Course Schedule

Negotiations in Congress about tax policy increasingly focus on the dozens of credits in the federal income tax law. There are credits for parenting, education, home ownership, research and development, energy production, electric cars, and building affordable housing, just to name a few. There are three competing frameworks for evaluating tax credits: as instruments for resolving competing claims of tax jurisdiction, as tools of income measurement, and as tax expenditures equivalent to direct spending. This seminar will explore these frameworks and invite each student to write a paper evaluating a specific tax credit of their choice. Prerequisite: Federal Income Tax.

PREREQUISITE: Federal Income Tax (354J or 454J or 393Q or 493Q). This seminar will examine some fundamental features of the U.S. federal income tax system and will focus on various tax policy considerations including fairness, efficiency, complexity/simplicity, the Executive Branch and legislative processes, and taxpayer behavior. The assigned readings and class discussions will focus on several key topics, including the proper timing for taxing income, progressive versus flat tax rates, taxing the family unit, the income tax treatment of property transferred at death or by gift, tax expenditures, the taxation of corporate income, and capital gains and losses. You and I will need to agree on your paper topic during the first month of class or so, and thereafter you must complete an outline of your paper that you submit to me for review and comment, then you must do a substantial draft of the paper that you will present in class and that I will give you comments on, and, finally, you must submit your final paper to me approximately two or three days before the deadline for spring grades (the precise deadline for the final paper will be given to you during or before the first week of classes in the spring semester). Your grade will be based on the final paper submitted (approximately 85 percent of the final grade) and class participation (approximately 15 percent of the final grade), including discussion of the assigned readings for 6 or 7 weeks of the seminar class sessions, the PowerPoint presentation of your draft paper in class, and your discussion of other students' draft papers during their PowerPoint presentations of them.

PREREQUISITE: Federal Income Tax (354J or 454J). This seminar will examine some fundamental features of the U.S. federal income tax system and will focus on various tax policy considerations including fairness, efficiency, complexity/simplicity, the Executive Branch and legislative processes, and taxpayer behavior. The assigned readings and class discussions will focus on several key topics, including the proper timing for taxing income, progressive versus flat tax rates, taxing the family unit, the income tax treatment of property transferred at death or by gift, tax expenditures, the taxation of corporate income, capital gains and losses, and the proper income tax treatment of price level changes. You and I will need to agree on your paper topic during the first month of class or so, and thereafter you must complete an outline of your paper that you submit to me for review and comment, then you must do a substantial draft of the paper  that you will present in class, and that I will give you comments on, and, finally, you must submit your final paper to mw two days before the deadline for spring grades. Your grade will be based on the final paper submitted (approximately 85 percent of the final grade) and class participation (approximately 15 percent of the final grade), including discussion of the assigned readings for 6 or 7 weeks of the seminar class sessions, the presentation of your draft paper in class, and your discussion of other students' draft papers during their presentations of them.

PREREQUISITE: Federal Income Tax (354J or 454J). This seminar will examine some fundamental features of the U.S. federal income tax system and will focus on various tax policy considerations including fairness, efficiency, complexity/simplicity, the Executive Branch and legislative processes, and taxpayer behavior. The assigned readings and class discussions will focus on several key topics, including the proper timing for taxing income, progressive versus flat tax rates, taxing the family unit, the income tax treatment of property transferred at death or by gift, tax expenditures, the taxation of corporate income, capital gains and losses, and the proper income tax treatment of price level changes. You and I will need to agree on your paper topic during the first month of class or so, and thereafter you must complete an outline of your paper that you submit to me for review and comment, then you must do a substantial draft of the paper  that you will present in class, and that I will give you comments on, and, finally, you must submit your final paper to mw two days before the deadline for spring grades. Your grade will be based on the final paper submitted (approximately 85 percent of the final grade) and class participation (approximately 15 percent of the final grade), including discussion of the assigned readings for 6 or 7 weeks of the seminar class sessions, the presentation of your draft paper in class, and your discussion of other students' draft papers during their presentations of them.

