Print

June 2013

June 1-7


TMCnet.com – June 1
Kenneth Anderson, American University-Washington College of Law, and Matthew C. Waxman of Columbia Law School, in a 28 April paper, argued that advances in sensor and computational technologies will supply "smarter" machines that can be programmed to kill or destroy, while the increasing tempo of military operations and political pressures to protect one's own personnel and civilian persons and property will demand continuing research, development, and deployment.
 
Deutsche Welle – June 2
For David Pozen, an associate professor of law at Columbia University, the jury is still out on what is driving the government's aggressive stance against leakers: "It's hard to tease out the causal factors. And depending on which one is driving the uptick in enforcement might give us very different answers as to whether it is going to continue or not."
 
The Economic Times – June 3
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has honoured renowned economist and globalisation buff Jagdish N Bhagwati by inducting him into its Hall of Fame. The professor of economics and law at Columbia University… spoke to ET about his decades-long campaign for trade liberalisation, his work and his long-standing rivalry with Nobel-Prize winning economist Amartya Sen, among other issues.
 
A story on this ran in the News India Times.
 
New York Daily News – June 3
It is rare, but not unprecedented for a judge to meet with jurors without a court reporter or lawyers for both parties present. "If he did it, it's clearly not something a judge should be doing," said Daniel Richman, a Columbia Law School professor and former federal prosecutor.
 
Bloomberg – June 3
“The Senate report arms the SEC and gives them a road map by which they could pursue the bank for failure to supervise its traders, maintaining inadequate risk controls and making misleading disclosures,” says John Coffee, a securities law professor at Columbia University Law School.
 
The D&O Diary – June 3
Grading Securities Enforcement: In an interesting and provocative May 16, 2013 New York Law Journal article (here, subscription required), Columbia Law Professor John Coffee grades the private securities enforcement activity of the plaintiffs’ bar and the public enforcement activity of the SEC. His grade for the plaintiffs’ bar is relatively high but his grade for the SEC is far less favorable.
 
The Huffington Post – June 3
Your kids love that newfangled Internet, so let them also read The Master Switch: The Rise And Fall Of Information Empires, by Columbia Law School prof Tim Wu (Alfred A. Knopf, 2010). Wu shows how the Internet may well end up out of the hands of the people and under strict government and business control, as did the telephone, radio, and TV before it. An intriguing guide to the intersection of power and technology.
 
The New Republic – June 3
By Tim Wu
Every time you fill a prescription at a drug store like Walgreens, the pharmacy keeps a record of the transaction, noting information such as your name, the drug, the dosage, and the issuing doctor. It’s a routine bit of bookkeeping, and for a long time it raised few eyebrows. Then a firm called IMS Health starting buying up the data.
 
Elements (The New Yorker) – June 3
By Tim Wu
MPHJ Technology Investments allegedly made plenty of money last year using a rather interesting business model. First, according to a lawsuit filed by the State of Vermont, it bought patents of dubious validity that could theoretically cover basic technologies, such as the scanning of documents. Next, it and its subsidiaries sent threatening letters, with various misstatements of fact, to businesses and nonprofits around the country, alleging patent infringement and demanding payment.
 
Philadelphia Inquirer – June 4
With a fight looming over the future of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, law professor Tim Wu offers an excellent analysis of one of the most significant legal trends to emerge as supposedly conservative jurists - including some on that key appeals court - have embraced a new avenue of judicial activism: allowing corporations to use the First Amendment as a shield against regulation.
 
Bloomberg – June 4
Jeffrey N. Gordon, a professor at Columbia Law School and director of its Richman Center for Business, Law and Public Policy, expressed concern that the SEC proposal wouldn’t go far enough. He said the SEC should require funds to hold capital because the failure of single large issuer of debt could cause shares to fall below $1 and spark a run. “I think it’s a missed opportunity,” Gordon said in a phone interview. “With the SEC, we are risking political actors trying to protect an industry.”
 
The Miami Herald – June 4
John Coffee Jr., a law professor at Columbia University and a corporate governance expert, said it was an uphill battle in court for those who wanted to rein in executive pay. He added, however, that the objection of the U.S. trustee is notable. “The bankruptcy court usually goes with the flow and does not attempt to reform a broken system,” he said. “Still, U.S. trustees do not typically object either, so this is an unusual case.”
 
Similar articles appeared in other outlets, including the Fresno Bee.
 
Finger Lakes Daily News – June 4
Suzanne B. Goldberg, Herbert and Doris Wechsler Clinical Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Gender & Sexuality Law and Director, Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic at Columbia Law School, said, "Protecting women's reproductive rights is essential to protecting women's equality. With an onslaught of legislative activity around the country aimed to endanger women's reproductive rights, New York's leadership with the Women’s Equality Agenda is especially critical now."
 
lohud.com – June 5
Suzanne Goldberg, director of the Center for Gender & Sexuality Law at Columbia University Law School, said that cases like Dolgetta’s represent dilemmas for prosecutors — whose decision not to prosecute may not imply complete innocence — and for the news media. “The news media must be very careful when they’re publicizing accusations, not convictions,” Goldberg said. “Unfortunately, the general public does not always distinguish.”
 
