Media Mentions

An article by Sean Mirski `15. On July 1, 2014, Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe and his Cabinet engaged in a dramatic constitutional reinterpretation. Traditionally, Japan’s constitution had been read as imposing pacifism on the country: Japan could not engage in military force except in absolute self-defense. But under Abe’s new reading, the constitution would grant Japan the right to engage in collective self-defense—in other words, to come to the aid of allied forces under attack even if Japan itself is not targeted. This update may seem minor when set alongside the robust military campaigns launched by other nations like the United States. But for Japan, Abe’s reinterpretation represents a significant shift away from the island-nation’s postwar pacifism—a shift that will have important and largely beneficial consequences for the U.S.-Japanese alliance. By the end of the year, the two states will release revised Guidelines for Defense Cooperation, which will build in part on Prime Minister Abe’s constitutional reinterpretation and update the framework that governs the U.S.-Japanese alliance in times of both peace and war.

Noah Feldman discusses Obama's anticipated executive action on immigration reform. Then we talk to you to see what you think.

Once every 90 seconds, Google Inc. receives an appeal from someone seeking to keep part of their personal history from showing up on an Internet search. In the so-called “right to be forgotten” decision earlier this year, the European Court of Justice ruled that search engines with European domains – such as Google, Bing, and Yahoo – must allow EU and European Economic Area citizens the ability to remove links to personal information that is “inadequate, irrelevant, or no longer relevant."...This all points to a new normal for the way global Internet companies operate in Europe. Indeed, says Adam Holland, project coordinator at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, the right to be forgotten reflects starkly different notions of privacy in Europe and the US. “In the US, we value freedom of speech and freedom of info more highly than necessarily moral rights to that information,” says Mr. Holland. “It is a moral issue, not necessarily a legislative issue. The EU places a higher precedent on the rights of the person.”

President Barack Obama’s announced immigration executive actions are lawful, a group of ten prominent legal scholars wrote in a joint letter shared by the White House with TIME. Pushing back on Republicans who have blasted Obama’s action as unconstitutional and unlawful, the signatories include Columbia University President Lee Bollinger, Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe, conservative legal scholar Eric Posner, and former Yale Law School Dean and former State Department Legal Advisor Harold Hongju Koh. “While we differ among ourselves on many issues relating to Presidential power and immigration policy, we are all of the view that these actions are lawful,” the professors wrote. “They are exercises of prosecutorial discretion that are consistent with governing law and with the policies that Congress has expressed in the statutes that it has enacted.”

An op-ed by Michael Shammas '16. In 1603, Sir Walter Raleigh was convicted of treason in a sham of a trial. Raleigh had no knowledge of the charges' substance until the morning of the tribunal, when he learned he was accused, on hearsay alone, of plotting to enthrone Lady Arabella Stuart. Years later, as a partial result of his conviction, resigned to the great injustice done to both his body and his name by the tribunal of 1603, Raleigh placed his head on the block, refused a blindfold and -- after the reluctant headsman delayed -- implored, "Strike man, strike!" How did this murder disguised as justice occur? The answer is simple: an inexcusable absence of due process. I include this (admittedly drastic) example because outrage at the great injustice done to Raleigh in this witch hunt called a "trial," in this persecution disguised as prosecution, contributed to the development of numerous facets of what we today call due process. A recognition of the protracted period it took for such crucial and hard-won protections to develop is, partly, what led 28 Harvard Law professors to criticize Harvard's new sexual assault policy for lacking "the most basic elements of fairness and due process."

Right now in Massachusetts, for-profit colleges are facing big questions, new regulations and lawsuits. The state attorney general is investigating about 12 of them — amid charges of low graduation rates and deceptive sales tactics that leave too many students mired in debt...But Mike DiGiacomo’s story is just one of many that raises a lot of questions about the for-profit college industry, at a time when it’s facing a lot scrutiny over high rates of debt and low rates of graduation and employment. Guests...Toby Merrill, attorney and senior clinical fellow at the predatory lending practice at the legal services center of Harvard Law School.

An article by Michael Zuckerman `17. Katlyn Beggs, a 2009 alum of the California School of Culinary Arts, calls herself one of the lucky ones: After graduating, she got a job. How did she get so lucky? Partly by having worked in the food industry—but also by not telling her future boss that she’d gone to CSCA...Starting in 2008, CSCA graduates began filing lawsuits against their former culinary school, alleging fraudulent and unfair business practices. By 2012, five of their complaints had been combined into one consolidated and amended complaint, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court...The class action addresses this problem by letting one voice speak for all. And, as Harvard law professor William B. Rubenstein has pointed out, the benefits don’t just accrue to the plaintiffs: Just by looming as a means of enforcement, the class action produces a positive externality for society by keeping companies honest. “The mechanism,” Rubenstein writes, “makes possible the production of a good that would not otherwise be produced. That good is a lawsuit.”

