Organizers of the newly-formed Trusts & Estates Collaborative Research seek proposals that explore any aspect of the law, practice or effects of trusts and estates, broadly defined. Successful proposals likely will bear in some way on succession (also referred to as inheritance) and/or wealth transfers (whether at death or during lifetime, outright or in trust). Subjects of inquiry may involve any aspect of government or social policy with respect to trusts, estates, inheritance, wealth transfer, equity or courts with jurisdiction over these issues.
If you would like to present a paper as part of a Trusts and Estates CRN panel, please submit a 500-word abstract by Monday, October 8, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. GMT to the CRN chairs, Professor Bridget Crawford (bcrawford at law dot pace dot edu) and Professor Kate Galloway (kgallowa at bond dot edu dot au). The CRN chairs will then attempt to organize the papers into panels with cohesive themes.
Our goal is to stimulate focused discussion of papers on which scholars are currently working. We welcome participation from scholars working in any discipline, language, or country. Although you may submit a proposal to present a paper that is closer to publication, we are especially interested in receiving proposals for works-in-progress that will benefit from discussion that the panels will provide. We welcome participation of junior scholars, those who are untenured or in non-tenure positions, and advanced graduate students, as well as more experienced scholars.
Participants are encouraged to apply multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches in their scholarship. Possible areas in inquiry might include issues related to transfer of wealth between spouses or family members; preferences created for certain types of transfers or transfers to particular classes of individuals; the transfer of wealth to charities or non-profit organizations; generational equity; issues of social and economic inequality; comparative aspects of the law of succession and the law of trusts more broadly; the relationship between/among gender, race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic class, immigration, language status, disability and the law of succession and the law of trusts; the socio-linguistics of testation and wealth transfer; access to estate planning justice for low- and middle-income individuals; questions of cultural or group inheritance rights; and similar issues.
If you would like to submit a pre-formed panel, with a chair already named, and affiliate your panel with the Trusts and Estates CRN, please also email the CRN chairs.
In addition to individual paper presentations (to be organized into panels) and pre-formed panels, we also welcome programs that fit other formats permitted by Law and Society such as author-meets-reader sessions, salon sessions, and roundtable session. If you have an idea that you think would work, we welcome hearing from you with a 500-word proposal.
Please note that LSA rules limit you to participating only once, either as a paper panelist or as a roundtable participant.
We will give preference to proposed Trusts and Estates CRN panelists/participants who agree also to serve as a discussant or discussant/chair for another Trusts and Estates CRN panel (those appearances do not “count” for purposes of the 1 appearance rule). Please indicate your willingness to do so in your proposal. Your volunteering will help us to create and sustain a supportive global community of trusts and estates scholars. We will take into account expertise and topic preferences. Chairs organize the logistics of the panel, as well as moderate at the conference. Chairs will develop a 100-250 word description of the panel for inclusion in the Law and Society program. Discussants will read at least one assigned paper and prepare a short commentary to offer feedback and serve as a basis for discussion among the panelist and audience members. There may be multiple discussants for the same panel, especially if we are able to create panels that include multi-national perspectives.
Those selected by the Trusts and Estates CRN for participation in a panel or program will be informed no later than October 22, 2018. Each participant will then need to register through the Law and Society system no later than November 7, 2018 using the panel number we assign.
500-word proposals to participate in a program sponsored by the Trusts and Estates CRN are due Monday, October 8, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. GMT to the CRN chairs, Professor Bridget Crawford (bcrawford at law dot pace dot edu) and Professor Kate Galloway (kgallowa at bond dot edu dot au).
SYMPOSIUM: DIGNITY, TRADITION, & CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS: COMPETING JUDICIAL PARADIGMS
The William S. Boyd School of Law (University of Nevada, Las Vegas) will host a symposium entitled: Dignity, Tradition, & Constitutional Due Process: Competing Judicial Paradigms. The symposium will be held: Thursday evening, March 14, 2019 – Friday, March 15, 2019. We encourage interested individuals to submit presentation proposals.
The Symposium Will Address the Question:
What should be the proper predominant -- overarching -- judicial standard or paradigm to apply the U.S. Constitution's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments Due Process Clauses?
