Media Mentions

An op-ed by Ashley Nunes, Labor and Worklife Program fellow: The Covid-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of cutting-edge technologies. From contactless cashiers to welding drones to “chow bots” — machines that serve up salads on demand — automation is fundamentally transforming, rather than merely touching, every aspect of daily life. This prospect may well please consumers. Forsaking human folly for algorithmic (and mechanistic) perfection means better, cheaper, and faster service. But what should workers — who once provided these services — expect? Can they also benefit from technological progress? If so, how?

The final proposal for Wisconsin’s next political maps from Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ redistricting commission would narrow, but still maintain, Republican legislative and congressional majorities in the state. ... Ruth Greenwood, director of the Election Law Clinic at Harvard Law School, said she doesn’t believe the commission’s maps are fair for Democratic voters, adding that predicted efficiency gaps “show a large and durable skew in favor of Republican voters” for both the Assembly and Senate map proposals. PlanScore, a program that predicts precinct-level votes for districts based on past election results and U.S. Census data led by the Campaign Legal Center, a national nonprofit organization that advocates for nonpartisan maps, found that under the commission’s proposal Democratic candidates would take 35% of state Senate seats and 39% of Assembly seats with a near 50-50 Democratic and Republican vote share. Greenwood said this may be due to the commission’s prioritization of compactness over partisan fairness. Greenwood noted that the first priority Evers listed in his original executive order creating the commission was that maps shall, whenever possible, be “free from partisan bias and partisan advantage.” “That is not reflected in the resulting plans,” Greenwood said. Greenwood said last month Republicans’ proposal “essentially bakes in almost the same level of partisan advantage” as current districts.

Detroit could be the latest big city to decriminalize "magic mushrooms" and other psychedelics drugs as residents take to the polls Tuesday. Voters will be asked under proposal E: "Shall the voters of the City of Detroit adopt an ordinance to the 2019 Detroit City Code that would decriminalize to the fullest extent permitted under Michigan law the personal possession and therapeutic use of Entheogenic Plants by adults and make the personal possession and therapeutic use of Entheogenic Plants by adults the city's lowest law-enforcement priority?" ... Harvard Law School launched the Project on Psychedelics Law and Regulation this summer to examine the legal framework around psychedelic research. "Preliminary research suggests that psychedelics could hold major benefits for people experiencing trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder," Harvard Law professor Jeannie Suk Gersen said in a statement. "By analyzing social, legal, and political barriers to access in this context, we hope to advance the understanding of their potential impact as therapeutics."

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a sweeping new abortion law in Texas on Monday. The law, which went into effect in September, bans abortions after six weeks and relies on private-citizens-turned-bounty-hunters to enforce the law at $10,000 a head. The court’s decision not to block enforcement of the law before it went into effect places the legitimacy of the high court in question. ... However, this is not the first time, nor is it a rare moment when the judiciary stood against democracy and civil rights. ... “First, as a matter of historical practice, the court has wielded an antidemocratic influence on American law, one that has undermined federal attempts to eliminate hierarchies of race, wealth and status,” Nikolas Bowie, an assistant professor of law at Harvard Law School, testified to the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States that was formed last spring. “Second, as a matter of political theory, the court’s exercise of judicial review undermines the value that distinguishes democracy as an ideal form of government: its pursuit of political equality.” Bowie noted that Alexis de Tocqueville identified jurists as the American aristocracy, a privileged class with lifetime tenure who, as “the priests of Egypt,” regarded themselves as “the sole interpreter of an occult science” of the Constitution. He also pointed out that the Supreme Court has consistently protected the wealthy, invalidated federal laws enacted to increase political equality and has shown deference to Congress when it passed laws that harmed “racial, religious or ideological minorities” such as Native Americans, Chinese immigrants, those who live in U.S. territories, Muslim refugees and others.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman: The University of Florida struck a blow against academic freedom last week by prohibiting three professors from testifying in a lawsuit claiming the state’s new election laws are discriminatory. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the university’s action is a violation of the professors’ free speech rights. A court should find the decision unlawful, but might not. There’s a difference between academic freedom and free speech. As explained by former Yale Law School Dean Robert Post in a classic work, these two freedoms are based on different principles, and involve freedom from different kinds of constraints.