SNL – June 4
Radley Horton, an associate research scientist at the Center for Climate Systems Research testifying on behalf of the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, encouraged Con Edison to work with scientists to learn more about scenario predictions and then evaluate its current and projected vulnerability to higher temperatures and extreme weather. "Long-term infrastructure investments should be guided by an understanding of climate factors that the infrastructure will have to operate in," Horton said.
 
Bloomberg – June 5
Jeffrey N. Gordon, a professor at Columbia Law School, said the commission’s proposal fails to make the system safer, and might even enhance risk because institutional investors might try to time their withdrawals to just before gates are imposed.  “The FSOC should not back down,” Gordon said. “The proposals are lacking and the FSOC should make its own if it thinks it has better ones.”
 
The Independent – June 5
Professor Carol Sanger of Columbia Law School will describe the impact of these laws in a culture where, she says, women have become increasingly ‘fetusised’.
 
The Hindu (op-ed) – June 5
Another case is that of Carlos DeLuna who was executed in 1989 for the murder of a young woman some years before. In 2004, a study by Columbia Law School students brought to light the wrongful conviction of Carlos DeLuna, which turned out to be a case of mistaken identity of the actual perpetrator of the murder.
 
Similar pieces appeared in other outlets, including the Huffington Post.
 
New York Post – June 5
Brinkman and Robert E. Scott, a Columbia University law professor, agreed litigation likely would be costly and probably unpleasant for both parties if Rutgers wants to get out of the deal. The university already has spent more than $2.3 million in settlements, search firms and crisis management consulting since former basketball coach Mike Rice was fired on April 2. “It’s my speculation that both parties would prefer to reach an agreement with confidentiality clauses that allow both to walk away with a smile,’’ Scott said.
 
The Daily Beast – June 5
A recent study by Columbia Law Professor Jeffrey Fagan presented in Manhattan federal court showed that just one gun was recovered for every 1,000 people stopped from 2004 to 2012, and there were 4.4 million stops.
 
New York Law Journal – June 5
Richard R.W. Brooks will join the Columbia Law School faculty as the Charles Keller Beekman professor of law on July 1. He has been a professor at Yale Law School.
 
The Chronicle of Philanthropy – June 5
By Cindy M. Lott
One of the advantages of a federalist system of laws and regulations is that states and the federal government share burdens and responsibilities.
 
Cindy M. Lott is senior counsel to the National State Attorneys General Program and lead counsel of the program’s Charities Regulation and Oversight Project.
 
Clean Air Report (subscription required) – June 6
States, Advocates Advance Efforts to Boost Energy Efficiency in Air Plans
A white paper released in April by the Columbia Law School Center for Climate Change Law provides a "guide" for how environmentalists can advocate for greater use of energy efficiency at the state and federal level through the Clean Air Act. The paper urges environmentalists to advocate for energy efficiency in SIPs at the state and federal level by commenting on the plans and attending public hearings, which the paper says is necessary for advocates to do "in order to preserve their ability to sue."
 
Lawfare – June 6
By Matthew Waxman
The Council on Foreign Relations has just released a new Task Force Report on Defending an Open, Global, Secure, and Resilient Internet.  The Task Force was co-chaired by former DNI John Negroponte and former head of IBM Samuel Palmisano, and it was directed by CFR’s Adam Segal.  The Task Force itself comprises experts from government (former officials), private industry, NGOs, academia, and other sectors.
 
The New York Times (Chinese edition)
(With Benjamin L. Liebman, Robert L. Lieff Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Chinese Legal Studies)
 
MSN – June 6
David Pozen, a professor at Columbia Law School who specializes in information law, noted that Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Mark Udall, D-Colo., have been urging Congress and the Obama administration for quite some time to reconsider Section 215's sweeping powers. "Wyden and Udall foreshadowed this on the Senate floor and said how stunned Americans would be if they knew how broadly Section 215 was being applied," Pozen said. "It's as if everyone needed this report to go beyond what Wyden and Udall were saying."
 
Mirror of Justice – June 6
Check out Claudia Haupt's first post over at CLR Forum. Claudia is a fellow at Columbia Law School and the author of a fine book dealing with the law and religion regimes of the US and Germany. Her post makes a very interesting comparative point about "neutrality" in the law and rhetoric of the US and Germany.
 
Claudia E. Haupt is an associate-in-law.
 
Bloomberg – June 6
Michael Gerrard, director of the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, said corporations often insist on confidentiality. “Companies don’t want other potential plaintiffs to know how much money the companies were willing to pay for a settlement,” he said in an e-mail.
Back to top

June 8-13

 
Greenwich Time—June 8
"I would think he's thinking more about his neck than his public relations right now," said John Coffee Jr., a securities law professor at Columbia University. "I suspect he is legitimately concerned. You don't take the Fifth and expect it doesn't have some consequences."
 
