two opinions, which share jarringly similar claims about the nature of power, rule, and accountability under law.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Murray on Visual Legal Rhetoric in the Age of Generative AI and Deepfakes: Renaissance or Dark Ages? @ukcollegeoflaw

Michael D Murray, University of Kentucky College of Law, has published Visual Legal Rhetoric in the Age of Generative AI and Deepfakes: Renaissance or Dark Ages? Here is the abstract.

The paradoxical development of visual generative AI tools, such as OpenAI’s DALL-E 3, Midjourney, and Stable Diffusion, simultaneously signal a renaissance and a potential dark age in visual rhetoric and communication. On the one hand, these tools democratize the creation of visual content, empowering attorneys and others to become artists and illustrators of their legal communications without needing to learn how to draw. These AI systems can simplify complex legal concepts, bridge language barriers, and enhance advocacy. But on the other hand, the proliferation of deepfakes presents significant challenges for visual rhetoric. Deepfakes can quickly and easily create realistic but false images, videos, and audio that exploit celebrities, distort facts, and facilitate various crimes. The negative implications of deepfakes include their association with fraud, misinformation, and emotional harm. This technological advancement undermines the credibility of genuine news photography and other highly representational media as the public struggles to distinguish real from fabricated content and begins to discount all visual media. The challenge lies in using the tools effectively while maintaining the verisimilitude and integrity of representational visual media, which traditionally relies on its status as an unembellished depiction of reality to achieve its rhetorical and communicative goals. The ethical and professional questions raised by manipulated images extend to the decision whether to edit or alter visual content to improve the communication of the message and enhance understanding while still acknowledging the lurking risk of misleading or confusing the audience with altered or manufactured media. The article suggests best practices for using generative AI responsibly: Use Non-representational Visuals: Favor diagrams, charts, drawings, and illustrations over highly representational media to avoid the pitfalls of staged, manufactured, or altered representational imagery. Disclose Staged Images: Always inform the audience when an image has been staged or recreated to maintain transparency and trust. Provide Original and Enhanced Versions: Present the original image alongside any enhanced version to allow for critical examination and comparison. The article concludes by emphasizing the need for vigilance in working with manipulated visuals and detecting the possible deceptions of the works of others. Given the ease with which AI can alter images, lawyers and judges must remain aware of their biases and heuristics in assessing visual evidence, recognizing that even analog photographs and videos do not represent definitive “truths.” The advent of AI-generated visuals necessitates a reassessment of the ethical use of visual media in legal communications to preserve the power of visuals in legal rhetoric.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Tewari on MeToo: Rethinking Law and Literature to Define Narrative Justice @DELawSchool

Geeta Tewari, Widener University, Delaware Law School, has published MeToo: Rethinking Law and Literature to Define Narrative Justice. Here is the abstract.

The law and literature movement is transforming into something new. This Article will discuss what that newness is, how it came about, and the different shapes it takes to provide the legal community with a platform to contribute to a working definition for narrative justice. Creatively, technologically, and economically, public institutions and legal culture are rethinking the value of voice and story. With concrete examples of innovations and social movements, this Article will demonstrate how both action and inaction have propelled us as a society toward urgency in defining and claiming narrative justice. The Introduction canvasses U.S. case law to discuss patterns of narrative incorporation—or the concerning lack thereof. Recently, we have seen a new growth in this field: an emphasis by activists, artists, and academics, among others internationally, on applying voice, story, and journey to present conflicts and problems. The next Part discusses the critical points where public and private institutions, as well as individual citizens, have catalyzed to birth a new field of narrative justice. Specifically, I discuss the #MeToo movement, as well as cities’ work, community, individual empowerment, recent interdisciplinary legal scholarship, and teaching models, which are all analyzed for their inclusion of narrative. City government “storytellers” and the action of the #MeToo movement are two rich examples of law and literature’s expansion to activism through narrative justice. Finally, in Part IV, I dissect the lack of narrative presently in corporate law and the growing legal field of environmental, social, and governance advising, which should include the concept of narrative justice. This Article concludes with a proposal for a working definition and function of narrative justice, based on the examples reviewed herein as they relate to each other, the precipitating field of law and literature, and the need for updated terminology and pedagogy to further advance the practice of law as a moral, ethical, and just profession.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Bandes on The Sense of an Ending @BandesSusan @DePaulLaw

Susan A. Bandes, DePaul University College of Law, has published The Sense of an Ending at 73 DePaul Law Review 751 (2024). Here is the abstract.

One of the delights of shows like HBO's Succession is the virtual communal watch party they create, replete with competing interpretations and passionate predictions about plot development. These conversations reveal some enduring truths about the power of narrative expectations, one of which is the tremendous importance we place on the delivery of a satisfying ending. As the influential literary scholar Frank Kermode argued, “we cannot be denied an end, but it must be the right kind of ending.” One of the fascinating aspects of Succession was the uncertainty about what kind of ending would be satisfying. This uncertainty seems closely tied to the difficulty in pinning down the genre to which Succession belonged. This Essay will first examine the notion of a satisfying ending as it applies to Succession. It will argue that although Succession’s ending was, in some ways, letter-perfect, it was not—and could not be—emotionally satisfying. The emotionally impoverished ending was fitting, but dispiriting, and probably unavoidable given the particular generic traditions upon which Succession drew. The Essay will then pose the question: What lessons can the notion of narrative closure—the need for a satisfying ending—convey about legal proceedings? We have grown accustomed to thinking about law as storytelling, but what insights can narrative theory impart about how law stories ought to end? In legal terms, to determine what constitutes a legally satisfying end point, we first must determine what the proceeding is meant to accomplish. Legal finality may not track literary closure or psychological “closure;” and it is important to distinguish the dictates of the legal system from the impulses that drive finality and closure in other contexts. I will illustrate this point with examples from death penalty jurisprudence, in which the question of an ending is unavoidable and takes several forms: finality of judgment, the notion of “closure” for bereaved family members, and the loss of life.

Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

Zinigrad on Laughing Matters in Courts: Humor's Role in Normalizing Hate Speech @RomanZinigrad @AUP_CCDS

Roman Zinigrad, American University of Paris, has published Laughing Matters in Courts: Humor’s Role in Normalizing Hate Speech in Alternatives (complete citation not yet available). Here is the abstract.

Humor is a form of speech capable of boosting the political value of a speech’s content or even reversing its meaning. Courts acknowledge these qualities by considering that an expression may enjoy an elevated level of free speech protection against government sanctions or private suits if it is formulated in a humorous way. This article spotlights another key attribute of humor, that is perhaps more consequential for the socio-political impact of an expression but that nonetheless does not seem to be invoked in free speech litigation: its power to increase the exposure of the speech. A humorous presentation of an idea offers its audience an entertaining form that is desirable to consume independently of the message it conveys. It lowers the costs of processing irrelevant or objectionable content and so bears the potential of catching the attention of those who would not otherwise be exposed to it. I argue that the capacity of humor to “raise the volume” of speech must be accounted for in the balancing formulas of constitutional and international free speech litigation. To underline the importance of this factor, I focus on cases of hate speech, a category where humor plays a decisive role in the outreach to audiences that do not always share the prejudice or intolerance of the speaker. This article analyzes the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and of French courts as an example of the general disregard of courts for humor’s amplification of hate speech. The far-reaching damage potential of this disregard is demonstrated on the case of Dieudonné, a notorious French antisemitic comic who has masterfully exploited humor to expose large audiences to hateful content.

Full access is available by subscription.

Call For Proposals: International Conference on Renewing the Social Contract: The Challenge of Inclusivity and Democratic Government in Social Contract Theory, December 18-19, 2024 @AUP_CCDS @RomanZinigrad

 Call For Proposals:

The Center for Critical Democracy Studies at the American University of Paris is pleased to announce an international conference on: “Renewing the Social Contract: The Challenge of Inclusivity and Democratic Government in Social Contract Theory” scheduled for December 18-19, 2024. 

 

The conference will explore how the idea of a social contract should be adapted or reconsidered to address its relationship to democracy, and in particular to democratic government. How should social contracts be amended in contemporary transformations of popular government, administrative power, and regulatory frameworks? What is the role of law and legal institutions in these transformations? Are there alternative models that may keep social contracts open to contestation while establishing a legitimate foundation for governance? How are social contracts renewed or made resilient?

We invite researchers in law, political theory, philosophy, history, sociology, economy, and other related fields to submit abstracts on the theme of the conference conceived broadly.

Proposals in English or French must be submitted by September 15, 2024 and include an abstract (400 words) and a short CV (250 words). See attached poster. Full call for papers: aup.edu/social-contract.

Organization: Stephen Sawyer, Roman Zinigrad, Nathanaël Colin-Jaeger

 

 

Forthcoming from Cambridge University Press: Rhetorical Traditions & Contemporary Law (Brian N. Larson & Elizabeth C. Britt, eds., 2025) @CambridgeUP

Rhetorical Traditions & Contemporary Law (Brian N. Larson & Elizabeth C. Britt, eds., Cambridge University Press, 2025) (Forthcoming). Here is the abstract.

Rhetoric—the arts of practical discourse that we broadly define as the use of symbols to influence belief and action—has something to say about contemporary legal theory and practice. Law and rhetoric in the West were born together nearly 2500 years ago in the Mediterranean. American law has eschewed its rhetorical roots since the late nineteenth century. Denying law’s rhetorical nature helps to construct an impartial façade, shoring up law’s legitimacy. Admitting the rhetorical nature of law would be to admit its partiality, or the point of view inevitably inscribed with every textual choice. At the same time, rhetorical theorists have turned their attention to many subjects other than law. Though many rhetorical scholars today still study legal rhetoric, much of their focus is on high-profile court cases and Supreme Court opinions. This volume’s contributors believe it is time for an expanded conversation between law and rhetoric, placing a broader variety of legal texts in conversation with a broader variety of rhetorical traditions than is typically available. Each essay here makes a connection between one or more significant texts on rhetoric and contemporary legal texts.

Liu on Independence Through Judicialization: The Politics Surrounding Administrative Adjudicators, 1929-1949 @Michigan_JEAL @Lawrence_J_Liu

Lawrence J. Liu, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, is publishing Independence through Judicialization: The Politics Surrounding Administrative Adjudicators, 1929-1949 in the Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law. Here is the abstract.

One front in today’s battle to define the scope of the administrative state concerns the authority, status, and future of its 10,000-plus administrative adjudicators. Decisions by federal courts and the executive branch to increase the dependence of administrative adjudicators on the executive have sparked strong reactions from observers, with many advocating for measures to increase adjudicator “independence.” But who should administrative adjudicators be independent of, which ought to be independent, and why? Calls for administrative adjudicator independence are not new. This Article draws on primary documents produced by private actors, congressional decisionmakers, and federal executive agents to present a political legal history of legislative proposals between 1929 and 1949 to understand whether, how, and why different actors sought to insulate administrative adjudicators from their agencies or the President. Leading up to and following the enactment of the Administrative Procedure Act in 1946, politicians and interested citizens advanced proposals to increase the independence of the individuals who conducted hearings and served as factfinders in administrative agencies. Then, like now, observers debated administrative adjudicator independence in the context of discussions about the power of administrative agencies. The loudest supporters of independence were anti-New Dealers trying to halt and reverse the growth of administrative power, who were joined by a subset of legal professionals interested in using law to check its operation. These critics attempted to “judicialize” administrative adjudication by increasing the resemblance of administrative adjudicators to the federal judiciary. What does this history teach? First, it illustrates how actors past and present deploy seemingly apolitical terms like judicial values, independence, or administrative procedure to obtain substantive political ends. Indeed, such terms can take on different meanings at different times, perhaps varying with views of the federal judiciary and active government, the policies and political strength of the President, the issues decided by administrative agencies, or the types of claimants subject to adjudication. Second, it highlights how early supporters of administrative agencies emphasized the diversity among administrative adjudicators, while opponents grouped them together to collectively limit their authority. Today, rather than pursuing one-size-fits-all reforms, I suggest that different rules should apply to different administrative adjudicators depending on the questions and claimants involved. Decisions about ratemaking or regulatory enforcement differ from individualized determinations whether citizens qualify for government benefits or licenses. Claims by business interests might be treated differently from those by more vulnerable groups, such as disability-benefits recipients or noncitizens at risk of removal. In any event, when making policy recommendations, reformers should begin by understanding who administrative adjudicators are and the functions they perform, an understanding that also underscores whether and how politics should animate arguments about adjudicator independence.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Barrett on Felix Frankfurter, Collector of People @JohnQBarrett @StJohnsLaw @TouroLawReview