The purpose of this course is to explore emerging technologies and national security, focusing on information and data including cyber, autonomy, and artificial intelligence.  The course will begin with an introduction to data and national security and then move to networks and their implications for national security. The rest of the course is organized by domestic and international challenges. Students will receive a critical overview of US organizational politics and information, explore public-private relationships and national security, examine cyber threats to critical infrastructure, and learn about information warfare and domestic security.  The capstone event for the first half of the semester is a simulation that asks students to respond to cyber and information threats to the homeland.  The second half of the course covers international challenges, starting with data and war as well as threats to data and war, cyber strategy, unmanned and autonomous weapons, and finally artificial intelligence and national security.  The semester ends with the International Crisis War Game in which students must form a national security cabinet to use and respond to emerging technology within a strategic crisis.

"I go into the office, I sue the federal government, and I go home.” — Greg Abbott, Texas Attorney General, April 30, 2013.  Everything is bigger in Texas, including the state’s impact on Constitutional Law. Seminal decisions originating in Texas have shaped every area of constitutional doctrine from abortion to voting rights. This class will explore the role that the state of Texas and localities within Texas have played in instigating constitutional change in our federal system. It will engage in in-depth analysis of landmark Supreme Court cases that came out of Texas, including inquiries into how the case developed, why the Supreme Court granted certiorari, and the impact of the eventual decision on Texas and the nation.

Our focus will be on the Constitution and its relationship to questions of political economy.  We will explore how the Constitution and constitutional doctrine have contributed to the problem of economic inequality, including its racial and gender dimensions.   And we will examine how the Constitution has empowered government to remedy problems of economic inequality and poverty, and how, on many occasions in the past, it has been understood to require such action.  More fundamentally, we will ask how we might reimagine and construct a constitutional order that distributes social and economic resources and power more equitably and in ways that promote the political equality on which constitutional democracy depends.  Our approach will be historical, doctrinal, and theoretical; readings will be a mix of caselaw and academic writing. 

Topics will include some theoretical work on the role of law in the construction of capitalist or “market society” and the vexed relationship between capitalism – and its characteristic forms of economic inequality - and democracy; the contemporary Supreme Court’s “neo-liberal” or “Lochner revival”;  slavery and reparations; the intersections of racial and economic inequality; labor rights, including the right to strike, form unions and bargain collectively; work and income guarantees; and labor participation in governance; the economic dimensions of gender inequality; fundamental welfare rights, such as education and housing; the relationship of economic inequality to democracy; judicial review, departmentalism, and popular constitutionalism; the desirability of structural constitutional reforms; and whether constitutionalizing problems of economic inequality is actually counterproductive.  We will also consider how other countries’ constitutions deal with these issues.

Because of its lopsided outcome, the Election of 1864 gets short shrift in popular and scholarly discussions of the most important elections in American history. Compared to 1800, 1876, or 2000, it barely makes a dent. Insofar as most people know anything about the election, they probably know only that Lincoln won—and maybe that it wasn’t especially close. The assumption baked into that desultory treatment is that there’s nothing for us to learn from the proceedings. This seminar is premised on the idea that that’s a mistake. A compelling case can be made not only that the Election of 1864 was the most important election in American history, but that, 160 years later, it still has some remarkably important lessons to teach us today. First, the election quite literally saved the Union. Had Lincoln lost (as he thought he would as late as the end of August), the odds are exceptionally high that the war would have been lost alongside the election—with Confederate independence as the inevitable, if not inexorable, result. But the Election of 1864 also brought with it a confluence of remarkable (and underappreciated) historical, political, and legal developments that helped to move the needle from Lincoln’s expected defeat in August to his landslide victory in November—and that we’ll study in this class.

It was in 1864 that northern states first adopted absentee voting on a widespread basis—an effort on the part of Republican-controlled state legislatures, in particular, to make it possible for soldiers fighting away from home to vote. That precedent had immediate short-term implications, as well: as many as 70% of the soldiers who voted in 1864 would vote for Lincoln. And it inaugurated a practice that has become a lightning rod in contemporary American politics—in a context that illuminates, and largely responds to, present-day objections to remote voting. 1864 also saw the only mixed presidential ticket in American history, with Lincoln unceremoniously dumping incumbent Vice President Hannibal Hamlin in favor of the Democratic military governor of Tennessee, Andrew Johnson—a move that would have profound political and historical ramifications of its own following Lincoln’s assassination and Johnson’s succession to the presidency, and from which contemporary political parties have taken all of the wrong lessons about cross-party tickets. Relatedly, 1864 saw one of the largest national unity votes in American history, with countless War Democrats voting for the Republican Lincoln on the “National Union” ticket—literally opting for their country over their party. That ticket included a commitment not just to an unconditional Confederate surrender (the central point of contention between War Democrats and Peace Democrats), but to adoption of a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery—which would pass both chambers of Congress in January 1865, and be ratified by the states 11 months later. And all of this happened while the Union army and navy continued to advance against their Confederate foes—one of the more remarkable alignments of political and military decisionmaking during wartime, with consequences for the division of civil and military governmental functions that persist to the present.