Third-year Harvard Law School students clashed in the high drama of the venerable Ames Moot Court Competition on Tuesday under the jurisdiction of visiting federal judges, including one of the nation’s foremost legal authorities, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. “It was fully as good as one would expect at Harvard Law School,” a pleased Scalia said during his final comments...The judges didn’t render a decision, but named Kevin Neylan the best oralist, awarded the petitioning team the best-brief award, and named the respondents the best overall team. The petitioner’s team was made up of Jennifer Garnett, Jordan Moran, Ivan Panchenko, and Tom Ryan, along with oralists Ezra Marcus and Katie McCarthy. The respondent’s team was made up of Jay Cohen, Cody Gray, Spencer Haught, and Christina Martinez, along with oralists Sean Mirski and Neylan.

When most people hear the word “tourism,” they immediately think of flocking to the sandy beaches of the Caribbean or exploring museums in a European city. For Harvard Law School graduate I. Glenn Cohen, the word has a different implication: travelling to another country for medical treatment. The now-Law School professor discussed this phenomenon, called medical tourism, and his new book, “Patients with Passports: Medical Tourism, Law, and Ethics,” on Wednesday afternoon. Cohen was joined by three other panelists—Kennedy School of Government professor Amitabh Chandra, School of Public Health professor Alicia Ely Yamin, and Medical School professor Nir Eyal—for a discussion of medical tourism and its implications.

An op-ed by Mark Roe. At a closed-door conference attended by senior bankers, regulators, and some academics, Federal Reserve Governor Daniel Tarullo and Federal Reserve Bank of New York President William Dudley used their bully pulpit to do something unexpected. Instead of focusing on how to bolster bank stability – channeling more capital toward the largest institutions, curbing their riskiest activities, and determining how to manage a failing bank without bailing it out – the officials discussed the bankers themselves.

In her latest paper, Harvard Law School professor Elizabeth Bartholet does her best to dismember the widely popular child welfare strategy known as Differential Response, or simply DR...But as controversial as her ideas may be, Bartholet’s “Differential Response: A Dangerous Experiment in Child Welfare” is a notable contribution to the growing debate around DR, and the chronic battle fought in a resource-starved child welfare field over family preservation and child safety.

...I spoke by phone last week with the political activist and Harvard Law School professor Larry Lessig, who earlier this year launched Mayday, a self-styled “crowd-funded SuperPAC to end all SuperPACs…including this one,” to agitate for campaign-finance reform (although he considers that phrase a euphemism comparable to “liquid-intake problem” for alcoholism). Mayday has raised over $10 million to date, but saw only mixed results in the races that it invested in. Lessig's sure the public can be rallied, but admits that it's a long road. “I’m in the camp of people who think it’s not quite fair to criticize” people who wonder what reason there is to vote. He said, “I think it’s pretty reasonable for people not to engage in a system like this.”

The man who killed a suburban Kansas City, Mo., gas station attendant in front of the worker’s 8-year-old stepdaughter in 1994 was put to death just past midnight on Wednesday at the state prison in Bonne Terre, the ninth execution in the Missouri this year...Among those who sent letters to Nixon seeking clemency were Harvard School of Law Professor Charles Ogletree, the director of The Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice, and Barbara Arnwine, the president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “Mr. Taylor is also an appropriate candidate for clemency based on the transformation he has undergone in his time in prison. During his time at Potosi Correctional Center, Mr. Taylor has become active in prison ministry and has become a rock for the Christian community there. He has had no major conduct violations in recent years,” Ogletree wrote. “Moreover, sometime ago, he reached out to the wife of his victim, Ms. Astrid Hooper and expressed his sincere remorse for his crimes and condolences for her loss.”

An op-ed by Alice M. Cherry [`16], Joseph E. Hamilton [`16] and Kelsey C. Skaggs [`16]. On Wednesday, we filed a lawsuit against the Harvard Corporation over its investments in fossil fuels. As student members of the Harvard Climate Justice Coalition, we’re demanding that our university stop profiting from the destruction of the earth’s climate and that it divest its holdings in gas, oil, and coal companies. Our legal claims are simple. Harvard is a nonprofit educational institution, chartered in 1650 to promote “the advancement and education of youth.” By financially supporting the most dangerous industrial activities in the history of the planet, the Harvard Corporation is violating commitments under its charter as well as its charitable duty to operate in the public interest.

