Media Mentions

An op-ed by Noah Feldman. Who gets to define the “Jewish” part of Israel’s identity as a Jewish and democratic state? Maybe the Knesset or Israel’s supreme court? It turns out there’s another major player: the Israel Defense Forces. The military recently announced a change in the Jewish Identity Unit, which teaches draftees a religious version of what Jewishness entails. The change is intended as a blow against nationalist Orthodoxy in the cultural struggle over whether Israel is a secular or a religious state.

An op-ed by Michael Shammas `16. President Obama took a lot of heat recently for criticizing college leftists who are offended by dissenting opinions. But he's absolutely right: Productive discourse is dying, trampled over by closed minds who value comfortable opinion-holding over uncomfortable soul-searching. As dialogue lies flailing and gasping, outrage culture's pulse is stronger than ever. We see the degraded consequence everywhere.

An op-ed by Samuel Moyn. Since the 1970s, "global justice" has surged as a central topic in Anglophone political theory and philosophy. Why? A typical account, for instance from Martha Nussbaum, credits contemporary philosophers with transcending "the frontiers of justice," courageously leaving behind arbitrary limits normally imposed on distributive justice beyond borders. This option - there are now competing positions in the field - frequently labels itself cosmopolitan. The idea is that it took up a philosophical legacy going back to the Greek and Roman Stoics, who first called for "citizenship of the world," before Enlightenment thinkers such as Immanuel Kant revived their visionary program. I think much work in global justice is genuinely inspiring, but I want to offer two qualifications.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman. The indictment of anti-abortion activist David Daleiden is a stark reminder that the criminal law is a dangerous animal: Once it’s set free, there’s no telling who will be its target. Yet Daleiden is extremely unlikely to receive anything but symbolic jail time if convicted of the charge of making and using a false California driver’s license in the course of his undercover attempt to discredit Planned Parenthood clinics in Texas. And despite what his supporters might say, the indictment doesn’t pose a threat to First Amendment values or legitimate investigative journalism.

The JIC, or Just In Case, is an iPhone case that can record any phone conversation with the press of a button. It comes equipped with a built-in microphone, a speaker for playback, and a microSD card for storing conversations...While the case might be useful for journalists, spies, and anyone else in dire need of a stored conversation, it also could lead to illegal recordings in 12 states...The natural question, of course, is which state's jurisdiction applies. If the caller is in New York, for example, which has a one-party consent law, but the person being called is in Washington, which requires all-party consent, there isn’t necessarily a clear default. Andy Sellars, a staff attorney and fellow at the Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic, told The Verge that the case’s users should probably err on the more conservative side. Getting consent from all parties is always a safe bet.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman. Monday's landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to make retroactive its 2012 prohibition on mandatory life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders is worthy of celebration. The court clarified its retroactivity jurisprudence, holding for the first time that the Constitution demands that new substantive constitutional rules be applied to people convicted before the rules were announced. And the justices were correct to apply their newly announced principle to the case of mandatory sentences of life without parole for juveniles. But at the same time, the court’s bold decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, underscores the depth of an anomaly that it left unchanged: When the court announces a new procedural rule mandated by the Constitution, those convicted under the old rule stay in prison and are unaffected by the new judgment.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman. I’ve always loved the title of the 1951 film, “I Can Get It for You Wholesale,” maybe because of my ancestral connections to the garment industry (manufacturing on the paternal side, retail on the maternal). Today I get to connect my job to that of my grandparents: The U.S. Supreme Court has decided a case about the power of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on the basis of the wholesale-retail distinction. I don’t have anything to sell you, but I will try to explain why the case matters, and what the court said.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday upheld a major Obama administration electricity-markets regulation that encourages big power users like factories to cut consumption at peak times, rejecting a challenge brought by electric utilities. The court, ruling 6-2, reversed a 2014 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to strike down the 2011 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulation...Jody Freeman, director of Harvard Law School's environmental law and policy program, called the ruling a "crucial step" toward the Obama administration's goal to reduce carbon emissions that contribute to climate change.

