Skip to content


Gerald Neuman

  • On the Bookshelf: HLS Library Book Talks, Spring 2018 2

    On the bookshelf

    December 15, 2020

    In the unusual year of 2020, Harvard Law authors continued to do what they always have: Write.

  • ICJ Judge Yuji Iwasawa

    Yuji Iwasawa LL.M. ’78 re-elected to the International Court of Justice

    November 19, 2020

    On Nov. 12, Japan’s Yuji Iwasawa LL.M. ’78  was re-elected to the International Court of Justice, the U.N.’s principal judicial body, with overwhelming support from the U.N. member states. He will serve a 9-year term.

  • The Supreme Court’s Attack on Habeas Corpus in DHS v. Thuraissigiam

    August 26, 2020

    An article by Gerald NeumanAt a time when the rule of law is under threat and xenophobic incitement has become a central government policy, a five-Justice majority of the Supreme Court has called into question the Constitution’s fundamental guarantee against executive detention. Refugees are the primary target of the Court’s decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, but the immediate implications of Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion are much wider, and the opinion endangers everyone – U.S. citizens included – by reopening settled questions about the Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause of the Constitution. This important case has gotten less public attention than it deserves.   The opinions may be hard for non-experts to follow, because they arise in a technically complex area of immigration law, and because Alito mischaracterizes some of the issues. The case arose when Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam fled Sri Lanka in the hope of being protected by the United States and was arrested by immigration officials in 2017 at a short distance from the southern border. He was placed in rudimentary “expedited removal” proceedings, where his claims for protection were quickly rejected. The statutory provisions on expedited removal clearly preclude anyone in his position from obtaining judicial review, including by habeas corpus, of the legality of the removal decision. The central issue raised by the case was whether this total preclusion of habeas corpus for a refugee within the United States violated the Suspension Clause. Once the Supreme Court granted certiorari, it was likely that five Justices would rule against the refugee’s right to have his particular claims reviewed; the more urgent question was how broadly they would uphold preclusion of judicial review. As it turned out, concerns about a broad ruling were justified. Justice Alito not only rewrote and marginalized prior precedent on habeas corpus, but reached out to decide an important procedural due process issue that his own analysis had rendered irrelevant.

  • U.N. Panel Takes Aim at Heavy-Handed Police Tactics at Protests

    July 30, 2020

    Law-enforcement authorities are obligated to protect and facilitate peaceful demonstrations, an influential United Nations human rights panel said on Wednesday, challenging tactics the police have used against anti-racism protests in American cities and around the world. The international treaty governing civil and political rights requires states to allow peaceful demonstrations, not to block or disrupt them without a compelling reason, the United Nations Human Rights Committee said. Authorities should also seek to de-escalate situations that might lead to violence and to use only the minimum force necessary to disperse crowds...The committee of 18 international law experts monitors compliance with the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, a cornerstone of human rights law signed by 173 countries, including the United States. The panel’s comment, a product of more than two years of deliberations, sets out international guidelines that speak to issues central to America’s deepening discord over the Trump administration’s response to the Black Lives Matter protests in Portland and elsewhere. The protests in Portland and elsewhere swelled after the administration dispatched federal law enforcement officials to confront demonstrators over the objections of local officials...The committee also asserted the “particular importance” of journalists and human rights defenders in monitoring demonstrations, emphasizing they should not be harassed or their equipment confiscated or damaged. Even if violence erupted to a point that justified dispersing a crowd, it did not justify dispersing journalists. “All of these are lessons that the government of the United States should be taking very much to heart,” said Gerald Neuman, a professor of international law at Harvard University who served on the committee.

  • book cover

    Faculty Books in Brief: Summer 2020

    July 23, 2020

    From human rights in a time of populism to a comparative look at capital punishment to a focus on disability, healthcare and bioethics

  • Human Rights in a Time of Populism cover image

    Human Rights in a Time of Populism and COVID-19

    June 30, 2020

    Harvard Law School's Human Rights Program recently spoke with Professor Gerald Neuman about how he sees the landscape changing for countries with populist leaders in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

  • Supreme Court may have undermined its Guantánamo decision guaranteeing rights to noncitizens