The panel of judges hearing a lawsuit from which all the judges on a circuit have recused themselves was revealed Monday, after the lawyers behind the case requested to know which judges would preside over the appeal. The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is recused from the lawsuit filed by “Jane Roe,” a former federal public defender who is alleging harassment while in her job and mounting a challenge to the way the federal judiciary handles misconduct complaints. The complaint names the circuit, as well as its chief judge and judicial council. Federal public defenders fall under the scope of the federal judiciary. ... The Fourth Circuit typically does not reveal the panel of judges hearing a case until the morning of arguments. Cooper Strickland and Harvard Law professor Jeannie Suk Gersen, who are representing Roe in the case, on Oct. 29 filed a motion to publicly post the judges presiding in the case, noting that orders had been issued but it was unclear who was behind those orders.

Watch: On Monday's edition of CNN's “OutFront,” Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe weighed in on Supreme Court arguments over the Texas abortion ban.

In addition to the big, juicy turkey on the table, there’s also an elephant lurking in the room this Thanksgiving: the vaccination status of your guests. It’s a tricky thing to talk about. Do you ask your aunt if she received the Covid vaccine after she R.S.V.P.s? What if she says no? Do you endure another scaled-back celebration, like last year? Or should you serve up a bunch of precautions? ... Start by calling your unvaccinated family members and soliciting their ideas on how to gather safely, said Daniel L. Shapiro, an associate professor of psychology at Harvard Medical School and the author of “Negotiating the Nonnegotiable: How to Resolve Your Most Emotionally Charged Conflicts.” Ask: “What’s your advice on how we can make sure everyone feels safe and comfortable when we get together?” he suggested. Then come up with some ideas. Perhaps you suggest that there should be mandatory testing right before dinner, or that you should gather outside, near a patio heater.

The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear appeals from Republican-led states and coal companies asking it to limit the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act. “This is the equivalent of an earthquake around the country for those who care deeply about the climate issue,” said Richard J. Lazarus, a law professor at Harvard. The court’s decision to take the case came days before President Biden is to attend a global climate summit in Scotland where he seeks to reassure other nations that the United States will continue to pursue aggressive policies to combat global warming.

Book Review of Noah Feldman’s The Broken Constitution: Lincoln, Slavery, and the Refounding of America: Over the course of two days in February 1850, amid the debates in the U.S. Senate that would lead to the famous congressional compromise over slavery later that year, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi delivered a florid floor speech that lamented the impending ruin of the nation. (Exactly 11 years later, Davis would take office as the president of the Confederate States of America.) A flood of antislavery fanaticism and sectional hatred, Davis declaimed, had opened a “moral crevasse” that endangered America’s very foundations. The framers, Davis pronounced, had enshrined in the Constitution the right to hold property in humans, but frenzied antislavery Northerners undermined the law of the land; and now the flood was surging, pouring “turgid waters through the broken Constitution.” Davis’s pro-slavery remarks provide Noah Feldman with both the epigraph and the title of his new book about Jefferson Davis’s nemesis, Abraham Lincoln, which seems a very odd choice. Unlike Davis, Lincoln never believed that the Constitution had been broken, even after the slaveholders began their rebellion in 1860-61. Instead, Lincoln charged that the insurrection Davis helped to lead was “the essence of anarchy.”

The Biden administration is calling on Congress to pass legislation that would strengthen government regulation of stablecoins, a form of cryptocurrency that has soared in popularity in the past year. In a 22-page report issued Monday, the Treasury Department and several other regulators said the legislation should require that stablecoin issuers become banks, which would potentially subject them to a wide range of rules, including those requiring that banks hold sufficient cash reserves and implement measures to prevent money laundering and other illicit activities. ... Until Congress acts, the working group said that the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a broader collection of financial regulators, could coordinate steps to protect investors and oversee stablecoin issuers’ reserves. “It would force them into the regulatory perimeter, which is the thing that most people think is appropriate,” said Howell Jackson, a financial regulatory expert at Harvard Law School.