USA Today—June 9
"It would be surprising if the court reaches a decision about Proposition 8's constitutionality, because long-standing case law indicates that Proposition 8's sponsors do not have standing," says Suzanne Goldberg, a Columbia University law professor who represented those challenging the Colorado referendum in Romer and the Texas statute in Lawrence.
 
Similar stories appeared in other outlets, including The Huffington Post and The Washington Post.
 
National Journal—June 9
“The IRS is really stretched beyond its capacity,” says Michael Graetz, a professor of tax law at the Columbia University Law School and a former Treasury official. “There is administrative difficulty and a high cost of compliance. Tax reform done right is an opportunity to bring it back under control.”
 
Similar stories appeared in other outlets, including Yahoo News.
 
New Geography—June 9
Bloomberg has also expanded New York’s unpopular stop-and-frisk policy, which allows police to search people not after arrest, but based on “reasonable suspicion.” The policy was begun in the 1970s as a way for police to intervene in overtly threatening situations… According to an analysis by Columbia University law professor Jeffrey Fagan, the first 4.4 million stop-and-frisks under Bloomberg yielded under 6,000 guns, (just over 0.01% of stops).
 
The Nation—June 10
In March 2009, Obama’s lawyers filed a legal brief justifying detention of Gitmo detainees under the laws of war–in this case the war on al-Qaeda, made official by Congress’s September 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which allowed for the invasion of Afghanistan and other counter-terrorism efforts. Ironically, “while it decries Guantánamo as contrary to American values, the Obama administration has convinced courts of its legal validity,” says Matthew Waxman, a former Bush detainee policy official now at Columbia Law School.
 
The Huffington Post – June 10
By Menachem Rosensaft
Every once in a great while—far too rarely to be sure—an individual acquires near-iconic stature in a given field of human endeavor. Samantha Power, whom President Obama has appointed to be the next U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is such a person.
 
Menachem Z. Rosensaft is a lecturer-in-law.
 
This article appeared in other outlets, including The Jerusalem Post.
 
Wired—June 10
A best-selling author and technology expert has said that web users should boycott internet giants like Google and Facebook if it is confirmed they were involved in a US surveillance programme referred to as Prism. In an interview with Wired.co.uk, Professor Tim Wu of Columbia Law School suggested that consumers had a responsibility to leave social networks found out to be collaborating secretly with intelligence services such as the US National Security Agency: "Quit Facebook and use another search engine. It's simple." He added, "It's nice to keep in touch with your friends. But I think if you find out if it's true that these companies are involved in these surveillance programs you should just quit."
 
Similar articles appeared in other outlets, including Business Insider.
 
The Wall Street Journal—June 10
Legal specialists said the investigation appears to be one of the first involving the burgeoning political-intelligence industry. "This is all fairly uncharted territory in this context," said John C. Coffee, a securities-law specialist at Columbia University in New York.
 
This article appeared in other outlets including the International Business Times, Australia edition.
 
Financial Times (subscription required)—June 10
Judicial authorisation is still necessary to monitor specific U.S. targets, writes Philip Bobbitt.
 
Dawn.com—June 10
At the end of 2012 the report “The civilian impact of drones: unexplained costs, unanswered questions” was jointly released by the Human Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School and the Centre for Civilians in Conflict.
 
JD Supra Law News—June 10
Columbia Law School convened a panel on hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") yesterday. One of the subtopics was its effect on climate change mitigation. Professor Michael Gerrard laid out the pluses and minuses.

Forbes—June 11
Those who support increased government regulation of free enterprise have been doing quite a bit of hand-wringing lately about purported obstacles to their agenda that are imposed by the First Amendment.  To their way of thinking, this is a faux First Amendment being flacked by powerful businesses intent on undermining the democratic process.  The latest such complaint comes from Columbia Law Professor (and former senior adviser to the Federal Trade Commission) Tim Wu in a New Republic article, “The Right to Evade Regulation: How Corporations Hijacked the First Amendment.”
 
The New Yorker—June 12
In the Financial Times, Philip Bobbitt, a law professor at Columbia who has worked in Democratic and Republican administrations, argued that the National Security Agency, in sweeping up a big part of the nation’s phone records, was upholding the law rather than subverting it.
 
NPR—June 12
w/Matthew C. Waxman
 
Reuters—June 13
Most courts have found such a conflict to be "more nominal than real," said John Coffee, a professor at Columbia Law School. "I'm not saying there couldn't be conflict, but if all you have is a theoretical conflict, the courts have not been persuaded," Coffee said.
 
Bloomberg West—June 13
Columbia University Law Professor Scott Hemphill discusses Apple Executive Eddy Cue's testimony on Apple's alleged e-book price fixing with Emily Chang on Bloomberg Television's "Bloomberg West."
 
