Media Mentions

An op-ed by Cass Sunstein. Donald Trump is an iconic System 1 candidate -- more clearly so than any party nominee in at least sixty years. Hillary Clinton is an iconic System 2 candidate -- as clearly so as any party nominee in the same period. That distinction may well end up defining the general election. Let me explain. Psychologists, and most prominently Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman, have distinguished between two ways of thinking -- fast and slow. Fast thinking is associated with the brain’s System 1: It is intuitive, quick, and sometimes emotional...System 2 is deliberative and reflective.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman. The Black Lives Matter movement may be starting to affect the thinking of federal judges, if a Texas case is any indication. Wednesday, a George W. Bush appointee wrote a dissent that started this way: “Wayne Pratt received the death penalty at the hands of three police officers for the misdemeanor crime of failing to stop and give information.” The opinion was a dissent because the two other judges on the appellate panel thought the officers who killed Pratt during an arrest were entitled to immunity from being sued. So it's not as if the social protest movement has yet won a complete victory. But the Republican appointee’s language was noteworthy and her opinion deserves analysis.

Yale University announced last week that it will retain the name of Calhoun College, one of its 12 residential colleges. The college was named for John C. Calhoun, a 19th-century alumnus and a fervent supporter of slavery. The decision set off an angry response from students on campus, who condemned the decision at an intense university-sponsored town hall last Thursday. But one prominent race relations expert doesn't believe that Yale made a mistake in their decision to keep Calhoun's name on the college. While removing the name would have been Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy's "preference," he "can respect the decision thay [Yale] made," he told Business Insider. "People speak as if you keep John C. Calhoun's name, that means you're indifferent to the legacy of racism," he continued. "I don't believe that. I think that there are people who embrace the idea of keeping his name who are deeply concerned with the legacy of slavery and racism and want to do things to address that legacy."

Learn about constitutional law, we will. Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein is best known for his influential scholarship on constitutional law and behavioral economics as well as his three-year stint as administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under President Obama. But his latest project has him venturing beyond the ivory tower into a subculture far, far away: Star Wars.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman. The Supreme Court has announced that it will decide a fascinating copyright case about cheerleaders’ uniforms. It's a big deal because the case isn’t just about cheerleaders -- it could determine whether many kinds of fashion designs can be copyrighted. The copyright law seems simple: It says that “useful items” can’t be protected. You can't own exclusive rights to make dining tables or dinner plates. A uniform, like any other piece of clothing or furniture, is useful. But that isn’t the end of the problem. What about designs on useful objects: a pattern on a dinner plate or a stripe on a garment?

An op-ed by Noah Feldman. Justice Stephen Breyer is against the death penalty -- but not because it’s morally wrong. He briefly reiterated his arguments Monday when dissenting from the court’s refusal to hear a California death row inmate’s case. First, he said the death penalty may be unconstitutional in California because it’s applied arbitrarily and unreliably. Those are plausible and unremarkable arguments. They no doubt appeal to the technician in Breyer, who believes that government should do things pragmatically and correctly. But his third reason was most striking. Following a view he has held since the 1990s, Breyer argued that the death penalty is unconstitutional because it takes too long for condemned inmates to be put to death.

An article by Samuel Moyn. The duty to remember—especially to remember victims lost to political evil—has become one of the most commanding mantras of our culture. Yet it is astonishing how recently this imperative became so authoritative. Kings have raised monuments to their own alleged greatness for millennia, but commemoration of the dead of the wars of nations reached its apogee only in the early twentieth century with the end of World War I and now-familiar invocations of the heroism and self-sacrifice of soldiers for the sake of the nation’s political fortunes.

South Jersey truck driver Michael Fright plans to celebrate by watching the first six movies, back to back to back. Bucks County accountant Carl Cardozo will take the day off from work, going in search of collectible, newly-on-sale figures of Boba Fett. Harvard professor Cass Sunstein intends to travel to the purest planet in the galaxy, Dagobah - at least in his mind. "It's gorgeous there," he said. And he should know. On Wednesday, these fans will join thousands of others - film buffs, academics, nerds everywhere - to observe an unofficial but hugely popular national holiday: Star Wars Day. That's May 4, as in, May the Fourth be with you!...But why does the holiday exist? Why is there a day for Star Wars when there's no Jurassic Park Day? Or Hunger Games Day?"Because it's awesome, and full of mysteries, and fun, and because it is handed down from one generation to another," Sunstein said.

