 |
|
|
Jessie Allen's Article 'Empirical Doctrine' will be Published in Case Western Reserve Law Review
| |
|
Assistant Professor Jessie Allen’s article, “Empirical Doctrine,” will be published in a forthcoming volume of Case Western Reserve Law Review (2015). The abstract reads as follows: We can observe and measure how legal decision makers use formal legal authorities, but there is no way to empirically test the determinative capacity of legal doctrine itself. Yet, discussions of empirical studies of judicial behavior sometimes conflate judges’ attention to legal rules with legal rules determining outcomes. Doctrinal determinacy is not the same thing as legal predictability. The extent to which legal outcomes are predictable in given contexts is surely testable empirically. But the idea that doctrine’s capacity to produce or limit those outcomes can be measured empirically is fundamentally misguided. The problem is that to measure doctrinal determinacy, we would have to adopt standards of legal correctness that violate fundamental conceptual and normative aspects of the legal institution we wish to study. In practice, the promise of empirical data on doctrinal determinacy makes it seem less urgent to investigate other contributions doctrinal reasoning makes to law. Doctrinal reasoning might affect decision makers in ways that contribute importantly to legal process without determining outcomes. Trying to understand those effects is a research project to which the empirical methods of social science have much to contribute. Read more
| |
|
OTHER FACULTY PUBLICATIONSJournal Articles
Elena Baylis, Declining Controversial Cases: How Marriage Equality Changed the Paradigm,” 19 NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy's Quorum ___ (forthcoming, online). (Website)
Mary Crossley, Disability Cultural Competence in the Medical Profession, ___ St. Louis Journal of Health Law and Policy ___ (forthcoming). (SSRN)
Mary Crossley, Including Public Health Content in a Bioethics and Law Course: Vaccine Exemptions, Tort Liability, and Public Health, 43 Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics Special Issue 22 (2015). (SSRN)
Vivian Curran, At the Crossroads of Law and Society: The Trial of Mendel Beilis,” 28 Journal of Law and Literature ___ (forthcoming). (SSRN)
Book Chapter
Anthony Infanti, “Bringing Equal Protection Out of the Tax Closet” in Anne Richardson Oakes, ed., Controversies in Equal Protection Cases in America: Race, Gender and Sexual Orientation, Ashgate Publishing, 2015. (Website)
Other
John Burkoff, Search Warrant Law Deskbook, Thomson Reuters/West, 2015. Also available in the Westlaw treatises database, identifier: SRCHWARLAW (Website)
Lawrence Frolik, with Alison Barnes, Elder Law: Cases and Materials, sixth edition, LexisNexis, 2015. (Website)
| |
| | Pitt Law Welcomes 'Architect of Marriage-Equality Movement' Evan Wolfson for Constitution Day
| |
|  |
L to R: Dean William M. Carter Jr.; Senior Associate Dean and Professor Anthony Infanti; Pittsburgh native and Freedom to Marry founder Evan Wolfson; and PA Representative Dan B. Frankel |
|
Pitt Law marked Constitution Day Sept. 17, by hosting a panel discussion led by Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom to Marry. Wolfson is widely regarded as the architect of the national marriage-equality movement. Marriage Equality and Beyond focused on the Supreme Court's recent landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges and also featured Professor Anthony Infanti and PA Representative Dan B. Frankel, who answered questions on what is next for Pennsylvania LGBT rights in relation to passing the Pennsylvania Fairness Act (HB 1510/SB 974).
“We want to try to harness the marriage momentum,” Wolfson told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. “It’s not just about the law. We want to make sure that no matter where people are growing up, no matter what part of the country, gay people can dream of a happy and fulfilled life, and not feel isolated and alone.” Read more
| |
|  In this latest installment of Faculty Features, a series of monthly videos highlighting Pitt Law faculty members on items of current legal interest within their areas of expertise, Professor Jules Lobel discusses an issue on which he has developed into a recognized national leader—the curtailment of solitary confinement practices in U.S. prisons. Lobel points out the extremely trying conditions under which inmates are held when in solitary confinement and the manner in which large numbers of prisoners have been so held for years, even when they have committed no specific misconduct and present no obvious threat to the general prison population. Finally, Lobel discusses his own substantial role leading a suit against the California prison system for its overuse of solitary confinement, along with the historic, and widely celebrated, settlement of that suit, which will result in a significant curtailment of the practice. View video | |
| | |
|
Jules Lobel Leads 'Dramatic Step Forward' in Ending Unlimited Solitary Confinement in California
| |
|
In a landmark settlement, the state of California agreed to end unlimited solitary confinement for most prison inmates, a major victory in a much-followed case concerning the indeterminate solitary confinement of Pelican Bay prisoners in California. The lead attorney in the case Ashker v. Brown and president of the Center for Constitutional Rights is Professor Jules Lobel.
"This brings California in line with more modern national prison practices," Lobel told The New York Times. "People have been kept in solitary confinement for outrageously long periods of time. That's one of the problems in the U.S.—people are warehoused in these places, and now that's going to change."
Lobel told the Associated Press, "I think there is a deepening movement away from solitary confinement in the country and I think this settlement will be a spur to that movement."
Lawyers in the case told the Los Angeles Times that the settlement sets the tone for similar changes elsewhere in the nation. "This is a dramatic step forward," Lobel said.
In an episode of NPR's All Things Considered covering the case, Lobel said that public opinion may be souring on solitary confinement. He pointed out that President Obama and Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy have both raised questions about the harmful consequences of isolating inmates.
"There clearly has been a fundamental shift in our society to recognizing that solitary confinement does present serious constitutional and psychological problems," he said. Read more
| |
|
OTHER FACULTY IN THE NEWS
| |
| Follow Pitt Law on Facebook and Twitter!
| |
|
|
|
