Media Mentions

Donald Trump continued to push the contentious issue of Ted Cruz’s presidential eligibility on Friday, threatening that he has legal standing to sue Cruz for not being a “natural born citizen.” ...Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe said Trump’s standing is plausible but not legally guaranteed. “Its plausibility gets greater the closer we get to the point where it’s clear that Cruz himself (and not Cruz together with Bush, Kasich, Rubio, and perhaps others) is the real obstacle to Trump’s nomination and thus a clear source of concrete injury to Trump’s prospects for the Republican presidential nomination,” Tribe said in an email.

If you thought the fight over net neutrality ended when the Federal Communications Commission issued its strong new “Open Internet” rules last year, think again. ...“The really big move is turning the Internet into the equivalent of a cable system, where it’s a managed network,” said Susan Crawford, a professor at Harvard Law School and an outspoken critic of the big broadband providers. “If Comcast and these guys get away with this, other carriers around the world will try to do the same thing.”  

The Lyric Stage, a popular local theater, on Monday hosts a 7 p.m. screening of the short film “East of Hollywood.” It’s billed as “a mockumentary that exposes the stereotypes Asian-American actors are forced to deal with throughout the audition process.” Winner of best narrative short at last year’s Boston Asian American Film Festival, “East of Hollywood” is directed by Chris Caccioppoli and stars Michael Tow, who drew on real experiences that he and fellow Asian-American actors encountered over their careers. ...Following the screening, Caccioppoli, Tow, Oliva, and Nguyen will engage in a discussion moderated by Jeannie Suk, professor at Harvard Law School.

An op-ed by Nancy Gertner: I did not know Justice Antonin Scalia. Following the announcement of his death, I could not help but be struck by the accounts of his warmth, his friendships (notably with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, with whom he regularly disagreed on the Supreme Court), his deep religious commitment, his infectious sense of humor. I knew him through his opinions, books, and speeches. Even though I disagreed with him much of the time, one thing is clear: His legal positions could not be ignored — not by lawyers, scholars, judges, nor the public. I had to take them seriously in my own judicial decisions and in my writing. And the need to deal with his arguments shifted the debate, even the outcomes.

Before he died Saturday at age 79, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was the longest-serving member of the current court, a towering figure in the legal community who now leaves a historic legacy. That’s how he’s being remembered. But just what was that legacy, exactly? ... That’s the portrait that emerges here from the 19 top legal thinkersPolitico Magazine asked to reflect on his life and death. ...Laurence H. Tribe ...Noah Feldman,

America's bold effort to cut carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants is on hold. On February 9th the Supreme Court, divided five to four along partisan lines, putting the brakes on Barack Obama’s flagship environmental policy, pending a possible ruling this summer. The plan forms the core of America’s recent commitments to cut emissions, made at the UN climate talks in Paris...States, utilities and mining companies have declared the plan to be too much, too soon. The attorney-general of West Virginia, one of the states opposing it, said he was “thrilled” after the court issued its stay. Richard Lazarus, from Harvard Law School, calls the intervention “extraordinary”. Although compliance with the regulation is not required until 2022, the deadline for submitting first plans to cut back on emissions was supposed to be September.

A few hours after nearly every country in the world adopted the Paris Agreement last December, John Kerry went into enemy territory. Backed by the blinking lights of the Champs-Élysées, the bleary-eyed secretary of state clipped on an earpiece and started fielding questions from Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace. One of the main objections American conservatives have to any global climate deal is the fear that other countries will renege, making money off dirty energy while Americans sacrifice to clean the atmosphere like a bunch of chumps...But this week, another branch of government emerged as a threat to the plan. Chief Justice John Roberts, backed by his four fellow Republican appointees on the Supreme Court, barred the Obama administration from taking any steps to implement its plan to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants until the courts reach a final decision on the plan’s legality...Jody Freeman, a Harvard University law professor who served as White House counselor for energy and climate change under Obama, disagrees. "There’s no argument for irreparable harm," she says. "There is no obligation on the part of the federal government to preserve the market share of the coal industry."