John Q. Barrett, St. John's University School of Law; Robert H. Jackson Center, is publishing Felix Frankfurter, Collector of People in volume 39 of the Touro Law Review (2024). Here is the abstract.

This essay is part of the Touro Law Review symposium issue, “The Life, Work & Legacy of Felix Frankfurter.” It grew out of Touro Law School’s April 19, 2023, Frankfurter conference, which was inspired by Brad Snyder’s publication of the biography Democratic Justice: Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court, and the Making of the Liberal Establishment. This essay describes how Felix Frankfurter engaged, intensely, with people—they were the treasures that he hunted down, evaluated, and collected. It considers some of Frankfurter’s most treasured people. One group is people who made Frankfurter, including Henry L. Stimson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Another group is Justice Frankfurter’s three great U.S. Supreme Court colleagues: Justices Hugo L. Black, Robert H. Jackson, and William O. Douglas. A third group is biographers who Frankfurter admired and pushed: Harlan Buddington Phillips, Mark DeWolfe Howe, Jr., McGeorge Bundy, Alexander M. Bickel, Andrew L. Kaufman, and Philip B. Kurland. Biographer Brad Snyder has, by himself collecting Frankfurter and portraying him so fully and so well, brought his people-collecting into focus. I hope that Snyder’s biography stimulates others to study Frankfurter, to recover his stolen papers, to write more about him, to publish more of his writings, and to live people-filled lives. The Touro Law Review Frankfurter symposium issue includes, in addition to my essay, this superb content: an introduction by Rodger Citron, conference organizer; a keynote address by Frankfurter biographer Brad Snyder; and essays and articles by Judge Jed S. Rakoff, R.B. Bernstein, William E. Nelson, Helen J. Knowles-Gardner, and Dalia Tsuk.

Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

Call For Submissions: Open Philosophy: Sensuality and Robots

From Michał Kowalczyk, Assistant Editor, De Gruyter:

REMINDER: CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS for a topical issue of Open Philosophy

 

SENSUALITY AND ROBOTS: AN AESTHETIC APPROACH TO HUMAN-ROBOT INTERACTIONS

 

Open Philosophy (https://www.degruyter.com/opphil) invites submissions for the topical issue "Sensuality and Robots: An Aesthetic Approach to Human-Robot Interactions," edited by Adrià Harillo Pla.

 

DESCRIPTION

 

Can robots be sensual? In our era of technological advancements, the once clear demarcation between humans and machines is becoming increasingly blurred. As robotics and artificial intelligence continue to evolve, there is a remarkable confluence of situations that beckons us to ponder the profound implications of human-robot interactions. Sexual robots, or partners like Replika, are just an example. This edited issue puts on the table the relationship between aesthetics and philosophy, seeking to understand the intricate interplay of sensuality and robots.

 

Welcoming authors whose are informed by various philosophical approaches, which include, but are not limited to, Aesthetics, Philosophy of Time, Ethics, and Philosophy of Technology, this issue navigates the evolving landscape of human-robot relationships. Approaches from the Sociology of Expectations, Science and Technology Studies, or Psychology, are also welcome.

 

This issue will shed light into the concept of “sensuality” as a multi-faceted aesthetic, and creative experience that encompasses not only physical sensations, but also emotional and psychological. By probing the boundaries of what it means to be sensual, this issue intends to unravel the enigmatic allure of machines that simulate human-like qualities, maybe sometimes even transcending human capacities. The topical issue aspires to ignite a lively and thoughtful discussion on the present and future of sensuality and robots. By embracing this novel form of human-machine interaction, it opens the door to a fascinating journey that promises to reshape the boundaries of sensuality, aesthetics, eroticism, and the human experience in an ever-evolving technological world.

 

Contributions may address questions such as: ● Can a robot be sensual? ● In the case of sexual robots, is sensuality a condition of necessity, sufficiency, or possibility for its expected functionality? ● Can mechanisms of security affect not only the usability of a robot, but also its sensuality? ● Is there space for a “Robo-Eroticism” subdiscipline? ● How could a robot be sensual? ● What is the role of creativity in achieving sensual human-robot interactions? Authors publishing their articles in the special issue will benefit from: · transparent, comprehensive and fast peer review, · efficient route to fast-track publication and full advantage of De Gruyter's e-technology. Because Open Philosophy is published under an Open Access model, as a rule, publication costs should be covered by so-called Article Publishing Charges (APC), paid by authors, their affiliated institutions, funders, or sponsors. Authors without access to publishing funds are encouraged to discuss potential discounts or waivers with Managing Editor of the journal Katarzyna Tempczyk (katarzyna.tempczyk@degruyter.com) before submitting their manuscripts.