Go Magazine—June 13
“This is an incredible time to be working on the expansion of LGBT equality and sexual rights,” says Katherine Franke. “Marriage rights seem a greater and greater possibility, if not reality, in more parts of the country—no matter what the Supreme Court does with the two cases it will decide in June. That said, the ‘to-do’ list remains long.” Franke is one of the nation’s leading scholars on feminist, queer, and critical race theory, as well as Columbia University’s Isidor and Seville Sulzbacher Professor of Law, and Director of Columbia Law School’s Center for Gender and Sexuality Law.
Back to top

June 14 - 30

 

Roll Call—June 14
Government leaks and whistleblowers have driven a significant amount of policy and political news lately, with revelations about the National Security Agency’s spying programs, the scandal at the Internal Revenue Service, and the government’s efforts to crack down on reporters in contact with leakers. David Pozen has a new paper forthcoming in the Harvard Law Review digging into when and why the government approves or disapproves of leaks.
  
Gawker—June 14
Even the Obama Administration's Department of Justice almost certainly won't risk the political furor of prosecuting a journalist under the Espionage Act, said Columbia Law School Professor David Pozen, who specializes in government leaks. Pozen told me there is a strong and long-standing notion in D.C. that journalists should be protected under the 1st Amendment, even when it comes to leaks.
 
PCWorld—June 14
This smorgasbord of encryption services is what makes things tricky. “There are very specific things we mean when we talk about privacy,” said Eben Moglen, a professor of law at Columbia University and chairman of the Software Freedom Law Center. Surveillance of communication endpoints is the “anonymity” type of privacy, but when people start talking about the actual contents of messages or files, that falls under a different category called “secrecy.”
 
Balkinization—June 17
By Gillian Metzger
Michael Greve’s The Upside Down Constitution offers a refreshingly different take on constitutional federalism. Whereas the Supreme Court often treats federalism as synonymous with protecting state interests and constitutional scholars regularly write in praise of cooperative federalism and federal-state balance, Greve thinks both have the Constitution exactly backwards.
 
Heritage Foundation—June 17
One expert, Professor John Coffee of Columbia Law School, has estimated that there are more than 300,000 separate federal regulations that might be the basis for a criminal prosecution.
 
Campaigns & Elections Magazine—June 17
At first blush, the challenge seems to make logical sense. McCutcheon isn’t giving any one candidate a suitcase full of cash. He’s abiding by the federal contribution limits. But the case has caught the eye of election law experts because it could open the door to contribution limits more generally. “The issue that is lurking is whether or not this becomes a springboard to further challenges to contribution limits,” says Richard Briffault of Columbia Law School.
 
IndiaWest—June 17
As graduates of Columbia Law School, members of the Class of 2013 will have unique opportunities to serve in high-ranking leadership positions around the world, said Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who delivered a powerful keynote address May 23 during the graduation ceremony at Columbia University.
 
Bloomberg Businessweek—June 17
The prospect of criminal charges being filed against Hayes in the U.K. wouldn’t necessarily affect charges already filed against him in the U.S., said John Coffee, a professor at Columbia University School of Law in New York.
 
The Wall Street Journal—June 18
By Eric Epstein
George Washington and his Revolutionary War victories. Robert Frost and the composition of “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening.” Bill Gates and the founding of Microsoft. Steve Wozniak and the invention of color computer monitors. Tom Stemberg and the launch of the Staples company. Each is a great American success story. But do such stories share a common ingredient, one that you can incorporate into your career strategy in order to maximize your professional success?
 
Eric Epstein ’03 is a lecturer-in-law. Articles on this study appeared in a variety of publications.
 
The Huffington Post—June 18
By Anu Bradford
As the United States and European Union gear up their trade negotiations, this much is clear: A trade pact between the two powers would be monumental. The two economies comprise half the world's economic output and represent a third of the world's trade flows. A pact would offer a much-needed boost for economic growth and jobs on both sides of the Atlantic--an opportunity neither region can afford to miss. Perhaps more importantly for the U.S., trade talks present the best--if not the only--opportunity to have a say on global regulatory standards.
 
Project Syndicate—June 18
By Anu Bradford
Almost immediately after the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings were revealed to be immigrants, opponents of immigration reform in the United States seized on the case to highlight the danger of adopting a more open approach to the issue. After all, stoking public fears effectively derailed immigration reform in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001; why shouldn’t it work today, as the US Congress takes up the issue again?
 
This piece appeared in numerous other outlets, including Business World Online, and The Kathmandu Post.
 
The New Yorker—June 18
By Tim Wu
These days, America has one dominant search engine, one dominant social-networking site, and four phone companies. The structure of the information industry often goes unnoticed, but it has an enormous effect on the ease with which the government spies on citizens. The remarkable consolidation of the communications and Web industries into a handful of firms has made spying much simpler and, therefore, more likely to happen.
 