But the most remarkable thing about the Election of 1864 is that it happened at all. It remains the only example in recorded history of a democracy holding a national election during a civil war. Despite calls from some members of his party to consider postponement, Lincoln never wavered from his conviction that holding the election on schedule was absolutely essential—even, if not especially, when he became convinced that he was going to lose. Lincoln desperately wanted to win the war, but only to save the very democracy that he was willing to let vote him out of office to stop him. The Election of 1864 thus is not just a story about the election that saved the Union; it is a story about presidential leadership; it is a story about adapting the franchise to the circumstances of the moment; it is a story about elevating country over party; and it is, at its core, a story about the simultaneous fragility and resiliency of our democracy—one that ought to be shouted from the rooftops, especially today. Our goal in this seminar is to learn—and figure out how to tell—that story.

This seminar will examine topics in the law of Social Media and Artificial Intelligence.  

Social media has revolutionized how we share, consume, and interact with all forms of digital content. These changes brought by social media touch on all aspects of our life—including our legal system. This course will discuss the spectrum of legal topics being impacted by social media: marketing, intellectual property, employment, privacy, free speech, and fund raising. You will also explore the role that lawyers in law firms and within organizations face when addressing these changes and the emerging risks. The objective of this seminar is to introduce students to the social media legal issues and the methods being used by attorneys to address these risks and how to identify the next area of social media that will challenge our existing legal norms. 

Artificial Intelligence is the use of machines to generate reasoning and problem solving, knowledge representation, and planning and decisionmaking. AI has been available in many forms for years but its use is becoming more commonplace in the practice of law. The delivery and use of AI presents many important legal and policy questions for society.

For all of the attention that law school classes, the press, and the public pay to the Supreme Court's major rulings each Term, we spend far less time on the Court's "shadow docket"—that part of the Court's workload that involves ruling on cert. petitions, applications for stays, and other forms of extraordinary or emergency relief. And yet, in recent years, the significance of the shadow docket has grown both in absolute terms and relative to the "merits" side of the Court's work. In this seminar, we will take a (very) deep dive into the shadow docket—tracing the evolution of the Court's rules and procedures in which the shadow docket has emerged; studying the substantive areas in which it has become especially significant (including the death penalty, election cases, COVID-related religious liberty disputes, and applications for emergency relief by the federal government); and exploring the normative desirability of the Justices handing down so many significant rulings with so little reasoning and transparency. Each student will be responsible for preparing a very short (350 words) discussion paper in response to each week's readings; and a formal seminar paper on a topic related to the shadow docket at the end of the semester.

For all of the attention that law school classes, the press, and the public pay to the Supreme Court's major rulings each Term, we spend far less time on the Court's "shadow docket"—that part of the Court's workload that involves ruling on cert. petitions, applications for stays, and other forms of extraordinary or emergency relief. And yet, in recent years, the significance of the shadow docket has grown both in absolute terms and relative to the "merits" side of the Court's work. In this seminar, we will take a (very) deep dive into the shadow docket—tracing the evolution of the Court's rules and procedures in which the shadow docket has emerged; studying the substantive areas in which it has become especially significant (including the death penalty, election cases, and applications for emergency relief by the federal government); and exploring the normative desirability of the Justices handing down so many significant rulings with so little reasoning and transparency. Each student will be responsible for preparing a very short (350 words) discussion paper in response to each week's readings; and a formal seminar paper on a topic related to the shadow docket at the end of the semester.

What is a “tragic choice”?  In this course we will discuss the dilemmas surrounding the decisions by societies to distribute various goods and bads in different ways.  Among these allocations are: who gets expensive medical care and transplants; what protocols are put in place to stem a pandemic; who gets drafted; who is given the right to have children; priorities for immigration; the administration of the death penalty; distributing food in a famine or water in a drought; the ransom of hostages.  In every society, citizens hold competing and incommensurable values.  Tragic choices highlight---and sometime hide or suppress—the conflicts that such choices pit among these values.