    June 30, 2020

    Each year, the United States deports over 100,000 noncitizens through “expedited removal,” a fast-tracked deportation process. In creating the system, Congress intentionally limited procedural protections for certain immigrants, allowing judges reviewing these removal orders to consider only three narrow questions: whether the immigrant is a noncitizen, has been ordered removed, or is a lawful permanent resident, refugee or asylum seeker. Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, a Sri Lankan national who sought asylum in the United States, challenged that limit, arguing that it was an unconstitutional barrier to habeas corpus, a right that allows a judge to review whether someone is legally detained. On Thursday, the Supreme Court disagreed, issuing a sweeping ruling in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam...Boumediene found that the Constitution guarantees habeas corpus rights even to detainees the Bush administration held as “enemy combatants.” That was true even though the detainees weren’t citizens. In fact, as legal scholar Gerald Neuman put it, Boumediene “confirmed and held that the Suspension Clause constitutionally guarantees habeas corpus to noncitizens” (emphasis original). The Thuraissigiam majority opinion, however, characterizes Boumediene as “forming ‘no certain conclusions’ ” on whether habeas rights extend to “alien[s] who lack … any allegiance to the country.”

  • Harvard experts call ruling on LGBT rights a landmark

    June 17, 2020

    Harvard faculty members in law and gender issues declared Monday’s Supreme Court ruling protecting gay and transgender workers a landmark for LGBT rights... “It’s based in textual reasoning and rather persuasive in those terms,” said Gerald Neuman, co-director of the Human Rights Program at HLS. “It is written in a way that may be more persuasive to members of the public. The people who are in favor of this kind of discrimination, who are vehemently opposed to this interpretation — I don’t think it will be persuasive to them. But people who might say, ‘I’m not in favor of this kind of discrimination, but I don’t think that the law itself addresses it’ … could be persuaded.” ... In a series of tweets, HLS Professor Laurence Tribe also praised Gorsuch’s work. “Today’s 6-3 triumph for the rights of homosexual and transgender people is a victory for justice and for reading laws as they were written rather than as some assumed or intended them to operate,” he wrote. “Justice Gorsuch conducted a master class in interpreting legal texts when he patiently explained why the unexpressed intentions of a law’s authors or the conversational conventions of its users cannot be permitted to trump its unambiguous meaning…Of course progressives don’t always welcome textual analyses and might worry that this Gorsuch majority will complicate their lives in other contexts. To be sure, this remains a very conservative Court. But I say: Be glad for just outcomes when they come your way.”

  • Woman wearing a niqab

    How do you protect against indirect discrimination?

    May 13, 2020

    A recent Harvard Law School Human Rights Program (HRP) workshop convened a group of experts for a discussion on indirect discrimination on the basis of religion.

  • The Draft General Comment on Freedom of Assembly: Might Less Be More?

    February 5, 2020

    An article by Gerald NeumanThe Human Rights Committee’s Draft General Comment 37 on freedom of assembly is an important contribution to the protection of a right that is very much under threat these days. The Committee has long been conscious of the need to address Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The Rapporteur’s initial version and the Committee’s first reading Draft are an excellent start. Now that the Draft is open for comment, it is to be hoped that states and other stakeholders will provide useful input, particularly on practical issues about reconciling the right of peaceful assembly with the rights of others. General Comments are the Human Rights Committee’s most valuable and authoritative pronouncements, because they spell out in direct and concentrated form the Committee’s understanding of state obligations under the ICCPR. General Comments often include passages that clearly intend to provide the Committee’s interpretation of what the Covenant requires, but also passages that recommend best practices for achieving compliance with such obligations. The difference is sometimes marked by use of the verb “must” rather than the verb “should.” A “must” indicates legal obligation, while “should” is more ambiguous and often indicates a softer recommendation.

  • Legal experts: President Donald Trump can’t eliminate birthright citizenship by executive order

    October 31, 2018

    President Donald Trump's proposal to eliminate birthright citizenship was met with skepticism in Massachusetts Tuesday by legal experts who say it will not pass constitutional muster. ..."The president is coming out of outer space to think that the president has the authority to change the rules on who is a citizen," said Harvard Law Professor Gerald Neuman, an expert on human rights and immigration law. Neuman said there have been occasional movements over the years to change the definition of citizenship, but there "is no credible argument" that it is permissible under the U.S. Constitution. "Tampering with the guarantee of citizenship under the Constitution is an extremely dangerous and serious business," Neuman said.

  • ‘A human rights crisis’: US accused of failing to protect citizens from gun violence

    September 13, 2018

    American gun violence is “a human rights crisis” and the US government’s refusal to pass gun control laws represents a violation of its citizens’ right to life, according to a new report by Amnesty International...While framing America’s gun violence in human rights terms is a symbolic move, “I don’t think it’s symbolic in the empty sense,” said Gerald Neuman, the co-director of the Human Rights Program at Harvard Law School. “For some people who are already concerned about the number of deaths that are occurring, having it framed as a human rights issue may help them understand the issue differently – that there are rights on both sides to be considered.”