 

HOW TO SUBMIT Submissions will be collected from September 1 to September 30, 2024. To submit an article for the special issue of Open Philosophy, authors are asked to access the online submission system at: http://www.editorialmanager.com/opphil/

 

Please choose as article type: Sensual Robots

 

Before submission the authors should carefully read over the Instruction for Authors, available at: https://www.degruyter.com/publication/journal_key/OPPHIL/downloadAsset/OPPHIL_Instruction%20for%20Authors.pdf

 

All contributions will undergo critical review before being accepted for publication.

 

Further questions about this thematic issue can be addressed to Adrià Harillo Pla at adria.harillo@gmail.com.

 

In case of technical problems with submission, please contact AssistantManagingEditor@degruyter.com

 

Find us on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DGOpenPhilosophy

Postema on An "Almost Sacred Responsibility": The Rule of Law in Times of Peril @UNCPhilDept @DukeJudicature

Gerald J. Postema, University of North Carolina Department of Philosophy, has published An 'Almost Sacred Responsibility': The Rule of Law in Times of Peril at 107 Judicature 41 (2024). Here is the abstract.

“An ‘Almost Sacred Responsibility’: The Rule of Law in Times of Peril.” Published in Judicature (107 no. 3—2024) Judicature - Vol. 107 No. 3 (2024). The material in this short article was first presented in a lecture for the Bolch Judicial Institute, Duke University Law School, June 16, 2023. The essay sketches key ideas that are set out in detail in Gerald J. Postema, Law’s Rule: The Nature, Value, and Viability of the Rule of Law (Oxford, 2022). It briefly articulates the core principles of the rule-of-law ideal, its moral foundations, key institutions in which it is typically realized, and signal threats to which it is vulnerable.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Call For Papers: How To Do Things With Law: Prefiguration, Performativity, and Alternative Legalities, Law and Society Association, May 22-25, Chicago @law_soc Ben Golder @SteveIsInOtago

 

Call for Papers

How to do things with Law: Prefiguration, Performativity, and Alternative Legalities

Law and Society Association, May 22-25, 2025, in Chicago 

We - Amy Cohen (Temple University), Stephen Young (University of Otago) and Ben Golder (UNSW) - are organising a mini-conference on the above theme to take place within the 2025 annual meeting of the Law and Society Association in Chicago, to be held May 22-25th. 

Theme:

What happens when everyday actors take the law into their own hands and seek to create, or recreate, the legal worlds they inhabit? There is a long, venerable and fascinating tradition of non-legal actors seizing the means of legal imagination. These individuals and groups (sometimes even quasi-institutions) are not formally authorized to make law but they act as if they are, adopting a consciously fictive jurisdiction. 

Think, for example, of the work of peoples’ tribunals in international law - starting with the Russell Tribunal on the United State’s crimes in Vietnam in the late 1960s and through to the World Tribunal on Iraq in 2005 - that mobilise a certain (popular) understanding of international law to produce verdicts, raise popular consciousness, and critique (or maybe even redeem) international law.

Think also of the Feminist Judgments Projects (FJPs) or related exercises in critical or imaginative judgment-writing, in which legal scholars and feminist activists assume the position of judges and rewrite important appellate judicial decisions. In so doing, they seek to expose both law’s patriarchal structure but also its contingency, its hidden margin of freedom. Law, in the hands of would-be feminist judges, could always be otherwise.

Or think, in a very different political register, of those litigants (be they sovereign citizens or other individuals) who today - gathered under the sign of what mainstream legal actors pejoratively call ‘pseudolaw’ - mobilise a certain understanding of the common law and of its ancient history in order to assert a particular legal subjectivity and claim their rights. Indeed, sometimes these individuals  fashion an entire normative universe. 

These examples are neither exhaustive nor privileged instances of the phenomenon - we could add many others, from exercises of corporate self-governance (the so-called ‘Facebook Supreme Court,’ for example) to heterodox gestures of self-determination (the sovereign claims of micronations, for example).

This conference within a conference presents an opportunity to explore these phenomena, and continues discussions about ‘prefigurative legality’ (Cohen and Morgan, 2023), or other related topics. Without wishing to circumscribe those discussions, we are interested in paper proposals (which we will organise into panels) or fully-formed panels (with 3/4 papers) that address the following indicative list of topics and questions:

1.      How do we best think about this phenomenon of informal legality - as an instance of prefiguration, or performativity, or parody, or maybe through the lens of legal pluralism?

2.      What is the relationship between the informal or everyday legal claim (to rights, jurisdiction, statehood, even) and the formal structures of state or international law?

3.      Do these claims complete, compete with, or critique authorized law, or do they sit outside, beyond or underneath it?

4.      What are the political possibilities and limitations of these exercises or practices?

5.      What are historical examples of this phenomenon and what might those histories indicate about similar actions or actors today?

6.      What understanding of legal form and legal method do these practices disclose?

7.      What are the similarities and differences between supposedly left-wing invocations of law, and conservative mobilisations of law?

Process:

We invite paper (or panel) proposals for a series of interlinked panels on the above theme at the Law and Society Association 2025 Conference in Chicago, May 22-25. Our intention is to collate a series of paper (and panel) proposals into a mini-conference, crafting a conference within the wider conference setting of the LSA that sustains an intimate and intellectual conversation across the related panels. Below is the set of steps and deadlines leading up to the LSA in 2025 and what you need to do in order to participate. After the LSA, our intention is to work with participants to publish our papers as a collection in either a special edition of a scholarly journal or in the form of an edited book with a leading academic or trade publisher. Once we have the final conference-within-a-conference program we will commence initial discussions with participants (that is, well before the LSA itself) and gauge interest and ideas in future publications.