The principal text is Tragic Choices: the conflicts society confronts in the allocation of tragically scarce resources by Guido Calabresi and Philip Bobbitt (Norton, 1978).

SMNR: Transnational Class Actions and Smnr: Aggreg Lit Glob Context may not both be counted.

For more than seventy years, the United States has been in the forefront of developing means for resolving injuries to large numbers of people on an aggregate basis. In our modern industrial era, the problem of harm or injury to large numbers of people is not unique to the United States. In addition, civil wars and despotic regimes worldwide have resulted in mass human rights violations and widespread injuries and harms. This course examines the problems related to redress for mass harms in a comparative context. The course begins with an overview of the problem of aggregate harms and approaches to remediating large-scale injuries, including jurisprudential debates centered on litigant claim autonomy. The course then examines American substantive and procedural approaches to resolving mass claims, including critiques of these models. After examining American approaches to mass aggregate claim resolution, the course surveys the similarities and differences between civil law and common law systems, to provide some basis for discussion whether civil law systems are able to support mass resolution of injury claims. The first part of the seminar will examine whether American approaches to large-scale aggregate litigation have migrated to other legal systems, and the embrace of, or resistance to, American style-complex dispute resolution techniques.

Topics explored in the first half of the course include a survey of class action and other aggregate dispute resolution mechanisms that have now been adopted or are being considered in the European Union countries, the U.K., Canada, Australia, Latin America, and Asia. The materials explore whether the United States is gradually moving away from being the center of gravity for class or aggregate litigation. This portion of the course considers problems relating to the enforcement of class action judgments transnationally, as well as problems with the application of res judicata principles. The course also addresses the divergent views of different legal systems regarding so-called “opt-out” and “opt-in” regimes with regard to aggregate resolution of claims.

The course next considers recent developments globally with regard to resolution of transnational securities claims, again discussing the trend in the United States to limit the extraterritorial reach of American courts. We discuss how other countries have become the locus for such litigation by default. Transnational securities litigation provides an archetype for exploring the problems and issues related to the resolution of aggregate claims extending beyond nation-state borders.

The second half of the seminar focuses on the transnational resolution of mass torts and human rights claims affecting large numbers of victims. This portion of the course investigates various international institutions that might provide auspices for aggregate claim resolution, including the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the European Court of Human Rights, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. In addition, the course will examine the American Alien Torts Claim Act, the Torture Victims Protection Act, and the American class action rule, posing the question whether implementation of these statutes in the United States provides a working model for redress of mass injuries. The seminar focuses on a series of case studies to illuminate both the possibilities and limitations of aggregate claim resolution in a global context. These case studies include the Marcos Philippine human rights litigation, the Bosnia-Herzegovina genocide claims, the Austrian ski fire litigation, and the Holocaust victims’ asset litigation. This segment of the course includes examination of the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., in which the Court substantially limited the extraterritorial scope of the American Alien Tort Statute.

The seminar ends with a discussion of the recent development in the European Union in its 2012 Resolution, “Towards a Coherent Approach to Collective Redress.” An examination of the EU Resolution raises the question whether the EU has formulated a type of regulatory litigation that provides an interesting analogue to the American class action procedure. In contrast to the EU recommendations, these materials consider the argument that the EU ought to have adopted an opt-out (rather than an opt-in) approach to aggregate litigation.

There is no textbook for this seminar. The materials for each class ession will be posted in advance on the CANVAS website for the seminar.

This is a writing seminar. Each student in the seminar will be required to complete four short papers of approximately five pages, singled-spaced text during the course of the semester. Students will choose the weeks in which they wish to submit papers. Each paper will analytically present and discuss issues or debates relating to the weekly reading assignments. Each student, at the beginning of the semester, chooses the paper topics and timing of the papers.

SMNR: Transnational Class Actions and Smnr: Aggreg Lit Glob Context may not both be counted.