A group of Harvard students, frustrated by the university’s refusal to shed fossil fuel stocks from its investment portfolios, is looking beyond protests and resolutions to a new form of pressure: the courts. The seven law students and undergraduates filed a lawsuit on Wednesday in Suffolk County Superior Court in Massachusetts against the president and fellows of Harvard College, among others, for what they call “mismanagement of charitable funds.”...“It became more and more clear they were just reaching a dead end with the university and the administration,” said Kelsey Skaggs, [`16] a member of the group of plaintiffs...Ted Hamilton [`16], a law student and a member of the student plaintiffs group, called their request a “slight expansion” of current law that “does not depart in any radical way from the course that the courts have been taking.”

In the economically stressful environment most companies face today, in-house lawyers—all lawyers, in fact—owe ethical duties to four key entities: clients and stakeholders, the legal system, their institutions and society at large. That’s the message in a new essay coauthored by Benjamin Heineman Jr., the former general counsel of General Electric Co. and now a senior Harvard fellow. The new essay appears on the website for the Harvard Center for the Legal Profession...The paper's other authors are William Lee, a partner and former managing partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, and Harvard law professor David Wilkins, the faculty director of the Center for the Legal Profession.

A decade ago, dozens of former fighters from both sides of Northern Ireland's Troubles sat down to talk about their roles for the oral history the Belfast Project. They were assured that the recordings would not be made public until after their deaths. But in July 2013, Boston College, which had been storing the recordings, was forced to release several tapes to Northern Ireland's police service as part of an investigation into the 1972 murder of Jean McConville. Such transgressions have got Jonathan Zittrain, director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, thinking about how to ensure that data are protected for the promised time period. Among other concerns, he worries for philanthropic donations of papers or personal effects to libraries and the like. Often, such donations are made with a proviso that they not be revealed for a fixed period of time. “That type of donation will not happen if their stuff is only one subpoena away from disclosure,” he says. Mr Zittrain has just received a $35,000 grant from the Knight Foundation, an organisation dedicated to "informed and engaged communities", to create an encrypted "time-capsule" service. Its aim is to enable scholars and journalists to securely send a message, in effect, into the future—encrypted in such a way that it cannot be read by anyone until a certain date or event.

An op-ed by By Jack Goldsmith, Ryan Goodman and Steve Vladeck. President Obama has stated that he wants “to begin engaging Congress” over a new Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against the Islamic State and also that he wants to “right-size and update” the 2001 AUMF “to suit the current fight, rather than previous fights.” It appears that Congress, too, is finally getting serious about putting U.S. counterterrorism operations on a contemporary and more rigorous statutory footing. There are many politically contested questions about how the government should accomplish these goals — about, for example, whether U.S. ground troops should be banned from Syria and Iraq, how the fight against the Islamic State should be conducted consistent with U.S. policy against Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and what rules should govern the targeted killing of U.S. citizens abroad...We differ among ourselves on some questions. We nonetheless believe that, however they are resolved, an important foundational consensus can be reached — across branches and parties — on five core principles that should guide any new or revised authorization of force related to counterterrorism.

...Nearly 25 years after the first publicly viewable website appeared, the culture of sharing on the Internet is changing. Privacy and anonymity are crucial features of new social apps like Secret, Whisper and Canary. A growing number of websites also offer services that help protect, maintain or even erase what is fast becoming your most permanent and accessible record: data that can be gleaned about you from search engine results....“The options for getting facts and personal information removed once it’s been posted online in the U.S. are fairly limited,” says Christopher T. Bavitz, managing director of the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School. “It’s very challenging to regulate the spread of this kind of information, but it’s challenging for very good reasons. The first good reason is the First Amendment.”

Several students at Harvard Law School have organized a new advocacy group to promote discussion about sexual assault and the federal anti-sex discrimination law Title IX. The group, called “Harvard Talks Title IX” or “HTT9,” was born out of discussion this fall in two courses taught by law professor Charles R. Nesson ’60. Nesson surveyed his students earlier this semester to identify what topic they found most difficult to discuss—the “elephant in the room,” as he described it—and the top response was gender discrimination and equality. Several of his students took the initiative to create the group to promote conversation on that issue.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman. Barack Obama’s much-anticipated executive order on immigration is clever politics, and maybe even a morally inspiring policy. But is it constitutional? Can the U.S. president just announce that he plans not to enforce the laws passed by Congress with respect to millions of people? And if it is constitutional, why is it?