Media Mentions

Dr. Ashley Nunes is an academic at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, previously he led research projects sponsored by the Department of Defense and the Department of Transportation. In this article he argues that to deal with climate change, consumers must accept that there will be some form of financial cost. Climate change took centre stage in New York last week. Over seven hours (yes seven), Democratic presidential hopefuls touted their vision for how best to address rising temperatures. Former vice-president Joe Biden proposed banning new oil and gas exploration on public land, and also promised an end to fossil fuel subsidies. Bernie Sanders went further saying his administration would pursue criminal prosecution of energy companies for “any wrongdoing”. And Elizabeth Warren committed to entirely decarbonising the energy, transportation and construction industry. She subsequently challenged her counterparts to follow suit. The political impetus for tackling climate change reflects electoral reality. Two-thirds of Americans think too little is being done to address the issue. Though policy disagreements persist along party lines (some 60 per cent of Republicans think offshore drilling and coal mining should continue compared to 20 per cent of Democrats), there is broad consensus on the need for action. White House hopefuls aim to curry votes by doing just that. So does the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue: President Trump recently proclaimed his love for the environment, declaring he knows, “more about (it) than most people.”

President Donald Trump, by his simultaneous existence as a real estate tycoon and President, continues to test the US Constitution in ways that the founding fathers didn't anticipate and for which the current legal and political systems are completely unprepared. The founders didn't specifically anticipate a hotelier President pushing his golf resort as the ideal location for an international meeting of heads of state. ... Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe, who thinks Trump should be impeached, tried to give Trump a lesson Twitter about emoluments recently. "Memo to POTUS: There are TWO Emoluments Clauses. The one you're violating when you line your pocket by having Pence stay at your resort & commute is the Domestic EC. The one you're planning to violate by having the G7 stay at the Doral w/out Congress's consent is the Foreign EC."

Representative Jamie Raskin slammed President Donald Trump, accusing him of violating the emoluments clauses of the Constitution by directing "hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars" to his personal businesses. Raskin, a Democrat from Maryland, made the remark during an interview with CNN on Monday, saying that the president's actions were "absolutely impeachable." ... Constitutional legal scholar Laurence Tribe, a professor at Harvard University, slammed Trump over both issues in a series of tweets last week. He, like Raskin, pointed out that these were clear violations of the Constitution's emoluments clauses. "The Foreign Emoluments Clause is the core anti-corruption clause of Art I. The Domestic Emoluments Clause is the core anti-profiteering clause of Art II," Tribe explained. "Congress' consent (or lack of it) is key to the first. It's irrelevant to the second. Trump is violating both."

A new study launching in Kansas hopes to take a long-term look at how clearing criminal records can help improve the lives of ex-offenders. Over the next year and a half, Kansas Legal Services will be looking for 300 to 450 Kansans to participate in an expungement study that will offer legal assistance to convicts who want a clean slate. To be eligible for the study, a person must have a conviction eligible for expungement under Kansas law, served their sentence in full including any parole or probation and paid all associated fines and fees. Study participants must also agree to let researchers from the Harvard School of Law Access to Justice Lab track their lives for up to five years to see how their situations — especially housing and job opportunities — change.

An article by Samantha Power:  From the moment I arrived at Harvard Law School in late August of 1995, I feared I wouldn’t last. During the nearly two years I had just spent as a war correspondent in the Balkans, I found myself imagining how gratifying it would be to learn the law and pursue the arrest of Balkan war criminals as a prosecutor at The Hague. But as I struggled to adjust to my new life back in the United States, all I could think about was the place I had left behind. The day before law school began, I had loaded up a Ryder truck in Brooklyn with two suitcases, a bicycle, and my laptop, and driven toward Boston. Just as I reached the city, NPR cut into its radio program with a breaking news bulletin: “NATO air action around Sarajevo is under way.” By my second week at HLS, U.S. air strikes had broken the siege of Sarajevo and brought the Bosnian war to an end.

Democratic presidential candidates broadly agree that President Trump has shaken the presidency loose from its constitutional limits and say that the White House needs major new legal curbs, foreshadowing a potential era of reform akin to the post-Watergate period if any of them wins next year’s election. ... But though the candidates “seem committed to reforming the presidency,” they might have second thoughts from the vantage point of the Oval Office, said Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor and former senior Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration who reviewed their responses. “The next Democratic president will happily accept new rules on tax releases, but will have a harder time accepting constraints on security clearances and emergency or war powers,” he said. “Institutional prerogative often defeats prior reformist pledges.”

When President Trump won in 2016, corporate America was eager for Republicans to begin rolling back the Obama legacy on everything from banking to the environment. But it seems that for at least some industries, the president and his party have gone too far in rolling back environmental standards. ... Caitlin McCoy, a climate, clean air and energy fellow at Harvard Law School, noted that in the case of the European Union, high gas taxes and factors like affordable public transit, rather than stringent regulations, pushed consumers to seek higher-efficiency vehicles. ... Hana Vizcarra, a staff attorney with Harvard Law School's Environmental & Energy Law Program, credited mainstream investors as well as the general public for pushing the oil and gas industry to take greater action on climate. She noted that corporate actors have always had to balance a mix of pressures, including federal regulations that have driven or suppressed environmental action. "Right now, we are seeing a pretty dramatic shift in terms of how those buckets balance out," Vizcarra said. ...  But former EPA official Joseph Goffman warned against interpreting this period as an invitation to continue to back off regulation that is explicitly geared toward protecting public health and the environment. "We have to be clear about this: Corporate pursuit of self-interest is not a substitute for public policy. They are not working as surrogates to the government; they are working out workarounds to respond to state and federal government," Goffman said.