Timeline:

8.      Send abstracts, panel proposals or thoughts to stephen.young@otago.ac.nz by 15 September 2024

9.      We will notify people of acceptance or non-acceptance by 1 October 2024

10. Participants confirm participation by 7 October 2024

11. Participants/Organisers submit panels to LSA by 15 October 2024*

12. *Please note that participation in this mini-conference will “count” towards your participation limits for LSA

13. LSA: 22-25 May 2025

What to Submit?:

We are interested in receiving either paper abstracts on the above or related topics or fully-formed panels. If you wish to submit a paper abstract please include a 200 word abstract, with a title and also your institutional affiliation. If you wish to submit a fully-formed panel or series of panels, please ensure that the submission contains 3 or 4 abstracts of 200 words, with a title and institutional affiliation for each paper plus a 200 word explanation of the panel’s theme itself. We are open to receiving questions about different formats of panels (roundtables, Author-Meets-Reader sessions, etc) but we encourage people to contact us as soon as possible about this to facilitate organisation.

Please direct your questions to any of the 3 organisers at the following email addresses: b.golder@unsw.edu.au, ajcohen@temple.edu, stephen.young@otago.ac.nz. But final submission of proposals should be directed to stephen.young@otago.ac.nz

We do not have funding for this project so each participant needs to ensure their own travel to, registration at, and attendance at the LSA Chicago annual meeting. 

Mootz and Hannah on The Strange Persistence of Originalism

Francis Joseph Mootz, III, McGeorge School of Law, and Mark Hannah, Arizona State University, have published The Strange Persistence of Originalism. Here is the abstract.

Originalism has positioned itself as the au courant doctrine of legal interpretation. Proponents argue that originalism is a core element of our democratic identity and should be adopted by every judge. The originalist tenet -- that the meaning of a legal text is the ordinary meaning the text had at the time of its enactment -- purportedly provides an objective basis for judging with integrity. Despite originalists’ grandiose claims, critics have lodged many well-reasoned objections that problematize originalists’ goals and methods. Why, then, has originalism gained such widespread prominence? In this article, we offer a rhetorical analysis that explains its ascendance and strange persistence. Our thesis is that originalists do not prevail primarily by persuading others through logic or dialectical reasoning (logos) or by promoting their audience’s disposition to hear their argument (pathos). Instead, originalists bring force to their claims by establishing and projecting an ethos. They draw on ethos when claiming to be principled legal advocates who are persons of good character and wisdom. However, ethos has a broader scope than the speaker’s reputation or character exhibited in an effort to persuade. Only by acknowledging this dimension of ethos can we explain how originalists have dominated recent jurisprudential debates.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Call For Applications, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies @IALS_law @anat_rosenberg

The Institute of Advanced Legal Studies is pleased to announce a call for Academic Visitors and Visiting Artists for the 2024-25 academic year. This is part of an exciting new initiative to develop the field of Law and the Humanities at IALS under the leadership of its new Professor, Dr Anat Rosenberg.

The deadline for applications is 8th September and further particulars can be found here: 

Call for Visitors 2024-25- early-mid career 

Call for Visitors 2024-25- PhD & Postdoc

Call for Visitors 2024-25- visiting artist
 

Waldon, Condoravdi, Pustejovsky, Schneider, and Tobia on Reading Law With Linguistics: How Linguistic Theory and Data Inform Statutory Interpretation of Artifact Nouns @kevin_tobia

Brandon Waldon, Georgetown University, Cleo Condoravdi, Stanford University, James Pustejovsky, Brandeis University, Nathan Schneider, Georgetown University, and Kevin Tobia, Georgetown University Law Center; Georgetown University, Department of Philosophy, have published Reading Law with Linguistics: How Linguistic Theory and Data Inform Statutory Interpretation of Artifact Nouns. Here is the abstract.

The Supreme Court will soon decide Garland v. VanDerStok, a case concerning whether a “gun parts kit” or “ghost gun” is a “firearm” subject to regulation under the 1968 Gun Control Act. These “kits,” firearm parts that with additional finishing or combination become an operable firearm, have been used in several mass shootings. For the textualist Supreme Court the case turns on the statute’s meaning, and the briefs and lower court opinions emphasize traditional tools. This article proposes that the Court complement familiar interpretive tools like dictionaries with new ones. We apply insights from linguistic theory, report new data from ordinary language usage, and present an original survey study of ordinary Americans. This evidence supports that the gun parts kits identified by the government fit within the meaning of “firearm.” This analysis has important practical implications for VanDerStok and the regulation of unassembled and unfinished firearms. The article’s case study in the legal interpretation of artifact nouns also carries broader implications. We develop lessons for statutory interpretation theory and legal philosophy.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Boyd on Storied Pleadings: The Power of Narrative Introductions @LadyLegalWriter @GeorgiaStateLaw

Megan Boyd, Georgia State University College of Law, is publishing Storied Pleadings: The Power of Narrative Introductions as a Georgia State University College of Law Legal Studies Research Paper. Here is the abstract.

This article sits at the intersection of civil procedure, professional responsibility, and legal writing. Narratives, or stories, are essential to the human experience and thus essential to law. While storytelling has typically been reserved for motions practice and trial, lawyers are now beginning to include narrative techniques in complaints and, specifically, in complaint introductions. Narrative Introductions, which employ multiple narrative techniques to paint a more complete and persuasive picture of the plaintiff’s factual or legal contentions, seek to persuade the reader from the outset that the plaintiff’s claims are worth paying attention to. Part I of this article outlines the importance of first impressions in legal writing. Strong first impressions are created through a concept known as priming in which the writer uses narrative techniques to present a particular view of the plaintiff’s case through which all subsequent information will be filtered. Part II of this article considers Narrative Introductions in 12 complaints filed in federal and state courts across the country and demonstrates the ways the complaint drafters use narrative techniques to frame the facts and legal claims that follow. Part III of this article outlines the requirements of Rules 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and considers whether the use of Narrative Introductions is consistent with or violates those rules, using the Narrative Introductions studied as examples. Part III also considers certain Model Rules of Professional Conduct and addresses ethical issues that may arise in the use of Narrative Introductions. This article concludes by explaining why lawyers should not be concerned that well-researched and carefully written Narrative Introductions violate any procedural or ethical rules and advocating for their use more widely. Funder Statement This article was made possible by a grant from the Legal Writing Institute, the Association of Legal Writing Directors, and LexisNexis.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Turner on Resistance to Tyranny versus the Public Good: John Locke and Counter-Terror Law in the United Kingdom

Ian Turner, University of Central Lancashire Law School, has published Resistance to Tyranny versus the Public Good: John Locke and Counter-Terror Law in the United Kingdom. Here is the abstract.

