On March 10, 2017, Professor Jennifer Koh presented at the annual Nootbaar Institute Conference at Pepperdine Law School. The theme of this year’s conference was “Religious Critiques of the Law.” Professor Koh spoke on a panel entitled, “Religious Critiques of Civil Rights,” and her presentation focused on the connections between the faith commitments of Christianity and the literature on the intersection of criminal and immigration law, also known as “crimmigration.”
Professors Monica Todd and Eunice Park presented at the 17th Annual Rocky Mountain Regional Legal Writing Conference on “Settlement: A 1L Exercise to Prepare for Appellate Advocacy.” At the conference, held from March 10-11 at Arizona State University, Professors Todd and Park discussed how a settlement negotiation exercise can allow students to experience a practical introduction to persuasion before launching into the appellate brief assignment for the semester.
Associate Dean Susan Keller returned last week to Harvard College to participate in a symposium celebrating her undergraduate major, Folklore and Mythology. She talked about how the techniques she learned for studying oral and traditional narratives can inform the analysis of appellate legal opinions.
Professor Glenn Koppel recently published The Case for Nonmutual Privity in Vicarious Liability Relationships: Pushing the Frontiers of the Law of Claim Preclusion in the Winter 2017 issue of the Campbell Law Review. The article addresses an evolving area of preclusion law: nonmutual claim preclusion and the related issue of privity between parties to a vicarious liability relationship. This corner of preclusion law became the subject of a controversial sample multiple choice question published in 2014 by the National Committee of Bar Examiners. Scholarly commentary on the Civil Procedure listserve agreed that two out of the four choices were arguably correct, but presented an array of differing views as to the correct answer. The article presents a national survey of state and federal case law of claim and issue preclusion, and proposes that derivative liability relationships should be added to the recognized categories of substantive legal relationships commonly referred to as “privity “ to support the application of nonmutual claim preclusion, rather than the narrower concept of nonmutual issue preclusion.
Professor Jennifer Koh recently published Crimmigration and the Void for Vagueness in the Wisconsin Law Review. The article discusses the application of the void for vagueness doctrine to crime-based removal provisions in the immigration law. It argues that the federal courts should find several immigration provisions unconstitutionally vague because the twin values animating vagueness doctrine–providing reasonable notice and preventing arbitrary or discriminatory law enforcement practices–apply with exceptional force in immigration, an area of law in which the liberty stakes of the crime-based removal grounds are high, notice is critical, and the risk of arbitrariness and discrimination by government actors at multiple levels is acute. The article was cited in the merits brief of the Respondent as well as the amicus brief submitted by the National Immigration Project to the United States Supreme Court in Sessions v. Dimaya, a case involving whether 18 U.S.C. sec. 16(b), as incorporated into the federal immigration law, is unconstitutionally vague. The citation for the article is 2016 Wis. L. Rev. 1127.
On February 24, Professor Jennifer Koh spoke at an immigration law symposium hosted by The Scholar: St. Mary’s Law Review on Race and Social Justice, in San Antonio, Texas. Her presentation was based on her forthcoming publication, Removal in the Shadows of Immigration Court, 90 S. Cal. L. Rev. __ (forthcoming, 2017), which discusses the various removal procedures that enable the government to deport certain noncitizens without hearings before immigration courts or that involve minimal substantive review by those courts.