Back on campus after a failed bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig said the campaign was a learning experience in the challenges affecting democracy in America. In particular, Lessig said restrictive changes to the Democratic National Committee’s debate eligibility requirements excluded him from the stage, limiting the visibility of his electoral reform platform. Lessig said he is now looking for the Republican Party to continue his proposed reforms and sees businessman Donald J. Trump as the candidate with the best chance of enacting the campaign finance reforms he ran on, given his strident criticism of Super PACs.

An op-ed by Jeannie Suk. In the middle of taking the bar exam at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center, in New York City, along with thousands of aspiring lawyers, I had to go to the bathroom. The enormous line for the women’s restroom looked like it would take at least a half hour. There was no line for the men’s restroom. I walked in, passed my male counterparts at a row of urinals, used one of several empty stalls, then returned to my desk. I felt that my decision to forgo the women’s bathroom made a difference to my passing the exam, and that the much longer wait for women than men during an all-important test for entry to the legal profession was obviously unfair. There is now, however, an active debate around what bathrooms we should be able to use. A recently proposed Indiana law would make it a crime for a person to enter a single-sex public restroom that does not match the person’s “biological gender,” defined in terms of chromosomes and sex at birth...But the implications of the controversy go far beyond bathrooms.

The federal government’s broadening interpretations of Title IX, the 1972 anti-sexual discrimination statute that applies to educational institutions, has raised concerns that the freedom of Catholic colleges and universities to teach and govern themselves according to the Church’s teachings on sexuality is at risk. At least five Catholic educational institutions are among a wave of Christian colleges and universities that have applied for Title IX exemptions, in the wake of the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights’ expansion of Title IX’s interpretation to include “discrimination based on gender identity or failure to conform to stereotypical notions of masculinity or femininity.”...Janet Halley, the Royall Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, told the Register that the improper application of Title IX does pose a threat to academic freedom on campuses and that “these problems are emerging all over the country.” “There is plenty of evidence that Title IX is being expanded in application, way beyond its proper legal scope,” she said. Halley explained this has happened in several steps. First, the OCR issued “non-binding advice documents” that do not have the status of legal regulation, but “massively expand the Supreme Court’s definition of sexual harassment.” “This creates a lot of confusion about what sexual harassment actually is,” she said.

The Boston Police Department has launched a mediation program aimed at reducing a backlog of routine complaints against officers — an idea first suggested a decade ago. Even though the number of complaints dropped in 2014, the time it takes to resolve the cases has frustrated both citizens and the officers who live in the shadow of possible action pending against them. Police officials hope that the program, which will be managed by the Harvard Mediation Program at Harvard Law School, will help clear less serious complaints quickly...“The goal is to ensure that citizens feel comfortable,” said Rachel A. Viscomi, the Harvard program’s assistant director. “The idea is to level the playing field.”

Hailing from Buffalo, a once-prosperous city in upstate New York, Steven Salcedo [`16] knew how a lack of continued economic development can hinder families and mire people in poverty and hopelessness. But it was only after he took a course at Harvard Law School (HLS) that Salcedo realized that lawyers could help foster better times for communities. “Lawyers can’t make economic development happen by themselves,” said Salcedo. “But we can contribute to help solve poverty by enabling people to do what they want to do. We’re like a bridge; we take them from where they are to where they want to be.” The class Salcedo took, “Community Enterprise Project of the Transactional Law Clinics,” allows HLS students to help small business owners, entrepreneurs, and community groups create businesses, obtain permits and licenses, and negotiate contracts and other transactional (non-litigation) services...Amanda Kool, an HLS lecturer on law and clinical instructor, directs the Community Enterprise Project. Under her supervision, students work out of HLS’s Legal Services Center in Jamaica Plain, dividing their time between assisting clients and partnering with community organizations on projects that address broader legal barriers to economic development in the community.

Harvard University Police Department has not identified the perpetrator responsible for the November vandalism of black Law School professors’ portraits and shuttered its investigation into the incident, ending more than a month of interviews and forensic examinations...Leland S. Shelton, the president of the Harvard Black Law Students Association, said he hoped HUPD had thoroughly investigated the incident. “I hope that this is a chance to move forward from last semester’s events,” he said...Alexander J. Clayborne, a student activist involved in Royall Must Fall, said the investigation’s conclusion does not mark an end to discussions of race on campus. "Racism on campus is the actual perpetrator,” Clayborne wrote in an email on behalf of Royall Must Fall. “While it would have been nice to catch the guilty party, until the University addresses its systemic racism, incidents like this are just going to keep happening.”