For more than seventy years, the United States has been in the forefront of developing means for resolving injuries to large numbers of people on an aggregate basis. In our modern industrial era, the problem of harm or injury to large numbers of people is not unique to the United States. In addition, civil wars and despotic regimes worldwide have resulted in mass human rights violations and widespread injuries and harms. This course examines the problems related to redress for mass harms in a comparative context. The course begins with an overview of the problem of aggregate harms and approaches to remediating large-scale injuries, including jurisprudential debates centered on litigant claim autonomy. The course then examines American substantive and procedural approaches to resolving mass claims, including critiques of these models. After examining American approaches to mass aggregate claim resolution, the course surveys the similarities and differences between civil law and common law systems, to provide some basis for discussion whether civil law systems are able to support mass resolution of injury claims. The first part of the seminar will examine whether American approaches to large-scale aggregate litigation have migrated to other legal systems, and the embrace of, or resistance to, American style-complex dispute resolution techniques.

Topics explored in the first half of the course include a survey of class action and other aggregate dispute resolution mechanisms that have now been adopted or are being considered in the European Union countries, the U.K., Canada, Australia, Latin America, and Asia. The materials explore whether the United States is gradually moving away from being the center of gravity for class or aggregate litigation. This portion of the course considers problems relating to the enforcement of class action judgments transnationally, as well as problems with the application of res judicata principles. The course also addresses the divergent views of different legal systems regarding so-called “opt-out” and “opt-in” regimes with regard to aggregate resolution of claims.

The course next considers recent developments globally with regard to resolution of transnational securities claims, again discussing the trend in the United States to limit the extraterritorial reach of American courts. We discuss how other countries have become the locus for such litigation by default. Transnational securities litigation provides an archetype for exploring the problems and issues related to the resolution of aggregate claims extending beyond nation-state borders.

The second half of the seminar focuses on the transnational resolution of mass torts and human rights claims affecting large numbers of victims. This portion of the course investigates various international institutions that might provide auspices for aggregate claim resolution, including the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the European Court of Human Rights, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. In addition, the course will examine the American Alien Torts Claim Act, the Torture Victims Protection Act, and the American class action rule, posing the question whether implementation of these statutes in the United States provides a working model for redress of mass injuries. The seminar focuses on a series of case studies to illuminate both the possibilities and limitations of aggregate claim resolution in a global context. These case studies include the Marcos Philippine human rights litigation, the Bosnia-Herzegovina genocide claims, the Austrian ski fire litigation, and the Holocaust victims’ asset litigation. This segment of the course includes examination of the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., in which the Court substantially limited the extraterritorial scope of the American Alien Tort Statute.

The seminar ends with a discussion of the recent development in the European Union in its 2012 Resolution, “Towards a Coherent Approach to Collective Redress.” An examination of the EU Resolution raises the question whether the EU has formulated a type of regulatory litigation that provides an interesting analogue to the American class action procedure. In contrast to the EU recommendations, these materials consider the argument that the EU ought to have adopted an opt-out (rather than an opt-in) approach to aggregate litigation.

There is no textbook for this seminar. The materials for each class ession will be posted in advance on the CANVAS website for the seminar.

This is a writing seminar. Each student in the seminar will be required to complete four short papers of approximately five pages, singled-spaced text during the course of the semester. Students will choose the weeks in which they wish to submit papers. Each paper will analytically present and discuss issues or debates relating to the weekly reading assignments. Each student, at the beginning of the semester, chooses the paper topics and timing of the papers.

SMNR: Transnational Class Actions and Smnr: Aggreg Lit Glob Context may not both be counted.

For more than seventy years, the United States has been in the forefront of developing means for resolving injuries to large numbers of people on an aggregate basis. In our modern industrial era, the problem of harm or injury to large numbers of people is not unique to the United States. In addition, civil wars and despotic regimes worldwide have resulted in mass human rights violations and widespread injuries and harms. This course examines the problems related to redress for mass harms in a comparative context. The course begins with an overview of the problem of aggregate harms and approaches to remediating large-scale injuries, including jurisprudential debates centered on litigant claim autonomy. The course then examines American substantive and procedural approaches to resolving mass claims, including critiques of these models. After examining American approaches to mass aggregate claim resolution, the course surveys the similarities and differences between civil law and common law systems, to provide some basis for discussion whether civil law systems are able to support mass resolution of injury claims. The first part of the seminar will examine whether American approaches to large-scale aggregate litigation have migrated to other legal systems, and the embrace of, or resistance to, American style-complex dispute resolution techniques.