John Locke was a social contract theorist. He envisaged that individuals had domiciled in a state of nature, enjoying natural rights. But because of the insecurities of the natural state, individuals transitioned to the stability of civil society, guaranteed by a sovereign. There were fetters on the sovereign, however, such as passing laws for the public good. Is modern legislation to counter terrorism for the public good? Locke also expressly granted a right of resistance on the people. But is this right terrorism? Reflecting on these principles, this study examines counter-terror statutes and determines whether Locke would support them.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Amann on Inge Viermetz, Woman Acquitted at Nuremberg @MDianeAmann @UGASchoolofLaw

Diane Marie Amann, University of Georgia School of Law, has published Inge Viermetz, Woman Acquitted at Nuremberg as University of Georgia School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2024-4. Here is the abstract.

Conventional narratives tend to represent the post-World War II international criminal proceedings as a men’s project, thus obscuring the many women who participated, as lawyers, journalists, analysts, interpreters, witnesses, and defendants. Indeed, two women stood trial before Nuremberg Military Tribunals. This article examines the case of the only woman found not-guilty: Inge Viermetz, who had been an administrator at Lebensborn, the Nazi SS adoption and placement agency. The article outlines the prosecution’s child-taking case against Viermetz, as well as her successful gendered self-portrayal as a conventionally feminine caregiver. With references to Professor Megan A. Fairlie, at whose memorial symposium it was presented, the article concludes by considering contemporary implications of this acquittal at Nuremberg.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Call For Submissions: American University Law Review, Spring 2025 Symposium, Law and Popular Culture @AmULRev

The American University Law Review has issued a Call For Papers for its annual symposium. Here is the call.

The American University Law Review is placing a call for submissions of original legal articles and scholarly commentaries for its forthcoming issue dedicated to pop culture and the law. Specifically, the Law Review seeks submissions analyzing the sports, media and entertainment, fashion, and social media industries and their effect on the law. However, other topics related to pop culture will be considered. The target publication date is slated for mid-2025.

Next year, the Law Review’s Spring Symposium will be held on February 7, 2025. This symposium will explore and engage with burgeoning legal issues in pop culture. Selected authors may have the opportunity to present their work as a panelist in the Symposium, but participation is not a requirement for consideration.

    More information and instructions for submission here. 

 

Long on The Gettysburg Address: Lincoln's Model Legal Argument @baldycenter @UBSchoolofLaw

Patrick J. Long, SUNY Buffalo Law School, has published The Gettysburg Address: Lincoln's Model Legal Argument at 72 Buffalo Law Review 383 (2024). Here is the abstract.

The Gettysburg Address does not appear to be a legal argument. One cannot find a rule anywhere in its few words. Nor does there seem to be any application of a rule to the facts of the case. There is a simple reason for this absence: the law in 1863 was wrong. Lincoln knew that, but he was too much the lawyer to advocate law-breaking. Instead, he used all the skills he had learned from his years in the courtroom to urge his listeners to look beyond the law’s flaws to find the truth of the Declaration’s “self-evident truth.”

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Legal Imaginaries Across the Asia-Pacific: Vernacular Laws and Literatures: Workshop, September 5, 2024 @ANU_Law @lawlithum

 From the ANU Network of Law Arts and the Humanities:

 

 

Legal Imaginaries across the Asia-Pacific: Vernacular laws and literatures

Thursday 5^th September

Phillipa Weeks Staff Library, Level 4, ANU College of Law

This event represents the first fruits of a new network that targets a specific geographic constellation and identifies, through the language of ‘the imaginary’ and ‘vernacular’, a specific set of theoretical resources. ‘Laws and literatures’ both frames the endeavour in relation to the rich field of studies in law and literature, and pluralises it in significant ways. Collaborative partners in the broader project include University of Wollongong, Hong Kong University, National University of Singapore, and University of British Columbia.

This one-day workshop would be of interest to academics and HDR students in literature, law and the humanities, legal theory, and postcolonial studies. It features new work from prominent and emerging scholars working in law and literature from right across the region -- from Australia, Aotearoa, the Pacific and Mexico to Hong Kong, Singapore, and Indonesia – showcasing new directions with what we might call a common indicazione geografica tipica, and indicazione teorica tipica.

To find out more about the program and to register, follow the link.

For further information, contact Professor Desmond Manderson,
Australian National University College of Law / College of Arts & Social Sciences

 

Newly published: Mark D. White, The Virtues of Captain America: Modern-Day Lessons on Character from a World War II Superhero (2d ed., Wiley, 2024) @profmdwhite

 New from Wiley:

Mark D. White, The Virtues of Captain America: Modern-Day Lessons on Character from a World War II Superhero (2d. ed., 2024).

Here from the publisher's website is a description of the book's contents.

Learn how Captain America's timeless ethical code is just as relevant in the twenty-first century as it was during the 1940s

Captain America, or simply “Cap,” provides an example of the virtues that define personal excellence, as well as the ideals and principles upon which the United States of America was founded. In The Virtues of Captain America, philosopher and long-time comics fan Mark D. White shows us that this fictional superhero's “old-fashioned” moral code is exactly what we need today to restore kindness and respect in our personal and civic lives.