Large companies’ awards of millions in executive bonuses on the eve of bankruptcy are drawing renewed congressional focus. Bankrupt companies need court approval to award executive bonuses. But there isn’t a similar restriction on pre-bankruptcy bonuses, a loophole that’s been increasingly used by some big-name companies, such as Hertz Global Holdings Inc. and Chesapeake Energy Corp. ... In the wake of public outcry over bonuses awarded to Enron Corp. and WorldCom senior managers, Congress in 2005 amended the bankruptcy code to require court permission before a bankrupt company could offer such compensation. “The amendment was an emotional response and never calibrated to deal with the real problem,” said Jared Ellias, a bankruptcy law professor at the University of California, Hastings and visiting professor at Harvard Law School.

Members of the Mt. Washington Commission met last week with a mediation team from Harvard to help the commission overcome disagreements that have held up a new master plan for the park. The Harvard Negotiation & Mediation Clinical Program team is made up of three third-year Harvard Law School graduate students and their supervisor, Clinical Law Professor Rachel Viscomi. The team actively engaged with Mt. Washington Commission members and others on Friday, Oct. 29, at an in-person meeting at the Peabody Lodge in Franconia Notch State Park.

Watch: The Supreme Court heard two challenges to Texas’ restrictive abortion law Monday. This was just the start to a contentious week for the justices, with arguments over New York’s gun rights law slated for Wednesday. Nancy Gertner, senior lecturer at Harvard Law and a member of President Biden's Supreme Court Commission and Renée Landers, Suffolk University constitutional law expert, joined Jim Braude on Greater Boston to discuss. ... Gertner looked ahead to the upcoming Mississippi case, a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, which she called “dire” for abortion rights. “It’s unimaginable that their purpose was anything other than to carve up Roe v. Wade or to reverse it,” she said.

Elon Musk’s visions of the future all stem from the same place: the science-fiction he grew up on. To understand where Musk wants to take the rest of us — with his electric cars, his rockets to Mars, his meme stocks, and tunnels deep beneath the earth — Harvard professor and New Yorker writer Jill Lepore looks at those science fiction stories and helps us understand what he’s Musk missed about them. The Evening Rocket explores Musk’s strange new kind of extravagant, extreme capitalism — call it Muskism — where stock prices are driven by earnings, and also by fantasies.

Corporate America is making some gains in expanding its commitment to diversity. According to a new study from The Conference Board, 2021 marks the first time that a majority of S&P 500 companies—59%—have disclosed the racial makeup of their boards. The increased transparency is widely considered an important step in advancing equity and inclusion. ... Some have opposed the measures, including the two Republicans on the SEC. Commissioner Hester Peirce registered her opposition in a lengthy statement that, among other things, argued that the new requirements “encourage discrimination and effectively compel speech by both individuals and issues in a way that offends protected Constitutional interests.” Others, such as Harvard Professor Jesse Fried, refuted Nasdaq’s claims that diverse boards are linked to enhanced financial performance, arguing that they do not result in higher stock prices, “the outcome investors actually care about.”

An op-ed by Ashley Nunes, director for competition policy at the R Street Institute and a research fellow at the Labor and Worklife Program at Harvard Law School: If leadership is, as the author Tom Smith wrote, “the ability to facilitate movement in the needed direction and have people feel good about it,” that could spell trouble for leaders in Ontario. Apparently, the province’s workers don’t feel so good about the direction in which they’ve been moving. The reason? C-suite execs remain tone-deaf to the needs of the working class, to the wants and aspirations of average Ontarians exhausted by a pandemic that has blurred the line between work and home. And so last week, Premier Doug Ford’s government unveiled plans that would give workers the “right to disconnect.” The law that would require that executives at companies with 25 employees or more develop policies for clearly delineating work from the rest of one’s life. These policies could include “expectations about response time for e-mails and encouraging employees to turn on out-of-office notifications when they aren’t working.”