Topics explored in the first half of the course include a survey of class action and other aggregate dispute resolution mechanisms that have now been adopted or are being considered in the European Union countries, the U.K., Canada, Australia, Latin America, and Asia. The materials explore whether the United States is gradually moving away from being the center of gravity for class or aggregate litigation. This portion of the course considers problems relating to the enforcement of class action judgments transnationally, as well as problems with the application of res judicata principles. The course also addresses the divergent views of different legal systems regarding so-called “opt-out” and “opt-in” regimes with regard to aggregate resolution of claims.

The course next considers recent developments globally with regard to resolution of transnational securities claims, again discussing the trend in the United States to limit the extraterritorial reach of American courts. We discuss how other countries have become the locus for such litigation by default. Transnational securities litigation provides an archetype for exploring the problems and issues related to the resolution of aggregate claims extending beyond nation-state borders.

The second half of the seminar focuses on the transnational resolution of mass torts and human rights claims affecting large numbers of victims. This portion of the course investigates various international institutions that might provide auspices for aggregate claim resolution, including the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the European Court of Human Rights, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. In addition, the course will examine the American Alien Torts Claim Act, the Torture Victims Protection Act, and the American class action rule, posing the question whether implementation of these statutes in the United States provides a working model for redress of mass injuries. The seminar focuses on a series of case studies to illuminate both the possibilities and limitations of aggregate claim resolution in a global context. These case studies include the Marcos Philippine human rights litigation, the Bosnia-Herzegovina genocide claims, the Austrian ski fire litigation, and the Holocaust victims’ asset litigation. This segment of the course includes examination of the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., in which the Court substantially limited the extraterritorial scope of the American Alien Tort Statute.

The seminar ends with a discussion of the recent development in the European Union in its 2012 Resolution, “Towards a Coherent Approach to Collective Redress.” An examination of the EU Resolution raises the question whether the EU has formulated a type of regulatory litigation that provides an interesting analogue to the American class action procedure. In contrast to the EU recommendations, these materials consider the argument that the EU ought to have adopted an opt-out (rather than an opt-in) approach to aggregate litigation.

There is no textbook for this seminar. The materials for each class ession will be posted in advance on the CANVAS website for the seminar.

This is a writing seminar. Each student in the seminar will be required to complete four short papers of approximately five pages, singled-spaced text during the course of the semester. Students will choose the weeks in which they wish to submit papers. Each paper will analytically present and discuss issues or debates relating to the weekly reading assignments. Each student, at the beginning of the semester, chooses the paper topics and timing of the papers.

SMNR: Transnational Class Actions and Smnr: Aggreg Lit Glob Context may not both be counted.

For more than seventy years, the United States has been in the forefront of developing means for resolving injuries to large numbers of people on an aggregate basis. In our modern industrial era, the problem of harm or injury to large numbers of people is not unique to the United States. In addition, civil wars and despotic regimes worldwide have resulted in mass human rights violations and widespread injuries and harms. This course examines the problems related to redress for mass harms in a comparative context. The course begins with an overview of the problem of aggregate harms and approaches to remediating large-scale injuries, including jurisprudential debates centered on litigant claim autonomy. The course then examines American substantive and procedural approaches to resolving mass claims, including critiques of these models. After examining American approaches to mass aggregate claim resolution, the course surveys the similarities and differences between civil law and common law systems, to provide some basis for discussion whether civil law systems are able to support mass resolution of injury claims. The first part of the seminar will examine whether American approaches to large-scale aggregate litigation have migrated to other legal systems, and the embrace of, or resistance to, American style-complex dispute resolution techniques.

Topics explored in the first half of the course include a survey of class action and other aggregate dispute resolution mechanisms that have now been adopted or are being considered in the European Union countries, the U.K., Canada, Australia, Latin America, and Asia. The materials explore whether the United States is gradually moving away from being the center of gravity for class or aggregate litigation. This portion of the course considers problems relating to the enforcement of class action judgments transnationally, as well as problems with the application of res judicata principles. The course also addresses the divergent views of different legal systems regarding so-called “opt-out” and “opt-in” regimes with regard to aggregate resolution of claims.

The course next considers recent developments globally with regard to resolution of transnational securities claims, again discussing the trend in the United States to limit the extraterritorial reach of American courts. We discuss how other countries have become the locus for such litigation by default. Transnational securities litigation provides an archetype for exploring the problems and issues related to the resolution of aggregate claims extending beyond nation-state borders.