Presenting Captain America's personal morality within a virtue ethics framework, the book opens with an introduction to basic concepts in moral and political philosophy and addresses issues surrounding the use of fictional characters as role models. The following chapters examine Captain America in detail, exploring the individual virtues that Cap exemplifies, the qualities that describe his moral character, his particular brand of patriotism, his ongoing battle with fascism, his personal vision of the “American Dream,” his moral integrity and sense of honor, and much more.

Now in its second edition, The Virtues of Captain America is updated to include all the new developments in Captain America's saga, including new examples from the last ten years of Captain America's appearances in Marvel Comics. New coverage of the recent “Secret Empire” storyline, in which Captain America was brainwashed by the fascist organization Hydra, features new sections examining the nature of fascism and how Captain America's character and virtues were affected by the change. This edition also offers new material on Sam Wilson—formerly Captain America's partner the Falcon who recently became Captain America himself—and how his interpretation of the role compares to Steve Rogers'.

Showing how we can be better people if we pay attention to the choices made by the Sentinel of Liberty, The Virtues of Captain America:

• Examines the moral and political philosophy behind 80 years of Captain America comics and movies in a light-hearted, often humorous tone
• Demonstrates that the core principles and judgment exhibited by Captain America in the 1940s remain relevant in the twenty-first century
• Describes the basic themes of Captain America's ethics, such as courage, humility, perseverance, honesty, and loyalty
• Illustrates how Captain America stands for the basic ideals of America, not its politics or government

Requiring no background in philosophy or familiarity with the source material, the second edition of The Virtues of Captain America: Modern-Day Lessons on Character from a World War II Superhero remains a must-read for everyone wanting to make ethical decisions in complex real-world situations and tackle the personal and political issues of today with integrity and respect.

Bassok on The Absolutist Judiciary @UniofNottingham

Or Bassok, University of Nottingham, Faculty of Law and Social Sciences, has published The Absolutist Judiciary. Here is the abstract.

The judicial authority to strike down constitutional amendments is not an advanced constitutional technology that merely upgrades judicial review. Rather, this authority is part of a jurisprudence of absolute truths that is antithetical to liberal democracy. Treating this authority as a mere technology stands at the core of the attempt to justify it based on fusing the ideas of two of Weimar’s great legal minds, Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt. Fusing Schmitt’s ideas with Kelsen’s enabled the transfer of this authority from the president, as Schmitt envisioned, to the constitutional court that Kelsen designated to serve as the guardian of the constitution. Yet, Kelsen rejected the authority to review constitutional amendments because a liberal democratic system cannot include an institution deciding on absolute truths that cannot be changed by the democratic process. Contrary to Kelsen, Schmitt believed that the constitution anchors the fundamental political core truth of the state. Yet, Schmitt rejected the idea that an inherently political function of defending the state’s fundamental political decision can be endowed to the judiciary. I agree that courts may be justified in exceptional and extreme situations to break constitutional constraints—including striking down constitutional amendments—to save democracy from the people. However, the attempt to juridify the authority of reviewing constitutional amendments under a legal doctrine necessarily leads to corruption either of constitutional law as Kelsen predicted or of the judiciary as Schmitt thought. Normalizing the exception by creating a legal doctrine that endows the judiciary with the final say that cannot be amended by any democratic means is the end of liberal democracy, even if it is the judiciary that hands down absolute truths.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Bottasso, Cerruti, Conti, and Santagata on Sailing Through History: The Legacy of Medieval Sea Trade on Migrant Perception and Extreme Right Voting @UniGenova

Anna Bottasso, Gianluca Cerruti, Maurizio Conti, and Marta Santagata, all of the University of Genoa, have publishing Sailing Through History: The Legacy of Medieval Sea Trade on Migrant Perception and Extreme Right Voting as IZA Discussion Paper No. 16996. Here is the abstract.

In this study we evaluate the role that Mediterranean Medieval trade with Africa and the Middle-East still plays today in Italian politics by shaping the attitudes towards migrants of individuals that live close to Medieval ports. Trade connections between Medieval ports and Muslim Africa and Middle East might have indeed favoured the emergence of cultural traits that helped the interaction with foreigners from different cultures, ethnicity and religion a few centuries before with respect to other areas of the country. We use a representative survey of young individuals (aged 20-35) to show that, conditionally on a rich set of geographic, historic, economic and individual controls, people living close to a Medieval port are less likely to think that migrants make Italy an unsafe place as well as to report right-wing voting attitudes. Moreover, we also find, in those areas, a lower probability of xenophobic attacks during the spike of refugees from Siria of 2015. Interestingly, right-wing parties started to attract less votes near Medieval ports only when immigration had become a very salient issue. Similarly, we find a lower probability of Jewish deportations close to Medieval ports during the Nazi occupation, the only period in Italian contemporary history when a minority group was explicitly targeted by the government. This in turn suggests that some deep-rooted cultural traits, although not observed and not clearly at work in society, can become visible when the right historical and political circumstances take place.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Emojis and the Law

What do emojis mean in text messages and email? See this article by Anna Stolley Persky for more information. 

More about emojis and the law in these articles.

Golriz Chrostowski, Getting Emojis Into Evidence Is No Laughing Matter, Bloomberg Legal Analysis, August 8, 2023.

Marcel Danesi, The Law and Emojis: Emoji Forensics, 34 International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 1117 (2021). 

Eric Goldman, Emojis and the Law, 93 Washington Law Review 1227 (2018). 

Call For Papers: Fourth Annual Symposium on Popular Culture and International Law @opiniojuris

 From OpinioJuris:

It’s that time of the year again! The editorial team at Opinio Juris is pleased to announce the call for papers for our Fourth Annual Symposium on Pop Culture and International Law. 

