bepress Legal Repository
Not a member yet
603683 research outputs found
Sort by
“To See or Not to See: the Supreme Court’s Constant Struggle with the Constitutionality of Race-Conscious Affirmation Action Policies Post-Brown.”
Showdown in the Black Hills: The Sioux Nation’s Continued Land Claims Battle Against the US Government
Professional Identity Formation Through Exploring Academic, Professional, and Personal Well-Being
Law students have reported common barriers during their academic journeys. They report that demands on their time are at an all-time high, that they believe that there’s one “right way” to be a law student and lawyer, or that they are constantly comparing themselves to others. Research suggests, however, that students can shape the way they experience difficult moments by looking at these challenges in positive ways and adopting a perspective that helps them to thrive. Working with psychology researcher Dr. Omid Fotuhi, and a group of law students, we created an intersession course—Thriving in the Law: Tools for Academic, Professional, and Personal Well-Being—that allows students to discuss the myriad of challenges that they face and to support their cultivation of a resilience toolbox to help them persevere when challenges arise.
In this course, we helped students analyze behavior and mindset from a psychological perspective. We know there are certain points in the students’ law school journey where they question their ability and that there are things in their environment that cause them to question themselves. Some are particular to our institution, some to law students as a whole, and some to students generally. We are not trying to take any of these things away; it would be impossible to do. Instead, we focused on helping students make meaning of the events that are maladaptive. We used science-based strategies to help students understand ways to boost motivation, manage distraction, form more meaningful connections, and improve performance. Using exercises, videos, lectures, and journaling, we explored best practices for learning how to thrive academically, professionally, and personally. Together, we helped students develop actionable skills, strategies, and routines for their toolbox so that they can positively adapt to challenging circumstances.
By addressing students’ well-being in these three categories, we are also guiding students in developing their professional identity. American Bar Association (ABA) Standard 303(b)(3) provides that “A law school shall provide substantial opportunities to students for: . . . the development of a professional identity.” Interpretation 303-5 has clarified that “[t]he development of professional identity should involve an intentional exploration of the values, guiding principles, and well-being practices considered foundational to successful legal practice.” Earlier works defining professional identity focused on values and guiding principles. Little time has been spent on developing professional identity through well-being. This article adds to the literature by exploring professional identity through the lens of students’ personal, academic, and professional well-being and discussing a new course where these concepts are explored with students.
This article first provides a brief overview of the history of professional identity formation in legal education. The article then explores the psychological research in the areas of well-being and mindset that influenced our work. With this backdrop, the article discusses in detail the Thriving in the Law course, providing information about the course creation, development, implementation, and lessons learned. Finally, the article provides examples of well-being practices that professors can adapt to their law school classrooms
Judicial Review of Settlements Under the Class Action Fairness Act and Deference Due to the Department of Justice and State Attorneys General
The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) made it easier to remove consumer class actions from state to federal court, and among other things regulates the procedure of federal court approval of settlements of those cases. CAFA requires that before any court approval or disapproval, the parties must notify the Attorney General of the United States, and the attorneys general of states where members of the class live, of the pending settlement in order to receive any objections or other input. While such notice is frequently sent, since most class action cases settle out of court, it appears that the U.S. AG and state AGs rarely formally object to proposed settlements. Perhaps not surprisingly, the provision has been the subject of little commentary and analysis.
This Article fills that gap by focusing on how state AGs process and evaluate such notices under CAFA, using as a case study over ten years’ worth of unpublished data obtained from the Ohio Attorney General, regarding the Ohio AG’s review of thousands of CAFA settlement notices. The Article also addresses whether states should also be permitted to intervene as parties in CAFA suits, and the legal and policy issues regarding how much weight or deference a federal court should give to objections or input (or lack thereof) from the DOJ and state AGs, usually through amicus curiae briefs, to proposed settlements
Is Collegiate Athletics Already Professionalized While the NCAA Still Recognizes College Sports as Amateur Athletics?
Shifting Sands for the Stateless Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) grants foreign sovereigns immunity from suit in U.S. courts, but also sets forth some exceptions. One exception to a foreign sovereign’s immunity occurs if its expropriation of property violates international law. Where the sovereign has expropriated property from its own nationals, however, the sovereign still remains immune from suit. This “domestic takings” rule is consistent with general principles of international law, although international law increasingly has been challenging a State’s right to mistreat its own nationals. In 2023, in Simon v. Republic of Hungary, the D.C. Circuit considered the issue of stateless plaintiffs, and held that they have no standing to sue foreign sovereigns under the FSIA. The court relied heavily on the Restatement (Second) of Foreign Relations in its reasoning. The Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari, but only agreed to review other issues in this case, thus leaving the D.C. appellate court’s decision in place with respect to stateless individuals. Simon was decided after it arose on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision two years earlier (2021), heard in conjunction with Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, and remanded per curiam to be consistent with the Philipp opinion. The Supreme Court had directed the lower courts to consider plaintiffs’ nationality at the time of the alleged property expropriations for purposes of determining FSIA jurisdiction. In Philipp, the context was Nazi German expropriation of Jewish-owned property, and in Simon, Hungary’s expropriation of Jewish-owned property under antisemitic laws. This article considers the 2023 D.C. circuit court’s holding in Simon in light of indications and implications concerning the standing of stateless FSIA plaintiffs to be garnered from the Supreme Court’s Philipp decision; the evolution of FSIA case law on the issue of standing; the U.S. Restatements of Foreign Relations; and international law. It concludes that a better interpretation of the FSIA does allow standing for stateless individuals