The second half of the seminar focuses on the transnational resolution of mass torts and human rights claims affecting large numbers of victims. This portion of the course investigates various international institutions that might provide auspices for aggregate claim resolution, including the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the European Court of Human Rights, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. In addition, the course will examine the American Alien Torts Claim Act, the Torture Victims Protection Act, and the American class action rule, posing the question whether implementation of these statutes in the United States provides a working model for redress of mass injuries. The seminar focuses on a series of case studies to illuminate both the possibilities and limitations of aggregate claim resolution in a global context. These case studies include the Marcos Philippine human rights litigation, the Bosnia-Herzegovina genocide claims, the Austrian ski fire litigation, and the Holocaust victims’ asset litigation. This segment of the course includes examination of the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., in which the Court substantially limited the extraterritorial scope of the American Alien Tort Statute.

The seminar ends with a discussion of the recent development in the European Union in its 2012 Resolution, “Towards a Coherent Approach to Collective Redress.” An examination of the EU Resolution raises the question whether the EU has formulated a type of regulatory litigation that provides an interesting analogue to the American class action procedure. In contrast to the EU recommendations, these materials consider the argument that the EU ought to have adopted an opt-out (rather than an opt-in) approach to aggregate litigation.

There is no textbook for this seminar. The materials for each class ession will be posted in advance on the CANVAS website for the seminar.

This is a writing seminar. Each student in the seminar will be required to complete four short papers of approximately five pages, singled-spaced text during the course of the semester. Students will choose the weeks in which they wish to submit papers. Each paper will analytically present and discuss issues or debates relating to the weekly reading assignments. Each student, at the beginning of the semester, chooses the paper topics and timing of the papers.

SMNR: Transnational Class Actions and Smnr: Aggreg Lit Glob Context may not both be counted.

For more than seventy years, the United States has been in the forefront of developing means for resolving injuries to large numbers of people on an aggregate basis. In our modern industrial era, the problem of harm or injury to large numbers of people is not unique to the United States. In addition, civil wars and despotic regimes worldwide have resulted in mass human rights violations and widespread injuries and harms. This course examines the problems related to redress for mass harms in a comparative context. The course begins with an overview of the problem of aggregate harms and approaches to remediating large-scale injuries, including jurisprudential debates centered on litigant claim autonomy. The course then examines American substantive and procedural approaches to resolving mass claims, including critiques of these models. After examining American approaches to mass aggregate claim resolution, the course surveys the similarities and differences between civil law and common law systems, to provide some basis for discussion whether civil law systems are able to support mass resolution of injury claims. The first part of the seminar will examine whether American approaches to large-scale aggregate litigation have migrated to other legal systems, and the embrace of, or resistance to, American style-complex dispute resolution techniques.

Topics explored in the first half of the course include a survey of class action and other aggregate dispute resolution mechanisms that have now been adopted or are being considered in the European Union countries, the U.K., Canada, Australia, Latin America, and Asia. The materials explore whether the United States is gradually moving away from being the center of gravity for class or aggregate litigation. This portion of the course considers problems relating to the enforcement of class action judgments transnationally, as well as problems with the application of res judicata principles. The course also addresses the divergent views of different legal systems regarding so-called “opt-out” and “opt-in” regimes with regard to aggregate resolution of claims.

The course next considers recent developments globally with regard to resolution of transnational securities claims, again discussing the trend in the United States to limit the extraterritorial reach of American courts. We discuss how other countries have become the locus for such litigation by default. Transnational securities litigation provides an archetype for exploring the problems and issues related to the resolution of aggregate claims extending beyond nation-state borders.

The second half of the seminar focuses on the transnational resolution of mass torts and human rights claims affecting large numbers of victims. This portion of the course investigates various international institutions that might provide auspices for aggregate claim resolution, including the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the European Court of Human Rights, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. In addition, the course will examine the American Alien Torts Claim Act, the Torture Victims Protection Act, and the American class action rule, posing the question whether implementation of these statutes in the United States provides a working model for redress of mass injuries. The seminar focuses on a series of case studies to illuminate both the possibilities and limitations of aggregate claim resolution in a global context. These case studies include the Marcos Philippine human rights litigation, the Bosnia-Herzegovina genocide claims, the Austrian ski fire litigation, and the Holocaust victims’ asset litigation. This segment of the course includes examination of the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., in which the Court substantially limited the extraterritorial scope of the American Alien Tort Statute.