The Telegraph—June 19, 2013
Columbia Law School Professor Tim Wu has written a thought-provoking blog for the New Yorker tracking the history of communication technology and the state's ability to spy on citizens. He concludes that surveillance becomes easier as each generation of communications matures and the industries tend closer to monopolies.
 
American Banker—June 19
The strategy is more precisely targeted than the $340 million fine the department imposed on Standard Chartered last year, which penalized many shareholders who "bought long after the violations in question," says John Coffee, a Columbia University law professor. "Dealing with the banks' gatekeepers is a much more effective strategy," Coffee says.
 
The Christian Science Monitor—June 19
“The fact that Google has published its request [to FISC] suggests that this is both a legal and a PR maneuver,” says David Pozen, a law professor specializing in national security law at Columbia University. It’s very unusual that a document relating to FISC proceedings has been made public, Mr. Pozen explains. But this is an unusual case.
 
Forbes—June 19
Unfortunately, high regard for freedom of speech is in short supply these days. Law professor Tim Wu recently argued in The New Republic that radical conservatives in the courts have hijacked the First Amendment by recognizing speech rights of corporations.
 
Marketplace—June 19
Still, the threat of having to admit guilt is important says John Coffee, director of the Center on Corporate Governance at Columbia University Law School. Coffee says companies should not be able to count on a slap-on-the wrist fine when they break the law. Coffee says the SEC may simply have to reshuffle resources. "We may have less SEC actions, but the settlements will be more meaningful, and I think that’s the right direction to move in," he says. Coffee expects we will still see a lot of “no admit, no deny” settlements from the SEC.  
 
Agence France-Presse—June 20
Scott Hemphill, a Columbia University law professor who attended part of the trial, said the government's documentary evidence was strong. Among the most compelling evidence, Hemphill said, were remarks from late Apple chief executive Steve Jobs, who told his official biographer that Apple let publishers raise prices.
 
Similar articles appeared in other outlets, including Naharnet.com, Channel NewsAsia, and Phys.org.
 
The New York Times—June 20
THEODORE M. SHAW: The former head of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, now a law professor, said that as one of the few black students at Holy Family School, he learned he could compete.
 
The New York Times—June 21
If it were not for a now famous scene in a hospital just blocks away from the White House, it is unlikely that James B. Comey would have been standing in the Rose Garden on Friday to be introduced as President Obama’s nominee for the director of the F.B.I.
 
James B. Comey is a Hertog Fellow in national security law, senior research scholar, and lecturer-in-law.
 
Similar articles appeared in a number of other major outlets, including the Associated Press, The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Christian Science Monitor, CNN, Politico, and many others.
 
People’s World—June 21
Like the others on the panel, Columbia law professor Jessica Bulman-Pozen called federalism neither "consistently liberal or conservative." Although she traced what she called "partisan federalism" to the time of Jefferson and Madison, Bulman-Pozen noted a recent resurgence, arising from the increasing polarization and regionalization of America's two main political parties.
 
The New York Times—June 21
“It’s an important step in the right direction,” said John Coffee, a professor at Columbia Law School and a vocal critic of S.E.C. settlements he deems too lenient. “There’s clearly a public hunger for accountability. Mary Jo White has shown she is sensitive to this.”
 
Similar articles appeared in other outlets, including Bloomberg Businessweek.
 
Mass Law Blog—June 21
Coincidentally, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginburg’s daughter, Columbia Law School Professor Jane Ginsburg, has been one of the most outspoken critics of Cablevision and Aereo. Of Aereo Professor Ginsburg commented that the decision, which was issued on April 1, 2013, is “so inconsistent with statutory text and policy as to inspire surmise that that the ruling was an April Fool’s prank.”
 
Trading Room—June 21
Antitrust experts said a key question for the judge is whether Apple convinced the publishers they needed to work collectively to pressure Amazon and whether Apple played a role in facilitating that effort. Scott Hemphill, a Columbia University law professor who attended part of the trial, said the government's documentary evidence was strong.
 
The New York Times—June 22
“What makes this an interesting case for appraisal is you rarely see going-private deals of this size,” said Jeffrey Gordon, a professor at Columbia Law School. “If you’re a 3 percent or 5 percent owner, the litigation cost of an appraisal case for Dell is a tiny fraction of the potential upside.”
 
This article appeared in other outlets, including The International Herald Tribune, and The Economic Times.
 
MSN—June 22
Noreen Shah, a lecturer at Columbia University Law School’s Human Rights Institute, derided Obama’s tenure as “a presidency that says all the right things, but doesn’t provide much evidence it’s actually doing them.”
 
Naureen Shah is associate director of the Human Rights Institute’s Counterterrorism and Human Rights Project and acting director of the Human Rights Clinic. Tarek Ismail is the Institute’s Counterterrorism and Human Rights Fellow.
 