  • The Men’s Rights Movement Now Has Its Own Law Firm

    September 7, 2018

    The National Coalition for Men, a men’s rights organization based in Southern California, has formed the beginnings of an all-volunteer law firm seeking to change legal systems that it claims are discriminatory against men on the state, federal, and even international level. While NCFM’s firm is not the first firm to cater to men’s issues, it may be the first to have grown directly from the men’s rights movement... Asked about the possibility of taking a gender discrimination like that to the United Nations’ judicial arm (aka the International Court of Justice), Harvard Law Professor Gerald Neuman said individuals cannot take cases to the ICJ—only states can. “If that is what they say, they sound very confused,” Neuman said.

  • Should We Send Trump to the Hague?

    June 25, 2018

    During the six weeks ending Wednesday, the United States government executed a policy of kidnapping children. At this very moment, thousands of children sit in literal cages with no idea where their parents are or if they will ever see them again. Despite the dehumanizing rhetoric about immigrant criminals with which Donald Trump has tried to justify this unjustifiable policy, the change that created it entirely dealt with non-criminals: Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s “zero tolerance” policy, combined with a narrowing definition of asylum, meant that even families fleeing gang and domestic violence would be criminally prosecuted, and all, in a major change from the prior policy, would be incarcerated...Gerald L. Neuman, the J. Sinclair Armstrong Professor of International, Foreign, and Comparative Law at Harvard Law School and the co-director of the Human Rights Program at the Law School, wrote in an email that in his opinion, detaining children, with or without their parents, in order to deter seeking asylum “amounts to arbitrary detention in violation of the United States’s obligations under international human rights law.”

  • Human Rights in a Time of Populism (video)

    Human Rights in a Time of Populism (video)

    May 9, 2018

    The global impact of populist movements was the topic of “Human Rights in a Time of Populism,” a two-day symposium held at Harvard Law School, where participants examined the challenges that current developments characterized as populist pose to the goals of the international human rights system.

  • Faust Denounces ‘Cruel’ DACA Decision

    September 6, 2017

    President Donald Trump ended an Obama-era program that protects undocumented youth Tuesday, drawing the swift condemnation of several Harvard administrators...If a student’s DACA status expires—and they are no longer legally permitted to remain in the country—deportation won’t happen immediately, according to Jason Corral, the designated attorney for undocumented students in the law clinic. Students would first have to be placed in formal removal proceedings before facing deportation...Some immigration rights advocates have raised concerns that by handing over personal details to receive DACA status, DACA recipients have unwittingly given the federal government the information it needs to go after them once the program is terminated. “I think it is reasonable to be concerned about that,” Law School professor Gerald L. Neuman said. “I think there are legal arguments about whether that can be done or not, and there may be lawsuits about whether the government can do this if it tries.”

  • As Trump Travel Ban Takes Effect Thursday, Many Questions Still Up in Air

    June 29, 2017

    The Trump administration's travel restrictions blocking foreigners from six Muslim-majority countries and refugees fleeing persecution will take effect Thursday, following the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this week to temporarily uphold portions of the ban...The high court's ruling allowed President Donald Trump to place a 90-day ban on foreign travelers from six countries — Iran, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen — as well as a 120-day ban on refugees fleeing persecution from any country when they have no "bona fide relationship" with an entity or person in the United States...Yet Gerald Neuman, co-director of the Human Rights Program at Harvard Law School said whether relatives outside of an immediate family, for example, aunts and cousins, will be allowed to enter is an outstanding question. “I think there’s going to be a gray area and we’ll see how much disagreement there is about it and how people respond to it,” he said.

  • Professors and Lawyers Debate International Criminal Law, Acts of Aggression

    April 14, 2017

    Corrected version. Professors and students at the Law School gathered on Tuesday to argue whether aggressive acts by international states should be included under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court...Harvard Law professor Alex Whiting and Middlesex University London professors William Schabas and Donald Ferencz spoke on the panel. Law School Dean Martha Minow and Law School professor Gerald L. Neuman '73 also spoke at the event...The event continued with references to essays written by symposium contributors, including members of the Harvard International Law Journal that organized the symposium. Marissa R. Brodney [`18], an executive editor of Harvard International Law Journal, wrote an essay on the designation for victims of aggression. “The symposium explores what has always been a relevant question and has become an increasingly relevant question in our current geopolitical moment” Brodney said.