We welcome abstracts of up to 400 words on any topic relating to international law and popular culture (film, tv, books, video games, or more–get creative!). To be considered, please submit your pitch via email to Alonso Gurmendi and Sarah Zarmsky at s.zarmsky@essex.ac.uk by Friday 1 August 2024 at 17:00 UK time. Decisions will be communicated by 16 August 2024. 

If selected, the deadline for full pieces will be Monday 14 October. The symposium will take place on Opinio Juris the week of 28 October.

We are very much looking forward to reading your submissions! 

Conklin on The Admissiblity of Rap Lyrics in Court: A Review of As We Speak

Michael Conklin, Angelo State University; Texas A&M School of Law, is publishing The Admissibility of Rap Lyrics in Court: A Review of As We Speak in the Journal of Law & Social Deviance. Here is the abstract.

The use of rap lyrics at trial is a timely issue given the current confluence of events, including the Young Thug trial, the Black Lives Matter movement, a growing “tough on crime” sentiment due to rising violent crime, the introduction of the Restoring Artistic Protection (RAP) Act in Congress, and societal debate about separating the artist from the art. This review provides a critical analysis of the 2024 documentary As We Speak: Rap Music on Trial, a film that advocates against the use of rap lyrics as evidence in criminal trials. The cinematography is beautiful, creating an aesthetically pleasing experience. And it is engagingly structured as a road movie with the guide, rapper Kemba, taking the viewer to Chicago, Atlanta, Los Angeles, New York City, and London to interview rappers and legal experts. This results in a powerful documentary that has received glowing reviews from both film critics and audiences. Unfortunately, while the film’s subject is certainly a legitimate topic of discussion, the film suffers from significant shortcomings. This review will analyze how the leading study regarding rap on trial is deceptively presented, misrepresentations of the topic as a free-speech issue whereby rap lyrics are “criminalized,” ineffective attempts to analogize rappers to Shakespearian actors, and claims regarding race that are contrary to the evidence.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Forthcoming From Routledge Books: Culture, Secularization, and Democracy (Sophie van Bijsterveld and Hans-Martien ten Napel, eds., 2025)

 Forthcoming from Routledge Books:

Culture, Secularization, and Democracy: Lessons from Alexis de Tocqueville (Sophie van Bijsterveld and Hans-Martien ten Napel, eds., 2025). Here is a description of the book's contents from the publisher's website.

Following the approach developed by Alexis de Tocqueville, this volume views democracy as a cultural phenomenon. It starts from the assumption that if we are to adequately address concerns about the current state and future of modern Western democracies, we need first to tackle the cultural preconditions necessary for the functioning of a democracy. Since Tocqueville’s time, the book takes the most crucial change in the West to be ‘double secularisation’. Here, this concerns, first, the diminished influence of organised Christianity. Even though secularity was partly a product of Christianity, secularisation is highly significant in terms of the cultural underpinnings of Western democracy. Second, it involves a decreased interest in and knowledge of classical philosophy. Chapters on secularity, family life, civic life, and public spirit focus on central elements of the changed cultural foundation of democracy, exploring issues such as identity politics, the public space, and the role of human rights and natural law in a pluralistic and resilient democracy. The volume concludes with a closer look at the implications of current presentism, that is, the view that only the present counts for the legitimacy and effectiveness of democratic systems. Finally, it asks if double secularisation can also offer fresh opportunities for promoting the conditions of a viable democracy. The book will be of interest to academics and researchers working in the areas of law and religion, constitutional law, political science, history, and philosophy.

Call For Papers: Cultural Contours of Justice: Law and Crime Narratives in Popular Imagination

Call For Papers from Dr. Dimitris Akrivos, University of Surrey, and Dr. Alexandros Antoniou, University of Essex:

I am delighted to invite contributions to our interdisciplinary Special Issue Cultural Contours of Justice: Law and Crime Narratives in Popular Imagination for Laws, a high impact factor MDPI journal.

 

🛑All articles will be Open Access so everyone can join the conversation.

🛑There is a 100% article processing fee waiver for all contributions to this Special Issue.

 

For all the fine print and submission specifics, make your way to our special issue’s exclusive page here: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/laws/special_issues/GZQ60XH7QX.

 

Should further enlightenment be required, please drop a line to Dr Dimitris Akrivos at d.akrivos@surrey.ac.uk and Dr Alexandros Antoniou at a.antoniou@essex.ac.uk.

Harris on Ida B. Wells' Train Ride in Memphis and the Dawn of Jim Crow @memlawschool

Lee Harris, University of Memphis School of Law, has published Ida B. Wells' Train Ride in Memphis and the Dawn of Jim Crow at 2 Journal of American Constitutional History 297 (2024). Here is the abstract.

Before there was Rosa Parks, Ida B. Wells and women across the United States during the late nineteenth century were challenging discriminatory practices on the public transit system of their era: the railroads. In 1881, Wells, who would eventually become a history-making anti-lynching crusader, was just 19 years old. She was readying herself to leave Holly Springs, Mississippi, her hometown, for the first time and move to Memphis for a higher-paying teaching job. She planned to commute by train to and from her new position. Developers had laid train tracks around the city, and Memphis boasted seven rail lines. In those years of her youth, before she left the South for the national stage, Ida B. Wells was a regular train commuter in Memphis. Also, at the time of her young adulthood, racial segregation was still at its embryonic stage. However, principles of segregation had been spreading incredibly fast into multiple domains, including the nascent transit system. Soon enough, her usual train commute from Memphis set the backdrop for one of her most consequential legal changes taking place in the country and the arrival of Jim Crow. Before Rosa Parks, Ida B. Wells was one of the first women in America who refused to give up her seat and made a legal challenge to the segregationist system that was emerging around the nation. Although she did not win, her actions set the stage for the next several decades of the fight against segregation and Jim Crow.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.