The Premise of the Symposium Is:
At present, the Supreme Court applies two distinct, arguably irreconcilable due process paradigms. One purports to discern empirically “deeply rooted” American traditions sounding in liberty. Under that standard, courts act essentially as uncritical investigators determining, but rarely judging, whether an espoused right is constitutionally protected because it emanates from some judicially recognized “deeply rooted tradition.” The pivotal Second Amendment opinion District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), claims that the "deeply rooted" traditions standard controls.
Perhaps an offshoot of "living constitutionalism," and despite Heller, the Supreme Court applies a second standard, the dignity paradigm, holding that governmental conduct violates "due process of law" if it impugns the innate human dignity of adversely affected persons. Under this benchmark, courts unapologetically judge the rightness, some would say the morality, of challenged governmental conduct. The "homosexual rights cases" typify this standard, although dignity theory has informed due process jurisprudence since the late 1800s and into the present century.
The Court's determination regarding which paradigm to apply depends, of course, on which receives at least five affirmative votes in any given appeal. Until his recent retirement, Justice Anthony Kennedy usually was the deciding vote. The probable confirmation of Hon. Brett Kavanaugh to Kennedy's seat may portend severely limited use of the dignity paradigm, if not its effective demise.
Our symposium, Dignity, Tradition, & Constitutional Due Process: Competing Judicial Paradigms, explores which of these two seemingly irreconcilable standards is correct, or whether there are one or more alternative approaches the courts should use.
Call for Presentations and Commentators:
We invite interested persons to submit presentation proposals briefly describing the position you wish to advocate, and why. Of course, we are particularly interested in presentations explicitly embracing either the deeply rooted traditions or dignity paradigm. We invite as well, presentations that either augment those two due process frameworks, or suggest alternative standards. Such presentations could include:
• asserting some form of hybrid theory; • asserting aspects of critical or post-modernist constitutional analysis; • asserting originalist theories; and, • asserting "living constitutionalism" without regard to any claimed original meanings.
The foregoing is not an exhaustive list. We certainly encourage topics urging the adopting of entirely different "due process of law" paradigms.
In addition, we hope to have each major presenter critiqued by at least two assigned commentators. Therefore, please let us know if you are interested in serving as a commentator and, if so, whether there are one or more topics you particularly wish to review.
Please submit topic proposals and requests to act as a commentator, along with contact information, by no later than October 8, 2018, to Prof. Peter B. Bayer, firstname.lastname@example.org
Call for Authors: Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Health Law Opinions
The U.S. Feminist Judgments Project seeks contributors of rewritten judicial opinions and commentary on those opinions for an edited collection entitled Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Health Law Opinions. This edited volume, proposed to be published by Cambridge University Press, is part of a collaborative project among law professors and others to rewrite, from a feminist perspective, key judicial decisions. The initial volume, Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court, edited by Kathryn M. Stanchi, Linda L. Berger, and Bridget J. Crawford, was published in 2016 by Cambridge University Press. Subsequent volumes in the series focus on different courts or different subjects. This call is for contributions to a volume of health law decisions rewritten from a feminist perspective. Health Law volume editors Seema Mohapatra and Lindsay Wiley seek prospective authors for fifteen rewritten health law opinions covering a range of topics. With the help of an Advisory Committee, the editors have chosen a list of cases to be rewritten. The definition of feminism on which the series is premised is quite broad and certainly includes intersectional analysis of cases where sex or gender played a role alongside racism, ableism, classism, and other concerns. Applications are due by September 22, 2018.
To facilitate collaboration between commentators and opinion writers across the entire volume, the editors will host a workshop on December 7, 2018 at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. All commentators and opinion writers are invited, but not required, to participate in the workshop. The Hall Center for Law and Health at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law will host a welcome dinner the night prior to the workshop and provide the meals at the workshop. Authors must cover their own travel expenses. Selection of authors does not depend on their ability or willingness to attend the December workshop. The editors are also tentatively planning to host a conference celebrating publication of the volume at American University Washington College of Law in Washington, DC in fall 2020. More details about the project and how to apply are available here.