  • Professors and Lawyers Debate International Criminal Law, Acts of Aggression

    April 13, 2017

    Professors and students at the Law School gathered on Tuesday to argue whether aggressive acts by international states should be included under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court...Harvard Law professors Gerald Neuman and Alex Whiting and Middlesex University London professor William Schabas spoke on the panel...The event continued with references to essays written by members of the Harvard International Law Journal that organized the symposium. Marissa R. Brodney [`18], the executive editor of Harvard International Law Journal, wrote an essay on the designation for victims of aggression. “The symposium explores what has always been a relevant question and has become an increasingly relevant question in our current geopolitical moment” Brodney said.

  • See you in court

    March 13, 2017

    Within days of President Donald Trump’s first executive order halting travel to the United States from seven majority-Muslim countries, states and organizations filed a flurry of lawsuits to fight the ban. And though Trump issued a revised ban Monday, many of those states and organizations believe the policies are so similar that they don’t even need to file new lawsuits...If U.S. District Judge James Robart agrees, the travel ban will be be stopped before it can go into effect on March 16. One of the biggest questions Robart faces, Harvard Law School professor Gerald L. Neuman said, is whether to consider the ban on its own — or consider that a court already found a similar policy to be likely unconstitutional.

  • Mass. Federal Judge Declines Temporary Stay on Immigration Executive Order

    February 6, 2017

    A Massachusetts federal judge ruled Friday against plaintiffs supported by Harvard and other Boston-area universities, declining to extend a temporary stay on President Donald Trump’s immigration order. The suit—filed by five individuals from countries listed in Trump’s order and international non-profit organization Oxfam—called for an extension of a ruling that temporarily opened Massachusetts to travellers from the listed countries...Harvard and seven other universities in the area—Boston College, Boston University, Brandeis, MIT, Northeastern, Tufts, and Worcester Polytechnic Institute—filed an amicus brief Friday morning requesting that the judge grant “declaratory and injunctive relief” to the plaintiffs...Harvard and the other universities outlined an argument similar to Oxfam’s in their 40-page amicus brief, according to Law School professor Gerald L. Neuman, who specializes in immigration law...“The thing that’s so unusual about this is it’s a high-profile event that affects a lot of people in so many different cases, and they’ve been able to mobilize legal representation, and all of a sudden there’s all this parallel litigation moving forward,” Neuman said.

  • Courts Unlikely To Strike Down Trump Order For Religious Bias, Experts Say

    January 31, 2017

    President Donald Trump’s executive order temporarily suspending the U.S. refugee program and barring immigrants from seven majority-Muslim nations is unlikely to be defeated on religious discrimination grounds, constitutional law experts told TPM Monday...“Viewing the executive order against the background that preceded it, the magnitude of the difference between what it seeks to accomplish and what effect it has and the way that it’s phrased demonstrates discrimination on religious grounds,” Harvard Law School professor Gerald Neuman told TPM. Referencing the Trump team’s defense that many predominantly Muslim countries are not included on the list, Neuman added that the order must be considered in its context. “The fact that it doesn’t ban every Muslim in the world doesn’t mean its not discriminatory against Muslims," he said. "It’s well established in the law of discrimination that you can discriminate against a subset of a group.” But like the other legal experts surveyed, Neuman said legal challenges to the ban were more likely to succeed on a statutory, not a constitutional, basis.

  • After Immigration Order, Two Harvard Affiliates Barred from Entering U.S.

    January 30, 2017

    At least two Harvard affiliates were barred from entering the United States after President Donald Trump suspended immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries Friday, and the University has warned international students not to leave the country...“There’s a lot of confusion and uncertainty about how this order is going to be implemented in the short and long term,” Maggie Moran, a fellow at the Harvard Law School Immigration and Refugee Clinic, said. “If you are a green card holder or on a valid student or employment visa from one of the affected countries, I think in general it’s advisable to exercise caution and postpone travel as much as possible outside of the United States until we have greater clarity as to how this order is going to be enforced.” Law professor Gerald L. Neuman, who specializes in immigration law, said the order grants officials some discretion in enforcement, adding to the uncertainty surrounding Trump’s immigration restrictions. Neuman said he believes the order violates the Constitution. “This executive order serves no valid purpose, and is incitement of discrimination against people on grounds of religion, and that should be unconstitutional,” he said.