An op-ed by Jodi Freeman: Auto companies prize certainty in how the government regulates them because of the long timelines involved in designing and manufacturing cars and trucks. Now the Trump administration has upended that certainty by going to extraordinary lengths to roll back Obama-era greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency standards that even much of the industry supports. It’s a senseless exercise of apparent presidential pique. Worse, it threatens to undo what would be the country’s most important climate achievement, the doubling of vehicle fuel efficiency to about 55 miles per gallon by 2025. Those standards all told would have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by six billion metric tons, cutting auto sector emissions in half by 2025, and saved American families more than $1.7 trillion in gas, with an average fuel savings, for instance, of more than $8,000 for a 2025 model vehicle over its average lifetime.

Shortly after its post-World War I creation, the foundations of Germany’s Weimar Republic began to quake. In 1923, Hitler staged an abortive coup attempt in Bavaria, the so-called Beer Hall Putsch — a failure that nonetheless turned Hitler into a reactionary celebrity, a sign of German discontent with the post-war political order. ... Liberalism “constantly disrupts deeply cherished traditions among its subject populations, stirring unrest, animosity, and eventually political reaction and backlash,” Harvard law professor Adrian Vermeule, one of the most prominent of the reactionary anti-liberals, said in a May speech.

In a wide-ranging conversation about the state of our democracy with Equal Citizens founder and Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig, Gabbard also supported a wide range of specific democracy reforms, including the use of ranked choice voting, proportional allocation of electors in the electoral college, and getting big money out of politics to end corruption. She pledged democracy reform would be her first priority as president. “You’re a candidate who supports fundamental chance, who supports HR1,” said Lessig. “Would you support what we call POTUS1? Would you say that, like Nancy Pelosi, you think democracy reform is the first Congress should take up in 2021?”

Laura Empson is a former investment banker and strategy consultant who became an academic. She has conducted academic research into professional organisations for more than 25 years and is now professor in the management of professional service firms at Cass Business School, London, director of the Cass Centre for Professional Service Firms and senior research fellow at Harvard Law School’s Centre on the Legal Profession. She spoke to AFR BOSS magazine about the complex challenges of leading professional services firms, which flout the conventional “rules” of management and leadership, and why they are often home to so-called insecure overachievers. ... "A professional needs a considerable degree of autonomy to make decisions about how best to deliver a professional service to their clients. Traditionally, professionals, and certainly senior professionals, have had a considerable degree of freedom and independence from managerial control. But as the firms have grown, and some of them are now very large indeed, there has to be some kind of overarching organising principle to get these independent professionals to work together. That’s where the leadership comes in."

An op-ed by Noah Feldman: In an important constitutional decision, a federal district court in Virginia has held that the government must give people on the Terrorist Screening Database, better known as the “watch list,” the opportunity to challenge the evidence that put them there. History will someday find it astonishing and outrageous that it took 18 years after the Sept. 11 attacks to restore this kind of procedural protection of people’s right to travel unmolested. Yet, late as it is, the decision also demonstrates that careful constitutional reasoning can reach common-sense conclusions — and make the government comply.

The core purpose of the stock market is to allocate capital to good companies. Of course, we use it for our own benefit, whether it be retirement planning or speculative day trading. There are a lot of individuals who don’t want to make any stock investing decisions, and instead just want an easy low-fee index fund. It has come to no surprise that index investing is one of the biggest innovations in financial history. ... The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation recently published an article highlighting the 4 ways in which the active-to-passive shift may affect financial stability. You can read that here.

There's a kind of academic corruption that most people have never considered. Not plagiarism. Not cheating on an exam. This is the kind of corruption that occurs when corporations and industry lobbying groups pay academics for expert testimony before Congress. Even the perception that such payments have occurred will result in an erosion of public confidence in scholarly research and in the impartiality of the academy. And the people most vulnerable to this ethical trap are those who believe they are doing good. As Furman professor of law and leadership Lawrence Lessig explains in this podcast, “Doing good can make you bad.” ... Lawrence Lessig: Well, I guess it confronted me quite viscerally when I was testifying before the United States Senate Commerce Committee about network neutrality. And just before I testified, I got an email from a senator who basically said, “I can’t believe you’re shilling for these big internet companies.” And I was shocked to think that he would have thought that I would be paid to give testimony. And then I realized that of course he thought that because basically everybody in that field was being paid to give testimony. And so when the senator heard what I was saying, he was filtering it on the assumption that I was being paid to say what I was saying and so therefore he wasn’t taking seriously what I was saying as an academic. And it was that moment I really thought we need a way, a better way, to either control what academics are doing in taking money to give public testimony like this or to at least signal that, I might be wrong, I might be biased, I might be focused on the next election. There are lots of reasons why you might want to discount what I'm saying, but I ought to have a simple way to say, look, don't discount what I'm saying on the assumption that what I'm saying, I'm saying because I'm trying to get money. That's the corruption of the integrity of the academy that I think that we have to be incredibly vigilant against.