The Supreme Court may be poised to put new guardrails on the Biden administration’s climate agenda after justices agreed last week to consider the extent of EPA’s authority to regulate carbon emissions. The court sent shock waves through the legal world when it agreed Friday to consider a consolidated challenge from Republican-led states and coal companies. The challenge stemmed from a federal court ruling that struck down a Trump-era regulation gutting EPA’s climate rule for power plants (E&E News PM, Oct. 29). When the justices issue their ruling in the EPA case, which is expected by next summer, the decision could provide the first indication of how the court’s new 6-3 conservative majority will approach questions of the federal government’s role in curbing global climate change. ... “I do think it probably complicates EPA’s job and potentially disrupts the momentum that the administration is trying to build around their climate regulation and climate policy efforts,” said Hana Vizcarra, a staff attorney at Harvard Law School’s Environmental & Energy Law Program.

In 2006, a Harvard Law School bankruptcy professor named Elizabeth Warren went on 60 Minutes to talk about a student loan company called Sallie Mae. At the time, Sallie Mae was functioning as both a lender of student loans and a debt collector. Because of how federal loans worked at the time, this amounted to a no-lose scenario. When students paid back their loans with interest, Sallie Mae made money. But even if students defaulted on their loans, the company still made money: The government paid Sallie Mae everything the lender was owed, and then the company’s collections arm also pocketed loads of fees from borrowers when it sought to recover the government’s money. It was this double-dealing that Professor Warren had gone on TV to talk about. ... “Sen. Warren has done a tremendous amount of work to shed light on the wrongdoing by actors, like Sallie Mae, in the student loan world, who abused their power and engaged in various violations in terms of their collection activities,” says Deanne Loonin, an attorney at the Project on Predatory Student Lending at Harvard Law School. There is a lot more to be done when it comes to better regulating loan servicers, says Loonin, but Navient’s exit “is the end of an era, and it’s a huge improvement.”

Abortion rights are front and center at the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, but not the way most people expected. The focus will not be on abortion rights, per se, but on the controversial Texas law designed to prevent court challenges. At issue is whether a state can nullify a constitutional right — in this case the right to abortion — by delegating enforcement not to state officials, but to private citizens who are authorized to sue abortion providers and anyone else who aids or abets an abortion. ... Wasserman, a law professor at Florida International University, believes the federal government has a good chance of prevailing. “I think the court is going to say that the government can bring this suit and it may be informed by the fact that this law is so blatantly invalid under existing precedent,” he said. Therein lies the rub, says Harvard law professor Stephen Sachs, who doubts that the new conservative supermajority will continue to uphold the court's key abortion precedents, Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. “It's not at all clear that the Supreme Court would agree that those cases are rightly decided,” he observes. “They might say they are so wrongly decided that they have to be overruled.”

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican who has emerged as one of the most conspicuous anti-science politicians during the COVID-19 pandemic, officially sued President Joe Biden's administration on Thursday in response to its vaccine mandate for federal contractors. “Because the government's unlawful vaccine requirements seek to interfere with Florida's employment policies and threaten Florida with economic harm and the loss of federal contracts, the State seeks relief from this Court,” read the 28-page lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Tampa. The document singled out Biden's Sept. 9 address announcing vaccine mandates, implying that the administration also believes the government should not mandate vaccines but is ignoring the law because the president's “patience” has been “wearing thin" and he is angry “at those who haven't gotten vaccinated.” It also argued that complying with Biden's mandates would cause economic harm to the state. ... “I would say this DeSantis lawsuit is between manifestly groundless and utterly frivolous,” Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe told Salon by email. “The executive actions DeSantis has sought to depict as lawless are well within the president's statutorily delegated authority.”