TaxProf Blog—June 24
This article offers a feminist critique of law review culture by applying Columbia University Law Professor Susan Sturm’s “gladiator model,” which she uses to characterize the culture of law schools, to the culture of law reviews. [From Gladiators to Problem Solvers: Connecting Conversations About Women, the Academy, and the Legal Profession, 4 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol'y 119 (1997).] The model and its accompanying ethos explain how the law review’s focus on individualism works to the detriment of women members and the publishing success of the journal.
 
Lawfare—June 24
Philip Bobbitt (Columbia Law School, and the author of, among many other things, Terror and Consent) writes in: Three thoughts on the Snowden matter. First, Snowden’s strongest point: how can the government claim it closely monitors access to the information it collects when a person like him can steal a trove like this?  The answer, I suspect, is that Snowden is not quite the person he claims to be.  He is not an analyst and he could not, as he claims, task anyone to provide him with the content of anyone else’s messages (I believe he mentioned the president, among others, against whom he could collect on a whim).
 
Dealbreaker—June 24
Morgenson: Often purchasers limit shareholder participation in appraisals to minimize their financial exposure should a judge rule that a higher price is in order. But Mr. Dell’s offer did not limit how many shareholders could mount an appraisal case. …“What makes this an interesting case for appraisal is you rarely see going-private deals of this size,” said Jeffrey Gordon, a professor at Columbia Law School. “If you’re a 3 percent or 5 percent owner, the litigation cost of an appraisal case for Dell is a tiny fraction of the potential upside.”
 
The Globe and Mail—June 24
Mr. Feinberg plans to go to Newtown in July to begin discussing how to distribute the funds with the families. “He has the unique ability to get people to trust him,” said John Coffee, a law professor at Columbia University. “They’re not always going to love him, but they feel like they’ve dealt with a man who was trustworthy.”
 
New Jersey.com—June 25
A CFTC ban would not prevent Corzine from trading professionally on Wall Street – it feasibly would not apply to the securities industry. But “being barred from the industry is the ultimate stigma,” said John Coffee, a securities law professor at Columbia Law School. “He’s behind the 8-ball. I would think he would be better advised to settle than to fight,” Coffee said.
 
Similar articles appeared in other outlets, including The Star-Ledger.
 
Forbes—June 26
According to data compiled by Columbia Law School professor Robert Jackson, who studies executive compensation, the largest-ever pension benefit paid to a top executive since the SEC started mandating disclosure of these figures in 2006, was $101 million to Joel Germunder of nursing home drug provider Omnicare, who stepped down in 2010 at age 71.
 
Opinio Juris—June 26
By Anu Bradford
Katerina Linos’ book provides a novel, intriguing and highly compelling theoretical and empirical account for how and why foreign models diffuse across borders. Voters have limited information and patience to evaluate policy proposals their government advance. Benchmarking these proposals against policies that international organizations have endorsed, or that large, culturally proximate, and successful countries have adopted, provides a powerful and low-cost way of convincing the general public of the expected success of the policy. This explains why international models shape public policy and explain legislative outcomes in democracies.
 
The Washington Post—June 27
The board announced Thursday that Douglas M. Bregman will serve as an independent counsel in what has become known as the “Farm Road” case. The road’s disappearance from maps effectively landlocks the community, and leaves property owners with land that has little market value.
 
Douglas M. Bregman is a lecturer.

 

 

Back to top

U.S. Supreme Court Special Edition

 

Columbia Law School Clip Report: U.S. Supreme Court Special Edition
June 17 – July 1, 2013
Columbia Law School faculty were sought out by members of the news media for legal analysis, commentary, and opinion on a number of the major cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in the last weeks of its term. The clips below reflect a large sampling of coverage, but not every single article, interviews, or story has been captured here. Still other opinion pieces and articles will be published in the coming weeks, and will be included in future reports.
 
 
Marketplace—June 17
“The end of pay-for-delay settlements will have a beneficial effect for consumers by bringing generic drugs to the market sooner,” says Scott Hemphill at Columbia Law. He’s advised the FTC in the past.
 
The Washington Post—June 17
“The opinion has two conceptual pieces,” said C. Scott Hemphill, a professor at Columbia Law School. “Piece number one says that these settlements are potentially anti-competitive and that antitrust analysis is appropriate. Piece number two says: Lower courts, go work out the details.”
 
Politico—June 17
“Rather than lay out a specific procedure, the court sends it back to the lower court to lay out the details,” said Scott Hemphill, a professor at Columbia Law School who has studied the settlements. “The main message here … is the idea that the normal rules of competition apply to the drug industry as well.”
Similar stories appeared in other outlets, including Pharmalot, Lawyers.com, Drug Topics, The Bulletin, JD Supra, and many others
Up With Steve Kornacki—June 23
w/ Professor Theodore M. Shaw
 
PBS Newshour—June 24
The Supreme Court ruled to send a case involving affirmative action at the University of Texas back to a lower court. Gwen Ifill gets debate from Lee Bollinger of Columbia University and Gail Heriot of University of San Diego School of Law on the use of affirmative action in higher education.
 