A California bill that is on the brink of becoming law threatens the business model of the gig economy. Called Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5), it would make workers for companies like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash employees under state law, rather than independent contractors, as they are currently classified. That change would legally entitle them to a minimum wage, unemployment insurance, and other benefits. ... Drivers could still bring a lawsuit through California’s Private Attorneys General Act, a law that allows workers to sue even if they have signed a mandatory arbitration agreement. Or they could file arbitration demands. “They still can bring suits. They just have to be in arbitration,” says Sharon Block, executive director of the Labor and Worklife Program at Harvard Law School. But, she says, “it does impede [drivers’] ability to be in control and bring a lawsuit in the most effective way that they want to or believe they can.”

The Trump administration says a deal between California and four carmakers to improve fuel efficiency may be illegal. The Justice Department has also launched a probe to see whether it violates antitrust laws. Together, the moves raise the stakes in a months-long standoff over efforts to weaken a key Obama-era climate rule. ...  All this could set up an "epic" legal battle, says Jody Freeman, who served under the Obama administration and is now at Harvard Law School. She says the EPA under President George W. Bush also rejected California's emissions waiver, but "that hasn't been tested in the courts, so we don't know how it would come out." Freeman also says it is "astonishing" that President Trump is pushing so hard for an aggressive rollback that automakers don't want, when they've made clear they would accept a more moderate compromise.

Secretary of State Michael Pompeo criticized what he called the dilution of core human rights for the sake of political “pet causes,” in a speech in his home state of Kansas that will appeal to conservative voters whose support he’ll need if he decides to run for the Senate in 2020. ... But they have suggested that in a government with limited resources, officials ought to spend less time on issues such as biodiversity or clean water and more on core rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. He’s also established a commission to study the issue that’s being led by Mary Ann Glendon, a Harvard University professor who has previously argued that advocates of same-sex marriage are seeking “special preferences” accorded to married men and women.

A former New York Court of Appeals judge who is a conservative Republican and a professor who is a liberal Democrat are teaching a new course at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law that examines the impact President Donald Trump is having on the Constitution. ... It is not the only law school course that examines the issues through the lens of the Trump presidency. University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law is offering “Law and Lawlessness in the Age of Trump” this semester. Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe taught “Constitutional Law 3.0: The Trump Trajectory” in the spring of 2018. And the University of Washington School of Law was one of the first to offer a Trump course shortly after his election, “Executive Power and Its Limits.”

Joseph R. Biden Jr. was on the brink of victory, but he was unsatisfied. Mr. Biden, the 44-year-old chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was poised to watch his colleagues reject President Ronald Reagan’s formidable nominee to the Supreme Court, Robert H. Bork. ... Mr. Biden was seated behind a desk in a spacious living room adjoining his study at his Wilmington, Del., home. A few aides sat or stood around the room, where pizza was in generous supply. Squared off against Mr. Biden was Robert H. Bork — or rather, a convincing simulacrum played by the constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe. Mr. Tribe and Mr. Biden would spar for hours in a series of sessions that August, joined occasionally by other legal experts who would help Mr. Biden hone his queries on subjects from antitrust regulation to sexual privacy. “Biden’s questions were really smart, and they also needed some sharpening,” Mr. Tribe said in an interview, citing Mr. Biden’s tendency to “ask one thing and mean something slightly different.”

Harvard Square in high summer is crisscrossed with tourists, but inside the university all is serene. Those academics who stay behind to work can enjoy the empty seminar rooms, loose deadlines and short queues at the cafeteria.  Samantha Power used to dread such periods of calm. The former US ambassador to the United Nations, and foreign policy and human rights adviser to Barack Obama, was afflicted for most of her adult life with intense anxiety attacks that left her unable to catch her breath, as well as inexplicable but excruciating back pain. ... The panic attacks persisted in the rare lulls during the hectic years of her stellar career that followed. At 48, Power has now written a memoir, The Education of an Idealist, that charts not only her steep upward trajectory, but also her excavation of her Irish immigrant roots, where the clues to her bouts of breathlessness and pain lay hidden. She doesn’t believe in neat ideas of “closure” – “There’s no moment where you just tie a bow around that stuff” – but she has noticed that since burrowing into her childhood, the demons have remained largely at bay.

Former U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power says President Donald Trump has threatened America's leadership in the world, and that it will be very hard for our nation to recover from his presidency. ... "We've had a president who's walked away from our alliances; cozied up to regimes that  don't respect human rights, for reasons that makes very little sense; and unfortunately attacked institutions that make us very strong at home, and not taken pride in our diversity and indeed kind of shunned it," Power told "CBS This Morning" on Friday. "It's going to be very hard to recover from this period in American history. But there's a hunger out in the world, and there's a need on behalf of the American people, to do so."