Between Regulation and Legislation Call for Papers for Special Issue of The Theory and Practice of Legislation
Guest Editors: Nir Kosti, David Levi-Faur, Guy Mor, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
We live in an age in which different types and sources of legislation, including statutes, regulations, decrees, orders, acts, by-laws, case law, treaties and codes, continuously proliferate within and beyond states, increasingly penetrating all spheres of life. Our age has also been described as the “golden age of regulation”, in which different forms and shapes of regulation are carried out by state and non-state actors, organizing and shaping the behavior of individuals, groups, organizations, states and international organizations.
The expansion of regulation and legislation is reflected by growing scholarly interest in them. The establishment of regulation and governance scholarships, as well as the revival of legislation and legisprudence studies in legal scholarship attest to the increasing importance of regulation and legislation in public life. However, far too little attention has been paid to conceptual and empirical relationships between legislation and regulation, and especially to the democratic consequences of their co-evolution and intersection. Scholarly treatments of the two phenomena are few and far between. Questions about what regulation and legislation are, the similarities, differences and possible overlap between them, and their consequences for policy making and democratic legitimacy remain open.
We invite contributions to these and related questions about the relationships between regulation and legislation and the following or related topics:
1. Legislation as an instrument for regulation vs. other uses and conceptions of legislation 2. The relationship between primary and secondary legislation 3. Legalized vs. non-legalized forms of regulation 4. The regulatory state and the legislative state 5. Regulation, legislation and economic and social performances 6. Quality of regulation and quality of legislation: conceptions and measurement (or: better regulation vis-à-vis better lawmaking) 7. The evaluation and impact assessment of legislation vs. regulation 8. Legislation and Regulation in an increasingly Judicialized and Juridicialized world 9. Parliament, Bureaucracies and Legislation
Please send proposals (500 words) along with authors’ names, institutional affiliations, and a list of relevant publications to Nir Kosti (email@example.com) no later than October 1st 2018. Invited papers should be sent by March 1st 2019 to the guest editors. Papers that enter the review process will be double-blind reviewed, following the journal’s peer review process and evaluation criteria.
The BYU Law Review is now accepting submissions for a new issue devoted to law and religion scholarship. The 2019 inaugural issue will feature an article by Professor Douglas Laycock, Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, discussing developments in law and religion, particularly in light of some of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions.
During this special submission window, we welcome articles on both broad conceptual questions as well as more specific policy issues. Potential topics might include analysis of: 1) The Supreme Court’s evolving jurisprudence at the intersection of religious rights and immigration issues in light of Trump v. Hawaii; 2) The future of constitutional religious exemptions after Masterpiece Cakeshop; 3) Issues at the intersection of religious rights and speech, especially after NIFLA v. Becerra; 4) Religious objections in an age of anti-discrimination norms; 5) The growing third-party harm theory, and what that means for religious accommodations; 6) Modern applications of RFRA and what changes may loom on the horizon in that context.
Please note that this list is not meant to be exhaustive; we hope to receive submissions related to the issue’s general theme even if a particular topic was not specifically listed here. Law will be treated broadly to include governmental policy decisions more generally. In an effort to encourage interdisciplinary dialogue, we welcome submissions from legal scholars and lawyers, of course, but also from bioethicists, doctors, religious leaders, philosophers, scholars of religion and religious studies, clinicians, government officials and staff, regulators, and others who have a meaningful contribution to make on this topic.
How to Submit: Please send your original article to firstname.lastname@example.org as soon as possible, but not later than September 1, 2018. The papers will be published in the first issue of 2019. We request that articles be 20,000–40,000 words. Contact email@example.com with any additional questions.
The South Carolina Law Review will host its 2019 Symposium on Friday, February 8, 2019, at the University of South Carolina School of Law. The symposium will specifically examine the implications of the opioid epidemic on the practice of healthcare and tort law, as well as legislative and law enforcement efforts in response to this national crisis.
In the United States, more than 115 people die each day as a result of an opioid overdose, with costs associated with opioid abuse estimated at an astounding $78.5 billion per year. These chilling statistics have recently spurred great national concern, leading President Trump to declare the opioid epidemic a public health emergency in October of 2017. While the efforts of lawmakers have the potential curtail the crisis, determining the appropriate balance between government intervention and access to prescription opioids is nothing short of a challenge. Questions concerning rehabilitation, addiction treatment drugs, and Good Samaritan laws will continue to arise and difficult trade-offs will be required by any response employed. These issues and more will be addressed during the South Carolina Law Review’s 2019 Symposium.