The New York Times—June 24
By Lee C. Bollinger
THE Supreme Court has again upheld the principles behind race-conscious affirmative action, no small feat for the cause of diversity in higher education. But in framing the issue very technically, it has, wittingly or not, continued its drift away from the ideals it advanced in the civil rights era, beginning with Brown v. Board of Education.
 
The Chronicle of Higher Education—June 24
By Susan P. Sturm
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision today in Fisher v. University of Texas, a case in which a white student challenged an affirmative-action admissions policy, does little to resolve the heated debates about when and how race can be a factor in making college admissions decisions. The justices' opinion sends the case back to the lower court to determine whether the university met the standard of strict scrutiny in its use of race to achieve diversity.
 
The National Law Journal—June 24
"The court pressed the reset button and explained that antitrust laws pertain to these agreements just like everything else," said Columbia Law School professor C. Scott Hemphill, who has written extensively on the subject. "Having a patent is not a get-out-of-jail-free card." Hemphill said several challenges to pay-for-delay have been in "suspended animation" awaiting the Actavis decision and could now move forward. One case pending in federal court in Philadelphia involves a deal between makers of Provigil, a sleep drug, and four generic makers who kept their products off the market in exchange for more than $200 million. Another suit before the California Supreme Court challenges a similar agreement with makers of the antibiotic Cipro.
 
The Chronicle of Higher Education—June 24
By Susan P. Sturm
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision today in Fisher v. University of Texas, a case in which a white student challenged an affirmative-action admissions policy, does little to resolve the heated debates about when and how race can be a factor in making college admissions decisions. The justices' opinion sends the case back to the lower court to determine whether the university met the standard of strict scrutiny in its use of race to achieve diversity.
 
The Patriot News—June 24
The ruling was considered a victory for affirmative action supporters, who feared the court, which has become more conservative in recent years, would rule against affirmative action. "Many of us anticipated the court was going to strike a death blow. It didn't do that," said Theodore M. Shaw, a law professor at Columbia University.
 
SCOTUSblog—June 24
By Olatunde Johnson
In its ruling today in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the Court preserved Grutter’s core holding that “obtaining the educational benefits of ‘student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions.’”   One might have predicted that Justice Kennedy would write the majority opinion.  But I doubt that anyone predicted the seven-to-one line-up (with Justice Kagan recused and Justice Ginsburg as the sole dissenter) or that there would so little in any of the Court’s opinions to surprise us.   
 
New York Magazine—June 24
Overall, there is a larger argument often heard: Racial preferences must stay in place because racism still exists. Because “race matters in this culture,” Columbia Law School’s Patricia Williams argues, it is “not merely hypocritical but foolish” to discontinue racial preferences in admissions.
 
Tavis Smiley—June 24
Crenshaw and Levitt assess the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling and issues in other major cases awaiting decisions.
 
The Dallas Morning News (subscription required)—June 25
Still, the ruling left civil rights advocates relieved. "It is an endorsement of diversity as a compelling state interest, and that's a victory for civil rights advocates today -- one that many of us ... thought was probably not going to be the outcome of this case," said Ted Shaw, a Columbia University law professor and former president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
 
Tavis Talks—June 25
w/ Professor Theodore M. Shaw
 
The Huffington Post—June 25
By Theodore M. Shaw and others
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Fisher v. University of Texas reaffirms thirty-five years of precedent upholding the compelling interest in educational diversity in higher education, and clarifies the legal standards that courts and educational institutions must follow in order to comply with the Constitution.
 
ABC News—June 26, 27
ABC News interviewed Prof. Suzanne Goldberg on the marriage equality cases for a package that was distributed to 180 local network affiliates across the country.
 
AP—June 26
"The Obama administration can make clear, through regulation, that the federal government will recognize those marriages and not participate in state-sponsored discrimination," said Suzanne Goldberg, a professor at Columbia Law School.
 
Similar articles quoting Prof. Goldberg appeared in dozens of outlets in the U.S. and internationally.
 
WNYC—June 26
Katherine Franke, law professor and Director of the Center for Gender & Sexuality Law at Columbia Law School, discusses what these rulings mean from a legal perspective.
 
CBS New York—June 26
“Now, the marriages of same-sex couples will be on equal footing going forward with the marriages of different sex couples,” Suzanne Goldberg, professor and co-director of the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law at Columbia University, told 1010 WINS. “So future same-sex couples will not face the same kind of suffering that Edie Windsor has had for several years now.”
 
SCOTUSblog—June 26
By Suzanne B. Goldberg
The Court’s decisions in Windsor and Perry – the first major gay rights rulings in a decade – are a one-two punch to the nation’s most prominent antigay laws.  Today, the Court has brought an end to the damage wrought by the federal Defense of Marriage Act on countless same-sex couples throughout the United States and left in place Proposition 8’s invalidation by the federal district court.
 