An op-ed by Emily Broad Leib. Glug, glug, glug… That’s the sound of milk being poured down the drain in Montana. Montana wastes untold amounts of milk every day due to an outdated law that requires a “sell by” date of 12 days after pasteurization and prohibits sale or donation after that date. This date is completely arbitrary, especially when compared to the industry standard for date labeling on milk—generally 21-24 days after pasteurization. Even more shocking, the date label on milk, like on most foods, is generally meant to indicate quality rather than its safety. Because pasteurization kills any harmful pathogens, milk is safe and generally still good well past the date. Montana’s is just one of many US state laws that cause confusion and massive amounts of waste. Even if food makes it to a home, more than 90% of Americans report that they mistake those quality dates labels for safety indicators, and subsequently throw away food that is still completely safe to eat. Confusion over date labels is a major contributor to the 160 billion pounds of food wasted each year in the US.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman. The Department of Justice must’ve expected that the Ferguson, Missouri, City Council would stall in accepting the terms of a consent decree over allegations that the city’s police and courts have violated black residents’ civil rights. The department had a 56-page complaint for a lawsuit at the ready, and filed it just a day after the council demanded several changes to the negotiated draft. Presumably, Ferguson won’t want the embarrassment or the expense of fighting a federal lawsuit. The department is using force as a negotiating tactic, and Ferguson will have to fold. Yet the episode raises a problem with roots in the history of civil-rights enforcement. What should the Department of Justice or the courts do if a city like Ferguson won’t accept a deal, and insists on litigating alleged civil-rights violations to completion?

Race relations in America have improved, but they aren't always good. This assessment was provided by Harvard Law School Professor Charles Ogletree, who spoke Thursday at the University at Buffalo. Ogletree was the 40th Annual Martin Luther King Commemoration Speaker and also participated in a conversation with students, faculty and university friends.

What are the secrets for long-lasting love? Lean closer to find out. — Keep curiosity alive. — Never assume anything about each other. — And, last but not least, open a joint bank account. With Valentine’s Day near, experts in negotiation, mediation, and lasting marriage shared that advice to a rapt audience at a panel called “Negotiating Love: Interpersonal Negotiation and Romantic Relationships,” held today at Harvard Law School (HLS). The session was organized by the Harvard Law School Negotiators, a student group, to spread the word that effective techniques in interpersonal negotiation apply not only to the vagaries of international trade agreements and mergers and acquisitions but also to people’s everyday lives and to relationships with family, friends, and romantic partners.

To help starry-eyed lovers celebrate Valentine’s Day, here are five romantic sites to visit in the Boston area...A white marble bench at Harvard Law School is inscribed in all capital letters: “On January 17, 1985, not far from this spot, two people met and fell in love.” Presumably, they met and later fell in love. The letters are carved into the vertical edge of the otherwise simple bench.The bench is outside the Reginald F. Lewis International Law Center, also called Lewis Hall. The two people who fell in love later married and donated the bench, confirmed a spokesman for Harvard Law School, Steven Oliveira. The man was a law student, the woman was not, and they met outdoors. The man is “very very anonymous,” said Oliveira.

An op-ed by Emily Broad Leib. My father used to keep food in the refrigerator for days, even weeks after the “best by” date, so long as it looked and smelled OK. My mom, by contrast, went out to buy a new carton of milk as soon as the date passed. Often there would be two containers of milk in our refrigerator: the half-empty one my dad was committed to finishing, and the new one my mom had purchased, out of fear that she might get sick if she drank my dad's past-date milk.

OnPoint with Tom Ashbrook: The Supreme Court hits the brakes on the heart of President Obama’s push to fight global warming. We’ll dig in. Guests: Jody Freeman, founding director of the Harvard Law School Environmental Law and Policy program.