The South Carolina Law Review seeks thoughtful, insightful, and original papers addressing the broad range of topics related to “The Opioid Crisis and the Practice of Law.” Interested authors should submit a 500-word abstract to firstname.lastname@example.org with the subject line “Opioid Crisis and the Law” by September 30, 2018, for consideration. Interdisciplinary works are welcome from academic professors, healthcare professionals, and legal practitioners. If selected, a completed paper (6,000–18,000 words) will be due to the South Carolina Law Review Editorial Board by January 1, 2019.
The Georgia State University Law Review invites legal scholars, advocates, attorneys, judges, data scientists, and other practitioners to submit pieces for its upcoming symposium issue on legal analytics. The symposium will focus on several current challenges in legal analytics, including predictive technology and market forecasting. Charlotte S. Alexander, Director of the Legal Analytics Lab at Georgia State University, along with Anne M. Tucker, Associate Professor of Law at Georgia State University, both leading scholars in the field of legal analytics, are co-chairing the symposium program which will feature Shawnna Hoffman, the IBM Global Co-leader for the Cognitive Legal Practice as the keynote speaker. Authors are invited to submit pieces on related topics.
Our format is flexible to encourage academics, advocates, attorneys, judges, data scientists, and other practitioners to participate. We welcome papers, essays, and symposium-length articles on legal analytics and related topics. Selected pieces will be published in Volume 35, Issue 4, in summer 2019. Final Articles are due from authors by December 14, 2018.
If you are interested in submitting a piece for our symposium issue, please email a short (no longer than one page) abstract of your proposed piece to email@example.com by August 15. Please write “Symposium issue abstract” as the subject line of your email and include the approximate length of your piece.
The AALS Section on Legislation & Law of the Political Process is pleased to announce that it will host a “New Voices in Legislation” program during the 2019 AALS Annual Meeting in New Orleans, LA. This works-in-progress program will bring together junior and senior scholars in the field of legislation for the purpose of providing the junior scholars with feedback and guidance on their draft articles. Scholars whose papers are selected will present their work in small panel sessions. A senior scholar will moderate each panel and lead discussion about the draft article.
Eligibility: The New Voices Program will be open to full-time faculty members from AALS member schools who are untenured or have been tenured for two years or less. All scholars, whether or not presenting a paper or moderating a discussion, are welcome to attend the program and participate in discussions.
Submission Requirements: Submissions should be drafts of articles relating to legislation and the law of the political process, including articles related to legislative structure, the legislative process, the budget process, statutory interpretation, and deliberation. Submissions should be near completion and should not exceed 30,000 words, including footnotes. The purpose of the program is to provide junior scholars with feedback that can be incorporated into their works-in-progress; as a result, articles are ineligible for the program if they are expected to be in print at the time of the program in January 2019. However, articles that already have been submitted to journals for publication, and accepted for publication, are not ineligible for this reason.
Submission Process: To be considered for participation in the program, please email a copy of the paper and abstract to Anthony O’Rourke, firstname.lastname@example.org, by Sunday, October 1, 2018. Selected participants will be notified in early November 2018. Final drafts of those who are selected must be submitted by December 15, 2018.
Senior Scholars: If you are interested is serving as a commentator for one of the junior papers, please contact Anthony O’Rourke, email@example.com.
The UC Davis Journal of Juvenile Law & Policy (“JJLP”) is now accepting exclusive submissions for its Winter Issue of Volume 23. JJLP is a biannual publication of the UC Davis School of Law that addresses the unique concerns of youth in the American legal system. All articles submitted to JJLP between now and July 7 , 2018, at 11:59 PM Pacific Time, will be evaluated and considered for publication by July 28 , 2018. To be considered, an article must relate to some aspect of juvenile law or policy, such as juvenile health and mental health, education, or the juvenile justice system. If you have previously submitted an article to JJLP, you must resubmit the article for consideration in this review.