An op-ed by Noah Feldman. Is there a fundamental difference between war fought for reasons of belief and war fought out of self-interest? Is one more primitive than the other, or morally superior? These deep questions are raised by the finding of a mass grave from 10,000 years ago by the shores of Kenya’s Lake Turkana, now the earliest such site known. They also resonate in the debate about how seriously to engage Islamic State, and whether to employ means of warfare that would actually eliminate the group instead of just contain it. In particular, the fight against Islamic State involves the question of whether it’s good or right to go to war because the enemy is morally so bad.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman. I can’t be the only one who thinks they should bring back the original “Law & Order.” If NBC did, the show’s first case should be one that went on trial this week in a local court in Mineola, New York. A man has been charged with homicide in the death of a police officer who was hit by an SUV. The twist is that, when the crash happened, the defendant was leaning against the guardrail. He had been driving home from a night of drinking, got involved in a minor accident and was pulled over. The policeman was hit by a different car while investigating the crash. Is the homicide charge justified?

An op-ed by Jacob Gersen. In the past several years politicians have lined up to condemn an epidemic of sexual assault on college campuses. But there is a genuine question of whether the Education Department has exceeded its legal authority in the way it has used Title IX to dictate colleges’ response to the serious problem of sexual assault...There’s a point to making the government jump through these hoops: By demanding transparency and facilitating public participation and judicial review, we can be more confident that the bureaucracy is up to good rather than ill.

As we reach the sixth anniversary of Citizens United two things are clear: (1) there's a dark money problem and (2) the SEC isn't helping to fix it yet. But it's also important to know that the SEC can still work on the issue despite a troubling rider added to the federal "cromnibus" budget...But hasty drafting has left the SEC some wiggle room. Harvard Law Professor John Coates has examined the budget language and believes the SEC can still work on the rule this year as long as the agency does not finalize it. And given that rule making processes can be long affairs (think of all the long delayed Dodd-Frank and Jobs Act rules), it would behoove the SEC to start work on corporate disclosure rules now, especially since 94 members of Congress have urged them to move ahead.

The automotive rules of origin in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are most likely to hurt auto parts suppliers that are furthest removed from the finished vehicle or producers of materials that are less complex, easily shipped and face low-cost competition from Asia, according to industry, congressional and academic experts...U.S. steel producers are already facing a flood of imports, fueled largely by Chinese overcapacity. In addition, China over the past decade has emerged as a major supplier of auto parts to both the U.S. and Japan, and its share of those markets continues to grow for most products, according to data compiled by Harvard Law School Professor Mark Wu. China is the biggest supplier of brakes and wheels to the U.S. and Japan, and is also the largest supplier of auto body parts, airbags and miscellaneous parts to the Japanese market, the data show.

An op-ed by Hal Scott. Contrary to the views of Michael Lewis and other critics, America’s equity markets are not “rigged.” U.S. investors are actually much better off in today’s high-speed automated marketplace than they were in the old, largely floor-based markets when the NYSE and NASDAQ operated as virtual monopolies. Let’s take a look at the facts. The most important characteristic of strong equity markets is that they provide a fair marketplace for investors to buy and sell stock at the lowest transaction cost possible.

Almost all the major figures featured in the Netflix documentary Making a Murderer have been interviewed by various media outlets since the series premiered last month except for the man at the center of it all: Steven Avery. One reason for his absence: the Wisconsin prison system has so far declined to connect journalists to Avery."We are not facilitating interviews out of respect for the victims," Joy Staab, director of public relations for the Wisconsin Department of Corrections told The Hollywood Reporter on Tuesday...Harvard Law School professor and retired federal judge Nancy Gertner also said the explanation from the department of corrections was a new one for her. "According to very old law, the prison has a right to exclude cameras from the facility, but not to deny you a visit with a prisoner" [for an interview], Gertner said in an email. "But they have to be making decisions based on institutional concerns, concerns relating to the prison, not 'out of respect for the victims.'”