Diploma Privilege and the Constitution

The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting shutdowns are affecting every aspect of society. The legal profession and the justice system have been profoundly disrupted at precisely the time when there is an unprecedented need for legal services to deal with a host of legal issues generated by the pandemic, including disaster relief, health law, insurance, labor law, criminal justice, domestic violence, and civil rights. The need for lawyers to address these issues is great but the prospect of licensing new lawyers is challenging due to the serious health consequences of administering the bar examination during the pandemic. State Supreme Courts are actively considering alternative paths to licensure. One such alternative is the diploma privilege, a path to licensure currently used only in Wisconsin. Wisconsin\u27s privilege, limited to graduates of its two in-state schools, has triggered constitutional challenges never fully resolved by the lower courts. As states consider emergency diploma privileges to address the pandemic, they will face these unresolved constitutional issues. This Article explores those constitutional challenges and concludes that a diploma privilege limited to graduates of in-state schools raises serious Dormant Commerce Clause questions that will require the state to tie the privilege to the particular competencies in-state students develop and avenues they have to demonstrate those competencies to the state\u27s practicing bar over three years. Meeting that standard will be particularly difficult if a state adopts an in-state privilege on an emergency basis. States should consider other options, including privileges that do not prefer in-state schools. The analysis is important both for states considering emergency measures and for those that might restructure their licensing after the pandemic

The Bar Exam and the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Need for Immediate Action

The novel coronavirus COVID-19 has profoundly disrupted life in the United States. Among other challenges, jurisdictions are unlikely to be able to administer the July 2020 bar exam in the usual manner. It is essential, however, to continue licensing new lawyers. Those lawyers are necessary to meet current needs in the legal system. Equally important, the demand for legal services will skyrocket during and after this pandemic. We cannot close doors to the profession at a time when client demand will reach an all-time high.In this brief policy paper, we outline six licensing options for jurisdictions to consider for the Class of 2020. Circumstances will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but we hope that these options will help courts and regulators make this complex decision. These are unprecedented times: We must work together to ensure we do not leave the talented members of Class of 2020 on the sidelines when we need every qualified professional on the field to keep our justice system moving

Communications Biophysics

Contains reports on ten research projects.National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 P01 NS13126)National Institutes of Health (Training Grant 5 T32 NS0704)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS80-06369)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 R01 NS11153)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS77-16861)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 RO1 NS12846)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS77-21751)National Institutes of Health (Grant 1 P01 NS14092)Karmazin Foundation through the Council for the Arts at MITNational Institutes of Health (Fellowship 5 F32 NS06386)National Science Foundation (Fellowship SP179-14913)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 RO1 NS11080

Communications Biophysics

Contains reports on eight research projects split into four sections.National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 P01 NS13126)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 K04 NS00113)National Institutes of Health (Training Grant 5 T32 NS07047)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS80-06369)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 ROl NS11153)National Institutes of Health (Fellowship 1 F32 NS06544)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS77-16861)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 R01 NS10916)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 RO1 NS12846)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS77-21751)National Institutes of Health (Grant 1 R01 NS14092)National Institutes of Health (Grant 2 R01 NS11680)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 ROl1 NS11080)National Institutes of Health (Training Grant 5 T32 GM07301

Communications Biophysics

Contains reports on nine research projects split into four sections.National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 P01 NS13126)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 K04 NS00113)National Institutes of Health (Training Grant 5 T32 NS07047)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 ROl NS11153-03)National Institutes of Health (Fellowship 1 T32 NS07099-01)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS77-16861)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 ROl NS10916)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 ROl NS12846)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS77-21751)National Institutes of Health (Grant 1 RO1 NS14092)Health Sciences FundNational Institutes of Health (Grant 2 R01 NS11680)National Institutes of Health (Grant 2 RO1 NS11080)National Institutes of Health (Training Grant 5 T32 GM07301

A Probe-Goal Approach to Agreement and Incorporation Restrictions in Southern Tiwa

Southern Tiwa (Tanoan) exhibits agreement with up to three arguments (ergative, absolutive, dative). This agreement is subject to certain restrictions resembling the Person-Case Constraint paradigm (Bonet (1991)). Moreover, there is a correlation between agreement restrictions and conditions on (the obviation of) noun-incorporation in Southern Tiwa, as explicitly and elegantly captured by Rosen (1990) in terms of a heterogeneous feature hierarchy and rules of association. We attempt to recast Rosen’s central insights in terms of Anagnostopoulou’s (2003; 2006) probe-sharing model of Person-Case Constraint effects, to show that the full range of Southern Tiwa agreement and (non)incorporation restrictions can be given a single, unified analysis within the Probe-Goal-Agree framework of Chomsky (2001). In particular, we argue that Southern Tiwa’s triple-agreement system is characterized by (i) an independent class probe located on the heads T and v, and (ii) a rule that allows this class probe to be deleted in the context of local-person T-agreement. The various restrictions on agreement and nonincorporation then reduce to a single source: failure of class-valuation with DP (as opposed to NP) arguments. 1