  • U.S. leadership cannot turn its back on human rights and international law

    September 6, 2016

    By Gerald Neuman ’80 and Tyler GianniniWe must always be the opponents, not the perpetrators, of murder and torture and degrading treatment. Continue Reading »

  • Correction: Immigration-Family Detention Story

    September 6, 2016

    A legal ruling that would send 28 detained immigrant mothers and their children back to Central America despite their claims they would be persecuted upon return was upheld on Monday by a federal appeals court. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied asylum to the women from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. Judge D. Brooks Smith wrote in the decision that the justices were "sympathetic to the plight" of the petitioners, but he added that since the women arrived in the United States "surreptitiously" they were not entitled to constitutional protections...Gerald Neuman, a Harvard Law School professor who co-chairs the school's Human Rights Program, said Monday the ruling is a "shocking outcome." "This court has held that these people have no rights under the Suspension Clause," he said, referring to a section of the U.S. Constitution which says the right of habeas corpus cannot be suspended unless in cases of rebellion or invasion. Neuman pointed out that courts have even ruled that prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay have the right to contest their imprisonment. Neuman and more than a dozen scholars and organizations filed a brief in support of the immigrants' arguments, outlining why they should have the right to contest their detention.

  • Tomiko Brown-Nagin

    Tomiko Brown-Nagin on Constance Baker Motley and the ‘American experience’

    August 18, 2016

    Accepting the Daniel P.S. Paul Constitutional Law chair, Tomiko Brown-Nagin delivered a lecture titled, "On Being First: Judge Constance Baker Motley and Social Activism in the American Century," which focused on 20th century social reform through the life of the civil rights advocate who became the first female African American federal judge in 1966.

  • Big ‘thinks’ come in small packages: HLS Thinks Big

    July 1, 2016

    In late May, four Harvard Law faculty — Scott Brewer, Gerald Neuman '80, Esme Caramello '99, and Urs Gasser LL.M. '03 — shared snapshots of their latest research with the Harvard Law School community as part of the HLS Thinks Big speaker series.

  • Plan to Bar Foreign Muslims by Donald Trump Might Survive a Lawsuit

    December 9, 2015

    When Donald J. Trump called on Monday for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” many legal scholars were aghast and said that such a ban would certainly be struck down by courts as blatantly unconstitutional. But on Tuesday Mr. Trump clarified his proposal, saying that he would exclude only foreign Muslims, not Muslim American citizens who travel abroad and then seek to come home. That distinction, legal specialists said, made it far less likely the courts would strike it down...Several legal scholars who specialize in immigration, international and constitutional law said a policy of excluding all foreign Muslims from visiting the United States would still be “ludicrously discriminatory and overwrought,” as Gerald L. Neuman, a Harvard Law School professor, put it. But he said that it was far from clear that the Supreme Court would block it.

  • Top Scholars Say Trump Muslim Immigrant Ban May Be Constitutional

    December 8, 2015

    Almost every public figure appraising Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump’s proposed moratorium on Muslim immigration and travel to the U.S. has reacted with horror, but the ban would not necessarily be unconstitutional, experts say...Harvard Law School professor Gerald Neuman, co-director of the school’s human rights program, says the idea is “discriminatory in a fashion that’s totally inconsistent with constitutional principles." But, he says, “I can see the courts saying the plenary power requires such relaxed judicial review that they would uphold it – it’s possible.”

  • Harvard Law Professors and Scholars: State Governors Have No Legal Authority to Block Refugees

    November 19, 2015

    In the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks, more than half the nation's states are vowing to bar Syrian refugees. But do they have the legal authority to do so? Harvard Law professors say the answer is clear: No.

  • Faculty Books In Brief—Fall 2015

    October 5, 2015

    “Choosing Not to Choose: Understanding the Value of Choice,” by Professor Cass R. Sunstein ’78 (Oxford). Choice, while a symbol of freedom, can also be a burden: If we had to choose all the time, asserts the author, we’d be overwhelmed. Indeed, Sunstein argues that in many instances, not choosing could benefit us—for example, if mortgages could be automatically refinanced when interest rates drop significantly.