James Clapper, the US director of national intelligence, told lawmakers Tuesday that governments across the globe are likely to employ the Internet of Things as a spy tool, which will add to global instability already being caused by infectious disease, hunger, climate change, and artificial intelligence. ...Clapper's remarks on the Internet of Things are remarkable because they come from the nation's top spy chief, and they likely mean that US spy agencies are trying to exploit it. Two weeks ago, a Berkman Center for Internet & Society report from Harvard University concluded that "If the Internet of Things has as much impact as is predicted, the future will be even more laden with sensors that can be commandeered for law enforcement surveillance; and this is a world far apart from one in which opportunities for surveillance have gone dark. It is vital to appreciate these trends and to make thoughtful decisions about how pervasively open to surveillance we think our built environments should be—by home and foreign governments, and by the companies who offer the products that are transforming our personal spaces."

MLB commissioner Rob Manfred says he hopes to deal with domestic violence rulings in three high-profile cases by opening day. In a Q&A with Harvard Law Today, Manfred discussed the league’s new domestic violence policy and how the league is dealing with the cases of Aroldis Chapman (Yankees), Jose Reyes (Rockies) and Yasiel Puig (Dodgers) after their respective off-season incidents.

Another departure at the Supreme Judicial Court means Gov. Baker could reshape the state’s highest court. Justice Fernande Duffly is planning to retire this summer. It’s the third retirement announced in the past week — joining Justices Francis Spina and Robert Cordy. Two other justices will reach retirement age before Baker’s term ends, which means that the governor would appoint five justices to the seven-member panel. Guest: Nancy Gertner, Harvard law professor and retired federal judge.

If you thought there was a problem with inversions — deals that allow American companies to relocate their headquarters to lower their tax bills — wait until you hear about the real secret to avoiding corporate taxes. It’s called earnings stripping, and it is a technique that the Obama administration has so far failed to stop. ...Still, an influential article by Stephen Shay, a Harvard law professor, has argued that the I.R.S. could act by adopting regulations that would term this type of debt equity. Under the tax rules, this would mean that the payments from the American subsidiary would now be nondeductible dividends rather than interest payments, ending this type of earnings stripping. The I.R.S. has said it was considering adopting earnings stripping rules in the near future, and this could be it.

However worrying Tuesday was for the success of xenophobic politics in America, it might have been more worrying for the planet’s climate. In the early evening, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked the implementation of the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, a set of Environmental Protection Agency regulations which would limit greenhouse-gas emissions from the power sector. ...The idea wasn’t for naught. Coal stocks tanked over the last year, and many of the largest American coal companies have filed for bankruptcy. In fact, opponents of the plan cited this exact effect in their brief: The “EPA hopes that, by the time the judiciary adjudicates the legality of the Power Plan, the judicial action will come too late to make much if any practical difference,” said one brief from the Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe. He called the plan a “targeted attack on the coal industry.”

U.S. House of Representatives lawmakers will introduce bipartisan legislation on Wednesday that would prohibit states from requiring tech companies to build encryption weaknesses into their products. ... But technology companies, privacy advocates and cryptographers say any mandated vulnerability would expose data to hackers and jeopardize the overall integrity of the Internet. A study from the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University released last month, citing some current and former intelligence officials, concluded that fears about encryption are overstated in part because new technologies have given investigators unprecedented means to track suspects.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman:  There’s no mistaking the message of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to stay the Barack Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan regulation while it’s being challenged before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Before Tuesday, the court had never granted a regulatory stay in such circumstances, where the lower court hasn’t ruled and has itself declined to block the regulation while it’s considering the case. It’s understandable that environmental advocates are upset. What’s less obvious is why the Supreme Court hasn’t done this sort of thing before, and what’s wrong with them doing it now, if anything. Evaluating the competing values at stake should help us understand whether the court got it right -- and whether we should expect more such stays in the future.