In our earlier segment, we examined some of the repercussions of the current vacancy on the Supreme Court. This week we will examine in more detail the specific impact on the Fifth Circuit and how the vacancy impacts splits in decisions between the 11 circuits of the United States Courts of Appeals. The National Law Review turned to the expertise of Andrew Pincus of Mayer Brown, Daniel Volchok of Wilmer Hale and [lecturer] Tejinder Singh of Goldstein & Russell, P.C. for help fleshing out these issues.

A letter by Delcianna J. Winders, Animal Law & Policy Program. Ringling’s retired elephants likely won’t spend the bulk of their days “roam(ing) ... and play(ing)”...Ringling only lets the elephants off chains into small corrals for about eight hours a day, according to 2007 testimony by Gary Jacobson, general manager of Ringling’s conservation center. Sometimes they are chained for 22.5 hours a day or even longer. It’s no surprise that Ringling’s elephants suffer painful foot diseases. Some wild elephants can roam more than 30 miles every day. Ringling’s claim that chaining is necessary to “make sure they don’t disturb each other or steal each other’s food” is laughable.

Balloons and roughly 100 people filled the student lounge at Harvard Law School to commemorate graduating student activists and a year of contnued race-related activism at the school in an informal commencement ceremony Tuesday evening...Second-year Law student and Reclaim Harvard Law member Aparna Gokhale said group members came up with the idea for a commencement ceremony several weeks ago during what they called a low point in their activism efforts...Third-year Law student and Reclaim Harvard Law member Rena T. Karefa-Johnson spoke about the support system she found among activists and the lessons in “radical love and resistance” she learned from the movement. Johnson recalled that during her first year at the Law School, she found that people were hesitant to speak publicly about race. “To see what this room looks like right now is so crazy to me,” she said, looking around the crowded lounge.

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich’s investigation into fetal-tissue sales has run into a large obstacle: a federal judge’s preliminary injunction protecting the National Abortion Federation. The injunction, issued Feb. 5, bans the pro-life Center for Medical Progress from releasing video taken at two NAF conferences. But the order is creating headaches for Mr. Brnovich and 13 other attorneys general...Those in the center’s corner include 11 legal scholars from nine U.S. universities, including Harvard Law School professor Mary Ann Glendon and Stanford Law School professor Michael W. McConnell. The professors “do not agree with one another on all aspects of the controversial issue of abortion,” said their amicus brief. “But [they] are united in insisting that all Americans — no matter what their views on abortion — have an unfettered right in our society to have access to important information about controversial matters, including abortion,” the brief said.

An op-ed by Bruce Hay. Against her better judgment, my beloved was reading the comments section of an article about the bathroom bills sweeping the country. A man calling himself rcp196935 had commented that the laws were necessary to keep women safe from predators. Having heard this refrain once too often, my beloved decided to respond. She is a trans woman, she explained, and poses no danger to anyone, and like any other woman should be allowed to use the public restrooms in peace. She signed it in her own name. Mr. rcp196935 had a reply for her.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman. The Supreme Court has decided a Baltimore Police Department extortion case straight out of "The Wire" on the basis of common sense. It held that the federal bribery statute allows a conviction for conspiracy to commit bribery even when the co-conspirator was also the victim. That's the nature of a kickback, after all: The party that's being extorted is also one of the beneficiaries of the scheme. This holding required the court to go beyond the literal words of the statute and ascertain its true purpose. The late Justice Antonin Scalia, who hated such purpose-driven statutory interpretation, is harrumphing somewhere as his textualism was rejected. You'd expect Justice Clarence Thomas to have dissented, and he did. But in a noteworthy twist, the other dissent in the 5-3 decision was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor -- and her opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts. Both, it appears, disfavor the extension of conspiracy law, although perhaps for different reasons.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman. The most dramatic moment of my legal education came when Professor Owen Fiss of Yale Law School threw his paperback copy of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 25 feet across a classroom into a waiting trash can. It wasn’t just the eminent scholar’s aim that impressed me, but his point: that the federal rules of procedure are basically unconstitutional because of the way they’re adopted. Instead of being enacted by Congress and signed by the president like ordinary laws, procedural rules are written by the unelected Supreme Court, which transmits them to Congress, after which they ordinarily go into effect without change.

