Inge Viermetz, Woman Acquitted at Nuremberg

Conventional narratives tend to represent the post-World War II international criminal proceedings as a men’s project, thus obscuring the many women who participated, as lawyers, journalists, analysts, interpreters, witnesses, and defendants. Indeed, two women stood trial before Nuremberg Military Tribunals. This article examines the case of the only woman found not-guilty: Inge Viermetz, who had been an administrator at Lebensborn, the Nazi SS adoption and placement agency. The article outlines the prosecution’s child-taking case against Viermetz, as well as her successful gendered self-portrayal as a conventionally feminine caregiver. With references to Professor Megan A. Fairlie, at whose memorial symposium it was presented, the article concludes by considering contemporary implications of this acquittal at Nuremberg

Clarifying Concreteness: Statutory Grants Of Standing After Spokeo And TransUnion

Article III limits the federal judicial power to deciding “cases” and “controversies,” demanding that a plaintiff suffer real, concrete, de facto harm to sue in federal court. In Spokeo and TransUnion, the Supreme Court clarified the outer limits of concreteness by making clear to plaintiffs that an injury in law is not an injury in fact. The Court largely grounded the decisions in the separation of powers, setting a tone that appears less deferential to Congress in its creation of statutory rights of action. A plaintiff does not automatically satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement whenever Congress grants a right and purports to authorize a suit to vindicate that right. If the Court simply were to accept Congress’s judgment of what constitutes a concrete injury-in-fact, such acceptance would significantly broaden access to the federal courts and directly undermine the separation of powers. The federal standing requirements ensure federal courts remain forums for concrete injuries—not mere hypotheticals or abstractions. Federal courts hold the power to adjudicate, which entails the power to provide remedies. The purpose of this power is to provide remedies to those who are injured, and the Supreme Court has now put an end to Article III courts hearing claims based on nonexistent injuries. In so doing, the Court properly has prevented extension of the judicial power beyond cases and controversies

Legalist Realism

This article explores the scholarly footprint of Professor Megan Fairlie. This is a footprint of \u27legalist realism\u27. Professor Fairlie was greatly concerned with legalism, in other words, the centrality of due process, the rights of the defendant, and human dignity in trials of individuals accused of the most heinous crimes. She was committed to put the law in international criminal law. And her view was one of realism, notably, that the structure of international institutions must be mindful of power politics, and expectations and ambitions ought to recognize the limitations and possibilities of politics in order to retain legitimacy and activate accountability. Hence, her work roots in realism at the same time. This appears in her work exploring how the International Criminal Court should speak to the United States so as, to create reciprocity in which the United States might support the Court

Legal Strategies to Foster Global Accountability in Prosecuting Human Trafficking

Assistant Professor Tiffany Williams Brewer from Howard University presented her work, Legal Strategies to Foster Global Accountability in Prosecuting Human Trafficking. The paper examines human trafficking as modern slavery, highlighting its disproportionate impact on Black women and girls. Brewer advocates for stronger global legal mechanisms, urging the ICC to take a more active role in prosecution. She addresses inconsistencies in anti-trafficking laws, challenges in international cooperation, and the need for a victim-centered approach to ensure justice and restitution.https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty-workshops/1077/thumbnail.jp

Right Not to Work: Unions and Title VII

This article explores how Title VII\u27s mandate for religious accommodation conflicts with union seniority rights, as revealed in Groff v. DeJoy. It argues that labor unions often oppose Sabbath accommodations not out of hostility to religion, but to protect bargained-for entitlements. The piece highlights a growing legal tension: whether co-worker burdens count as “undue hardship” under Title VII—a question with major implications for religious liberty in unionized workplaces

How to Teach A Course On Land Use and Anti-Jewish Discrimination

In 2022, I was asked to teach a one-week mini-course within a broader course on “Structural Barriers and the Pursuit of Equity,” a course focusing on various forms of structural discrimination The course is typically taught by over a dozen professors from various parts of Touro University, each of whom teaches for a week on a different topic. I chose to teach on issues related to land use law (because my scholarship focuses on that area) and in particular how land use law has been used by and against traditionally observant Jews (because that is the religious tradition I am most familiar with). The purpose of this paper is primarily to explain the substance of the course: that is, what I chose to teach the students about land use law and Jews. I divided the course into three areas: intentional discrimination against observant Jews, constitutional issues other than intentional discrimination, and issues arising under federal statutes