Ipse Dixit

In this episode, Priya Baskaran, Assistant Professor at American University Washington College of Law, discusses her draft article "Flint, Appalachia & the Green New Deal: Water Justice in America's Forgotten Places." She begins by explaining how and why she uses the term "geographically disadvantaged places." She observes that seemingly disparate distressed communities like Flint, Michigan and McDowell County, West Virginia actually share many infrastructure problems, and that those problems are the result of similar historical policy choices. She argues that the problems facing those communities didn't "just happen," but are the result of corporate and government choice, and that solving those problems will require a concerted policy effort. Baskaran is on Twitter at @Priya_Baskaran.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Justin Murray, Associate Professor of Law at New York Law School, discusses his article "Prejudice-Based Rights in Criminal Procedure," which will be published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Murray begins by explaining what "prejudiced-based" rights are, and how their administration by trial courts and prosecutors differs from rights that don't require a showing of prejudice. He observes that the prejudice requirement often renders those rights ineffectual. And he argues that courts and prosecutors should not consider prejudice at the trial stage. Murray is on Twitter at @JustinNYLS.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Jennifer Sturiale, Climenko Fellow and Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School, discusses her articles "A Balanced Consideration of the Federal Circuit's Choice of Law Rule," which will be published in the Utah Law Review, and "The Unseen Force in Civil Litigation: The Chief Justice's Appointment of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation." Sturiale begins by explaining that the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over cases that include patent claims and counterclaims, among other things. She also explains what choice of rules are, and describes the choice of law rule unique to the Federal Circuit. She observes that the Federal Circuit wanted to create intercircuit consistency, but did so at the expense of intracircuit consistency. She considers different ways of resolving the problem, weighing their benefits and costs. She also discusses the role of the Chief Justice in appointing the members of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict litigation, and explains why it might also create choice of law problems. Sturiale's scholarship is available on SSRN.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Alan Mygatt-Tauber, Adjunct Professor at Virginia Commonwealth University and Assistant Counsel at the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Northwest, discusses his article "Rethinking the Reasoning of Verdugo-Urquidez," which will be published in the Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality. Mygatt-Tauber begins by describing the Supreme Court's holding in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) that the Fourth Amendment applies extraterritorially only if the defendant has a "substantial connection" to the United States. He observes that Verdugo-Urquidez is inconsistent with Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), and that the "substantial connection" rule is unworkable for both judges and law enforcement officers. He argues in favor of an alternative standard based on who is conducting the search, rather than who is being searched. And he reflects on the broader meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Mygatt-Tauber is on Twitter at @AMTAppeals.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Valena Beety (@valenabeetv), Professor of Law at Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, and Jennifer Oliva (@jenndoliva), Associate Professor of Law at Seton Hall University School of Law, discuss their new article, "Regulating Bite Mark Evidence: Lesbian Vampires and Other Myths of Forensic Odontology," forthcoming in the Washington Law Review. Professors Beety and Oliva begin the discussion explaining the serious flaws of junk sciences such as bite mark evidence. They then discuss a trial in which a lesbian couple were convicted of murder based upon flawed bite mark evidence propounded by a dentist who described, during trial, his improper examination of the murder victim, while explaining bite mark evidence as being half art and half science. The pair also explain how such use of junk science runs afoul of established evidentiary standards under Daubert, and why junk science such as bite mark evidence has been allowed to proliferate in criminal cases rather than in the civil sphere. Professors Beety and Oliva also highlight the inequities that arise in the use of bite mark evidence, especially among LGBTQ defendants. They then offer novel extrajudicial solutions in an effort to prevent the use of such faulty "science" in future. The paper is currently available on SSRN.

This episode was hosted by Maybell Romero, Assistant Professor of Law at Northern Illinois University College of Law. Romero is on Twitter at @maybellromero.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Carolyn Shapiro, Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States at Chicago-Kent College of Law, discusses her article "Democracy, Federalism, and the Guarantee Clause," which will be published in the Arizona Law Review. Shapiro begins by describing what the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution is and what it was originally intended to accomplish. She surveys the history of the Guarantee Clause and how its salience has waxed and waned over time. She argues that political "spillovers" of extreme partisanship can endanger democracy. And she argues that Congress and other policymakers can and should use the Guarantee Clause as a tool to curb extreme partisanship in the interest of democratic values. Shapiro is on Twitter at @cshaplaw.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Simon Tam, the founder and bassist for The Slants, an Asian-American dance-rock band, discusses his fight to register his band's name as a trademark with the USPTO, and how he helped changed trademark law. Tam begins by describing the origins and aesthetics of The Slants, including why he chose the band's name. He explains why he filed a trademark registration application, and why he chose to fight the USPTO's denial of his application. And he reflects on why he thinks the Supreme Court (mostly) got it right, when it held in Matal v. Tam (2017) that the Lanham Act's prohibition of the registration of "disparaging" trademarks violated the First Amendment. Tam is on Twitter at @SimonTheTam.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, King and ECC11 discuss religion in relation to the ideas of the Latin King and Queen Nation, specifically in relation to the concept of Icona. They explain the origins of the concept of Icona, with reference to the Communist Manifesto and other historical texts on the history of class struggle.

This episode was hosted by King, who is an incarcerated person. King is on Twitter at @King_ShankRadio.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Robin Effron, Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School, discusses her article "Putting the 'Notice' Back Into Pleading," which will be published in the Cardozo Law Review. Effron begins by explaining what pleading is and what a plaintiff is expected to plead under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in order to survive a motion to dismiss. She describes the origins of what came to be known as "notice pleading" and how it developed over time. She observes that notice pleading effectively conflates notice and factual sufficiency, and argues that we should conceptualize them separately in order to better understand and realize the purpose of our pleading regime. Effron is on Twitter at @binsky18.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.