It is different this time for best-selling author Michael Pollan, and not just because his subject has changed. The people are different too. They’re not farming or fermenting or cooking. This time they’re dying. Pollan’s books about food, diet, and industrial agriculture — he is perhaps best known for 2006’s “The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals” — have made him an influential voice in America’s food fight over obesity, nutrition, and diabetes, and have made him revered by those who believe that something is fundamentally wrong with how we mass produce and prepare our meals...Assistant Clinical Professor of Law Emily Broad Leib, director of the Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic, hosted Pollan in a private meeting with clinic students and in one of her classes afterward. Pollan answered questions and asked students about their own food-related projects. Broad Leib credited Pollan with helping awaken the country to problems with the food system by explaining potentially dry topics like the intricacies of the U.S. farm bill in an easy-to-understand, engaging way. It’s telling, she said, that roughly three-fourths of student applicants to a Harvard food law summit last fall cited Pollan’s writing as influential.

On the campaign trail, Donald J. Trump has promised to do quite a few things that are beyond the powers of an American president, like billing Mexico for a border wall. But when it comes to foreign trade, his powers as president would come closer to his expansive ambitions....International trade laws limit the type of help governments can provide to companies, but the role of the Chinese government is particularly opaque, said Mark Wu, a professor of law at Harvard and a former United States trade negotiator in the administration of President George W. Bush. “China’s economy is its own beast, and it has a form that was not envisioned at the time these rules were created 20 years ago,” Mr. Wu said. “W.T.O. rules are not necessarily equipped to address all of the problematic aspects of that China Inc. system as far as American exporters are concerned.”

IndonesiaX, a massive open online course platform, has launched an online course in which materials are developed by HarvardX. The course, titled “Contract law: From trust to promise to contract”, is delivered in video format by Professor Charles Fried of Harvard Law School. Professor Fried is one of the world’s renowned experts in the field of contractual law and has been teaching in the Harvard Law School for nearly 50 years, and has also written a lot of studies about contracts. Professor Fried uses a storytelling approach to deliver his material, which gives his students a unique and interesting experience. The course videos are presented in English, however to ensure that every IndonesiaX course participants gets the same opportunity to learn, the platform provides an Indonesian translation.

An op-ed by Hal Scott. In remarkably unusual public statements, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew has aggressively criticized U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer’s legal decision to invalidate the Financial Stability Oversight Council’s designation of MetLife as a systemically important financial institution (SIFI). Mr. Lew asserts that Judge Collyer overturned FSOC’s conclusion that MetLife is a SIFI and that her decision contradicted key policy lessons from the financial crisis. He’s wrong. Judge Collyer makes no specific determination as to whether MetLife is a SIFI and certainly does not base her judicial decision on the policy lessons of the financial crisis.

A letter by Delcianna J. Winders, Animal Law & Policy Fellow. With Senate Bill 1062, the California legislature has an important opportunity to help elephants. The bill, which recently passed the Senate and is now before the Assembly, would ban the use of bullhooks — devices with sharp hooks on the end that resemble fireplace pokers and that are used to hurt and punish elephants. Bullhooks are used on the most sensitive parts of elephants’ bodies, where their skin is paper-thin, including behind the ears, inside the ears, and around the mouth. The Oakland Zoo stopped using these cruel weapons nearly a quarter of a century ago, and most zoos with elephants no longer use them.

When dozens of residents were asked Thursday evening if they supported body cameras for Boston police officers most raised their hands, but many wondered how the initiative would improve accountability in policing...Several residents wondered how officers would be selected for the pilot program and whether it would include officers throughout the city. “What will be done to ensure these 100 officers come from a variety of levels of seniority and not just model officers?” said Jillian Simons [`18], 32. Simons also questioned how the program’s success would be measured. “Is it that we catch a citizen or an officer doing something on camera, that’s successful? After six months what will be the measure of success?” she asked.