KPCC—June 26
Guests: Lisa McElroy, Assoc. Prof. of Law, Earle Mack School of Law, Drexel University... Suzanne Goldberg, Professor of Law at Columbia University; Rob Levinson, Senior Defense Analyst at Bloomberg Government; Jenny Pizer, Senior Counsel and Director, Law and Policy Project, Lambda Legal; Richard Chung, a Pastor of a Chinese church in Los Angeles.
 
The New Civil Rights Movement—June 26
By Suzanne B. Goldberg
The Court’s decisions in Windsor and Perry – the first major gay rights rulings in a decade – are a one-two punch to the nation’s most prominent antigay laws.  Today, the Court has brought an end to the damage wrought by the federal Defense of Marriage Act on countless same-sex couples throughout the United States and left in place Proposition 8’s invalidation by the federal district court.
 
The Week—June 26
And Suzanne Goldberg, a law professor at Columbia University, said on SCOTUSblog that letting private citizens assume the government's role "would have created enormous political problems."
 
Governing—June 26
Allowing private individuals to assume a state government's role "would have created enormous political problems," wrote Suzanne Goldberg, a law professor at Columbia University, on SCOTUSblog. The Court's decision instead ensured that the longstanding requirement that parties have "a direct and particularized interest in the case they pursue" remained in place, she concluded.
 
American Constitution Society for Law and Policy—June 26
By Suzanne Goldberg
The Court’s decisions in Windsor and Perry – the first major gay rights rulings in a decade – are a one-two punch to the nation’s most prominent antigay laws.  Today, the Court has brought an end to the damage wrought by the federal Defense of Marriage Act on countless same-sex couples throughout the United States and left in place Proposition 8’s invalidation by the federal district court.
 
Slate—June 26
By Nathaniel Frank
There's no question that this week's decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act on equal protection grounds is sweeping and historic. There is a unique feature of the 40-year gay marriage debate that makes the question of history and historical evolution particularly important: Unlike racial segregation, to which anti-gay laws are often compared, the traditional restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples was not designed, in and of itself, to denigrate or harm same-sex couples.
 
Nathaniel Frank is visiting scholar the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law.
 
Say Yes to Education—June 27
‘Fisher’ Is Not The Point
By Susan P. Sturm
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision today in Fisher v. University of Texas, a case in which a white student challenged an affirmative-action admissions policy, does little to resolve the heated debates about when and how race can be a factor in making college admissions decisions. The justices' opinion sends the case back to the lower court to determine whether the university met the standard of strict scrutiny in its use of race to achieve diversity.
 
The Wall Street Journal—June 27
Lawmakers have offered proposals in Congress that would recognize same-sex married couples' eligibility for federal benefits no matter where they live. Absent legislative action, couples in non-marriage states may have to file lawsuits that ask courts to strike down the Social Security provision, said Columbia University law professor Suzanne Goldberg. "I expect these lawsuits will come soon," she said.
 
Current TV—June 27
w/ Professor Suzanne B. Goldberg
 
Counterpunch—June 27
By Kimberlé Crenshaw
If Supreme Courts over time are arranged like boxes of chocolates, the Roberts Court defies the myth that you never know what you’re going to get. From the first bite into its discrimination decisions, the bitter nougat was always at odds with its enticing packaging.
 
The Nation—June 27
By Urvashi Vaid
The Lethe-soaked question of what comes after the marriage cases ignores the reality that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people’s lives are not yet free, equal or secure, even with the positive outcome of these Supreme Court decisions.

Urvashi Vaid is director of the Engaging Tradition Project at the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law.
 
The Huffington Post—June 28
By Suzanne B. Goldberg
The Supreme Court's decisions in United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry, the first major gay rights rulings in a decade, are a one-two punch to the nation's most prominent anti-gay laws. With these decisions, the court has brought an end to the damage wrought by the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on countless same-sex couples throughout the United States and left in place Proposition 8's invalidation by the federal district court.
 
SCOTUSblog—July 1
By Ronald Mann
The smoke finally cleared last Monday in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, and the message is that the Justices saw this case as essentially a replay of last year’s decision in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing: All five of the Justices in the PLIVA majority held for the manufacturer here, and the four PLIVA dissenters would have held for the plaintiff.
 
This Morning, Seoul—July 1
w/ Professor Suzanne B. Goldberg
 
 
# # #
 
NOTE TO FACULTY: This report shares mentions of Law School faculty cited in print, broadcast, and electronic news outlets. It is not intended to be inclusive of every media mention. If you have an article, op-ed, or other commentary being published, please let us know to add it to this report at publicaffairs@law.columbia.edu. For assistance in promoting your work, facilitating interviews, event coverage, or media training, please email or call us at 212-854-2650.
 
TO VIEW ADDITIONAL MEDIA COVERAGE AND ARCHIVED CLIPS: Visit http://www.law.columbia.edu/faculty/faculty_news

 

Back to top