Ipse Dixit

In this episode, ECC11 and King explain why the Almighty Latin King & Queen Nation is a religion and discuss a Section 1983 action they are filing in order to compel the courts to recognize its religious character. ECC11 and King explain that the Nation is organized as a religion and has a unique religious doctrine, and that the members of the Nation sincerely believe in its religious doctrines. They reflect on the Religious Land Use And Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUPIA) and how it regulates the government's obligation to recognize the Nation as a religion in prisons. Specifically, they argue that there is a less-restrictive means of regulating the Nation in prison than the absolute prohibition the government currently enforces, based on its characterization of the Nation as a security threat group. They also place the treatment of the Nation in historical context.

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

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

In this episode, Thomas K. Chu, a New York attorney, discusses his work on estate planning and issues affecting older clients. Chu begins by describing his background and legal practice. He reflects on common misconceptions about estate planning and common mistakes people make when planning their estates. In particular, he argues that everyone should have an estate plan, even if they have limited assets, because estate planning is not only about financial assets, but also about life choices, especially decisions about disability and end of life choices. He closes by reflecting on the relationship of his work in the charitable sector and his faith to his work as an attorney. Chu is on Twitter at @ThomChu.

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, Alexandra J. Roberts, Associate Professor of Law at the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law, discusses her draft article "False Influencing." Roberts begins by explaining what an "influencer" is, what influencer advertising looks like, and why influencer ads are so popular with many different brands. She observes that many influencer ads are not transparent about sponsorship, and some make false or misleading claims about products or the influencers personal experience with products. She explains how the FTC has attempted to regulate influencer ads, especially by requiring disclosure of sponsorship, but notes that many influencers do not comply with those regulations. She notes that brands can also regulate their competitors's ads themselves, and reflects on why they don't. She closes by reflecting on how consumers understand influencer ads and how influencers understand their own brands. Roberts is on Twitter at @lexlanham.

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, Ryan Vacca, Professor of Law at the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law, discusses his article "Uncertainty in Employee Status Across Federal Law," which will be published in the Temple Law Review. Vacca begin by explaining the origins of the distinction between employees and independent contractors, and why it was created. He discusses the historical development of the distinction, observing courts initially interpreted federal statutes regulating employment in light of the purpose of the statute, but Congress amended the statutes to require a "common law" interpretation of employee status, weighing many different factors. He discusses his empirical study of how courts have applied the common law test in many different contexts, and reflects on what it can tell us about the policy questions at issue. Vacca is on Twitter at @RyanVacca.

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, Katherine E. Kerrick, a law student at the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law, discusses her note, "Should Donald Trump’s 'Make America Great Again' Receive Trademark Protection?," which will be published in the University of New Hampshire Law Review. Kerrick begins by explaining when trademarks can be registered, when they can't, and why. She then explains the history of Donald Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan and his registration of the slogan for trademark protection. She reflects on whether the USPTO should have registered the MAGA slogan when Trump applied for it, how much protection it should receive today, and whether there are First Amendment issues with trademark protection of political slogans. She also discusses the process of developing a note topic and how to ask professors for advice.

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, Catherine Christopher, Associate Dean for Bar Success and Professor of Law at the Texas Tech University School of Law, discusses her article "Normalizing Struggle." Christopher explains why “struggle” is not only a good thing, but a necessity for students studying law. She observes that struggle should be embraced and not equated with failure. She also describes the strategies she has implemented into her own practicum in order to ensure the success of her students within law school and beyond. Christopher is on Twitter at @cassiechristop.

This episode was hosted by SJ Morrison, a law student at the Duquesne University School of Law. Morrison is on Twitter at @SJMilliron.

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

In this episode, Philip Hackney, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, discusses his draft article "Dark Democracy? Section 501(c)(4) Social Welfare Organizations and Tax Exemption." Hackney begins by describing the difference between outcome-based and process-based theories of political legitimacy. He argues that we should care about process, and explains how nonprofit organizations can affect the democratic process. He identifies the differences between 501(c)(3) charitable organization and 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations, and explains how 501(c)(4)s are used for political purposes. He argues that their tax-exempt status is an undemocratic subsidy that should be eliminated, and reflects on the wisdom of exemption in general. Hackney is on Twitter at @EOTaxProf.

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, Susan Bandes, Centennial Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus at DePaul University College of Law, discusses her article "Closure in the Criminal Courtroom: The Birth and Strange Career of an Emotion," which will be published in the Edward Elgar Research Handbook on Law and Emotion. Bandes begins by observing that the concept of "closure" in criminal law is relatively novel, and was introduced by the victim's rights movement in the late 1980s. She discusses the different possible meanings of closure and the different ways different parties try to pursue different goals. She reflects on tensions between the emotional needs of victims and their families, and the demands of the criminal justice system. And she argues that more research is needed to determine what will most help victims. Bandes is on Twitter at @BandesSusan.

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.

In this episode, Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School, discusses his article, "Making Federalism Great Again: How the Trump Administration's Attack on Sanctuary Cities Unintentionally Strengthened Judicial Protection for State Autonomy," which is published in the Texas Law Review. Somin begins by explaining what a "sanctuary city" is and how the Trump administration has tried to block sanctuary city legislation. He describes the different approaches the administration has taken, and the federalism-based defenses raised by sanctuary cities, which sound in the Spending Clause and the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine. He observes that the defenses have been effective, and reflects on whether they reflect opportunism or a new reflect for federalism as a way of checking government power. You can read his related Washington Post op-ed here. Somin is on Twitter at @IlyaSomin.

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.