  • Australia urged to allow refugees to appeal ASIO ruling

    March 16, 2015

    Australia has been urged to comply with a United Nations ruling and allow more than 30 refugees to challenge the secret ASIO assessments used to justify their indefinite detention. Harvard University law specialist Gerald Neuman, who recently completed a four-year elected term on the UN's top human rights expert panel, said Australia's refusal to reveal the reasons for detention was shocking. "No one questions the ability of Australia to take steps to protect its security in proper ways," Professor Neuman said on Monday. "[But] I don't understand Australia to have ever said these men, women and children were a threat to the security of Australia." Professor Neuman, who served as the United States' representative on the UN Human Rights Committee until December last year, contributed to a scathing UN ruling against Australia's "cruel and degrading" practice to lock up refugees indefinitely without a right of appeal.

  • Harvard Law School’s Human Rights Program celebrates 30 years

    October 2, 2014

    On September 19, Harvard Law School hosted a celebration of the 30-year anniversary of the school’s Human Rights Program (HRP), a home for human rights scholarship and advocacy founded in 1984 by Professor Emeritus Henry J. Steiner.

  • Human Rights Program Celebrates 30 Years of Advocacy

    September 22, 2014

    Harvard Law School’s Human Rights Program celebrated on Friday afternoon the increased awareness surrounding issues of human rights since its founding three decades ago and detailed the next steps for activists in the field....“It is wonderful to look back at the graduates we’ve had go on to have distinguished careers, the scholarship we have produced, and the engagement we’ve had in projects,” said Gerald L. Neuman ’73, director of the Human Rights Program. “We are looking back but also forward to the problems of the day.”

  • The Insular Cases: Constitutional experts assess the status of territories acquired in the Spanish–American War (video)

    March 18, 2014

    More than 100 years after the U.S. Supreme Court decided a series of cases that left citizens of territories including Puerto Rico, Guam and the American Samoa with only limited Constitutional rights, Harvard Law School hosted a conference to reconsider the so-called Insular Cases and the resonance they continue to hold today.

  • Neuman Q&A

    From Truth to Justice: Giving human rights scholarship real-world impact

    December 6, 2012

    Thirty-five years ago, after majoring in mathematics at Harvard and receiving a Ph.D. in the same subject from MIT, HLS Professor Gerald Neuman ’80 switched from the field of math to the field of law—from “truth to justice,” he said in an interview in his office in Griswold Hall. That decision has led to a career of teaching and writing on international human rights law and comparative constitutional law, and to his election last fall to the U.N.’s Human Rights Committee, a body of 18 independent experts who assess and critique countries’ records on civil and political rights.

  • Giannini and Neuman appointed co-directors of HLS’s Human Rights Program

    August 17, 2012

    Tyler Giannini, Clinical Professor of Law, and Gerald L. Neuman ’80, J. Sinclair Armstrong Professor of International, Foreign and Comparative Law, have been appointed co-directors of the Human Rights Program (HRP) at Harvard Law School.

  • Professors Discuss International Law: Alford, de Burca, and Neuman

    Professors discuss study of international law at HLS

    October 1, 2010

    In a recent panel discussion at Harvard Law School, professors William Alford, Grainne de Burca, and Gerald Neuman extolled the benefits of studying, interning, and working abroad in a legal context, and offered practical advice to internationally-minded students about how to get started.

  • Neuman: Human Rights

    Neuman elected to the Human Rights Committee

    September 9, 2010

    Harvard Law School Professor Gerald Neuman ’80 has been elected to the Human Rights Committee, the premier treaty body in the UN human rights system. The committee monitors compliance by 166 states parties with their obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is part of the “International Bill of Rights.”

  • Neuman, Goldsmith, and five HLS alumni elected to the American Academy of Arts & Sciences

    April 26, 2010

    Harvard Law School Professors Gerald L. Neuman ’80 and Jack Goldsmith are amongst the new class of members elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

  • Battlegrounds

    September 2, 2008

    On executive power, war and anti-terrorism, scholars have a lot to say--and lawmakers are listening.

  • Professors Ayelet Shachar, Gerald Neuman, and Deborah Anker

    Panel looks at the "shifting borders" of U.S. immigration law

    February 11, 2008

    The distinction between citizen and non-citizen lies at the heart of immigration law, and is often drawn at the border. But where precisely does the “border” lie in U.S. immigration law and practice?

  • Gerald L. Neuman ’80

    Strangers at the fence

    September 1, 2006

    Neuman, formerly at Columbia, joined the Harvard Law faculty this summer as the J. Sinclair Armstrong Professor of International, Foreign, and Comparative Law. He is the author of “Strangers to the Constitution: Immigrants, Borders, and Fundamental Law” (Princeton University Press, 1996).