The seminar ends with a discussion of the recent development in the European Union in its 2012 Resolution, “Towards a Coherent Approach to Collective Redress.” An examination of the EU Resolution raises the question whether the EU has formulated a type of regulatory litigation that provides an interesting analogue to the American class action procedure. In contrast to the EU recommendations, these materials consider the argument that the EU ought to have adopted an opt-out (rather than an opt-in) approach to aggregate litigation.

There is no textbook for this seminar. The materials for each class ession will be posted in advance on the CANVAS website for the seminar.

This is a writing seminar. Each student in the seminar will be required to complete four short papers of approximately five pages, singled-spaced text during the course of the semester. Students will choose the weeks in which they wish to submit papers. Each paper will analytically present and discuss issues or debates relating to the weekly reading assignments. Each student, at the beginning of the semester, chooses the paper topics and timing of the papers.

With recent changes on the Supreme Court and in other parts of the judiciary, it is increasingly important for advocates to understand right-of-center legal thought. Effective legal argument today increasingly requires an understanding of textualism and originalism and the many forms those interpretative theories take. At the same time, new debates within the right have emerged over legal interpretation, individual rights, judicial power, and the role of the states. This seminar will give students a sampling of those debates, exposure to different conservative approaches, and skills for persuasive textualist and originalist advocacy. It will present a variety of perspectives and will encourage students to decide for themselves what views do (and do not) persuade them. The seminar will be heavily discussion-focused and largely student-led, with guest lecturers for some topics. Students of all ideologies, students with no ideology, and students who are still figuring it out are welcome.

This workshop will provide an opportunity for members of the seminar Saving the Planet: Investigating the Economics, Law, and Policy of Innovation to deepen and extend their seminar endeavors by enrolling in a one-credit workshop that will orbit the 3-credit course (that is, the seminar itself.)

The orbital design will be created by the Workshop participants, with my guidance, at two planning sessions. One will directly follow the second seminar meeting of the term, on September 1st. The second will take place at the same time two weeks later, on September 15th, with likely communications between and among us in between. The group will decide on the Workshop’s specific goals and content no later than the second planning session. After the design has been shaped, with input from all participants, the Workshop will meet for six concurrent weeks that will begin on Wednesday, October 6th and end on Wednesday, November 10th.

    Possible designs include—without limitation and in no-priority order:   

• (1) Doing a collaborative research and writing project on a topic chosen by all participants. This could be a topic outside the syllabus or an extension of one that’s inside it.
• (2) Researching, writing, and submitting for publication opinion-editorials, after reading and discussing examples in the course materials and others I’ll provide.
• (3) Attending a conference devoted to the presentation of new solutions to major environmental problems, especially (though not limited to) ones involving oceans and other aquatic environments and new energy sources that can operate at scale. The conference features the award of major cash awards after a live competition among finalists. The conference will introduce three additional college-level competitions this year. It’s to be held in Ft Lauderdale, Florida on October 24-26th. Workshop participants could participate in the winnowing process for the contestants, which involves table discussions held for potential investors who attend this conference. The sponsoring organization is The Ocean Exchange: See oceanexchange.org. (This would likely be combined with a second Workshop project.)

*

The obvious question is: Do all participants have to agree on the same project? The answer is: no. But some collaboration among participants is among my goals.

**

With enrollment limited to seminar participants, there are no questionnaires, interviews, or other special qualifications necessary for Workshop enrollment. I welcome all seminarians who would like to participate in this innovation in course-design!         

In this course, we will study the creation and evaluation of scenarios and critique the methods of scenario planning.

This two credit hour course provides an overview of practical school law (Kindergarten-Grade 12) with a focus on school district policy and governance, student and employee rights, and current issues facing public schools. Taught by a practicing school attorney, the course has no formal prerequisites, but will build on principles of federal civil procedure and constitutional law. School law cases frequently rely on these principles as courts strike a balance between the federal and state policy priorities, civil rights, and personal liberties colliding dailing in our public schools. Students will read leading education-related precedents from the U.S. Supreme Court and federal circuit courts, focusing on a different topic each week. At the start of each class session, a subset of students will prepare a briefing and lead the class in discussion of an assigned current event related to the week's topic. Our class discussions will most certainly be "ripped from the headlines." Grading will be a mix of class participation, current event briefings (written and oral), and a short, predictable traditional final exam.