Book Review: Litigating Artificial Intelligence by Jesse Beatson, Gerold Chan, and Jill R. Presser

It is no longer news that artificial intelligence (AI) is being deployed across the board in the legal industry, although the extent of AI use varies by jurisdiction

Pitt Law Faculty 1908-09

Black and white photograph of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law Faculty for the 1908-09 academic year. Image depicts front row (l. to r.) John T. Duff, Judge John D.Shafer, Dean Elder W. Marshall; second row (l. to r.) Thaddeus C. Noble, A. Marshall Thompson, Judge Samuel S. Mehard, Edmund Englert; back row (l. to r.) Judge J.J. Miller, J. Garfield Houston, William A. Blakeley, Richard H. Hawkins, Vice Dean James C.Grayhttps://scholarship.law.pitt.edu/pitt-law-faculty-photographs-group/1000/thumbnail.jp

Pitt Law Faculty 1949-50

Black and white photograph of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law Faculty for the 1949-50 academic year. Image depicts front row (l. to r.) W. Edward Sell, Dean Judson Crane, Charles B. Nutting, Robert Brown, Harold Reuschlein; back row (l. to r.) William Schultz, Thomas Checkley, Herbert Shermanhttps://scholarship.law.pitt.edu/pitt-law-faculty-photographs-group/1002/thumbnail.jp

James Mosley v. Christopher Bagnato

USDC for the Eastern District of Pennsylvani

Uncommon Carriage

As states have begun regulating the carriage of speech by “Big Tech” internet platforms, scholars, advocates, and policymakers have increasingly focused their attention on the law of common carriage. Legislators have invoked common carriage to defend social media regulations against First Amendment challenges, making arguments set to take center stage in the Supreme Court’s impending consideration of the NetChoice saga. This Article challenges the coherence of common carriage as a field and its utility for assessing the constitutionality and policy wisdom of internet regulation. Evaluating the post-Civil War history of common carriage regimes in telecommunications law, this Article illustrates that conceptions of common carriage and its treatment by the courts vary significantly and are contingent on specific historical and technological circumstances. The Article observes that common carriage is an attractive nuisance for policymakers and judges. The doctrine distracts from difficult normative questions about the permissibility of government interventions into speech and the editorial discretion of internet platforms. The Article disentangles talismanic invocations of “common carriage” by isolating three distinct issues: (1) the classification of “common carriers,” (2) the imposition of “common carriage” rules on those carriers, and (3) the First Amendment problems that flow from the imposition. Applying this novel three-part framework, this Article argues for a context-sensitive approach to internet regulations. This approach evaluates the designation of carriers, the imposition of rules, and the role of the First Amendment at a granular level to more robustly account for the complexity of contemporary internet platforms

Ortiz (Ramel) vs. State [State of Nevada], 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 23 (Apr. 04, 2024)

This opinion regards Ramel Ortiz, who was convicted of sexual assault, after he broke into the victim’s home and forced them to engage in multiple sexual acts. Four of these sexual assault counts resulted from an incident where Ortiz subjected the victim to intercourse in different sexual positions. Nevada caselaw provides that a change in position alone is insufficient to show that the resulting sexual acts constitute more than one sexual assault offense. However, Ortiz’s counsel failed to challenge the sufficiency of evidence to support the multiple sexual assault convictions. Further, Ortiz filed a postconviction writ of habeas corpus with respect to an ineffective-assistance claim. As a result, the Court reversed in part and remanded the lower court to vacate three of Ortiz’s sexual assault convictions

Extraordinary Times Call for Compelling Measures: Reforming the First Step Act\u27s Compassionate Release Mechanism for Noncitizen Detainees

Year after year, America’s carceral state reaches new and more concerning heights. In this era of mass incarceration and criminalization of immigration status, imprisonment costs have skyrocketed, and the quality of life in prisons has plummeted. In response, Congress passed the First Step Act in 2018, which reformed federal sentencing practices. The First Step Act allows federal criminal defendants to request compassionate release, either for several enumerated reasons or for “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances. In the Federal Sentencing Commission’s new Sentencing Guidelines, federal courts have the discretion to define what circumstances fit under the catch-all provision defining “extraordinary and compelling” reasons. District courts must consider the policy objectives of the First Step Act in doing so. This Note argues that federal courts should use this power to deem post-release removability from the United States an “extraordinary and compelling” reason to grant compassionate release. Tracing the development of federal sentencing reform in tandem with the ever-intensifying immigration crisis, this Note offers part of a solution to both issues that ultimately serves the First Step Act’s overarching purpose

Cardozo Professor Emeritus Eva Hanks, Pioneer in Legal Education, Dies at 95

Eva Hanks, a pioneer in legal education and founding member of the Cardozo Law School faculty, died on Wednesday June 12th at the age of 95. Among other firsts, she was a founder in the field of environmental law and Cardozo’s first woman associate dean. During her 38-year tenure at Cardozo she taught Property, Torts and Elements of Law to generations of Cardozo students, before retiring in 2014.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/cardozo-news-2024/1025/thumbnail.jp