By submitting an article via this exclusive submission track, the author agrees to accept an offer of publication, should one be extended. Articles that receive offers of publication will be published in the Winter Issue of Volume 23. The publication process involves an interactive editing process between the author and the staff of JJLP.
To submit, please email your article manuscript in Microsoft Word format, along with your CV, to firstname.lastname@example.org. Please title the subject line “Winter 2019 Exclusive Submission Track.”
The AALS Sections on European and African Law invites submissions of paper proposals for the upcoming panel, “Judicial Diversity in Transnational Courts,” which will take place at the 2019 AALS Annual Meeting (New Orleans, January 2-6 2019). Submissions from junior scholars are encouraged. Confirmed speakers include Laurence Burgorgue-Larsen, Professor at the Sorbonne Law School at the University Paris I; Josephine Jarpa Dawuni, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Howard University; Sally J. Kenney, Newcomb College Endowed Chair Professor, Tulane University; and Iyiola Solanke, Professor of Law, Leeds University, UK. The proceeds of the panel will be published as a special issue of the Connecticut Journal of International Law.
Program Summary: Why do so few women and people of color serve on transnational courts and tribunals? Given the paucity of seats available to each nation on the international bench, it should be easy for states to nominate, vote, or appoint them in greater numbers. Yet, despite a series of initiatives to increase gender parity, women, particularly women of color, continue to be conspicuously underrepresented on these courts. Why does it matter? There is now an extensive body of scholarship discussing the reasons why domestic judiciaries might strive for more diversity, including increased legitimacy, dispelling stereotypes, higher quality decision-making and outcomes, and internal institutional change. Are there additional, specific benefits to greater judicial diversity to be expected at the transnational level? Convening leading scholars in the fields of equality law and transnational courts, this panel will address these questions with a special focus on European and African regional courts.
Building on the success of the Inaugural Equality Law Scholars’ Forum held at UC Berkeley Law last fall, and in the spirit of academic engagement and mentoring in the area of Equality Law, we (Tristin Green, University of San Francisco; Angela Onwuachi-Willig, UC Berkeley; and Leticia Saucedo, UC Davis) announce the Second Annual Equality Law Scholars’ Forum to be held this fall. This Scholars’ Forum seeks to provide junior scholars with commentary and critique and to provide scholars at all career stages the opportunity to engage with new scholarly currents and ideas. We hope to bring together scholars with varied perspectives (e.g., critical race theory, class critical theory, feminist legal theory, law and economics, law and society) across fields (e.g., criminal system, education, employment, family, health, immigration, property, tax) and with work relevant to many diverse identities (e.g., age, class, disability, national origin, race, sex, sexuality) to build bridges and to generate new ideas in the area of Equality Law.
We will select five relatively junior scholars (untenured, newly tenured, or prospective professors) to present papers from proposals submitted in response to this Call for Proposals. In so doing, we will select papers that cover a broad range of topics within the area of Equality Law. Leading senior scholars will provide commentary on each of the featured papers in an intimate and collegial setting. The Equality Law Scholars’ Forum will pay transportation and accommodation expenses for participants and will host a dinner on Friday evening.
This year’s Forum will be held on November 9-10, 2018 at UC Davis Law School.
Junior scholars are invited to submit abstracts of proposed papers, 3-5 pages in length, by July 1, 2018.
Full drafts must be available for circulation to participants by October 19, 2018.
Proposals should be submitted to: Tristin Green, USF School of Law, email@example.com. Electronic submissions via email are preferred.
PROGRESSION 2018: USING LAW TO FACILITATE AN EFFICACIOUS INNOVATION ECONOMY
Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad College of Law and the Nova Law Review seek submissions for its annual Symposium on October 5, 2018. During these stimulating times of flourishing innovation in various sectors worldwide, it is important to discuss and highlight the various underlying issues that coincide with these novel developments. Progression 2018: Using Law to Facilitate an Efficacious Innovation Economy, will address the intersection of law and business as it focuses on new technologies, ethics, and regulation.
The Symposium presents an opportunity for academics, practitioners, and students in a variety of legal, business, and technology fields to exchange ideas and explore emerging issues. Interdisciplinary presentations are encouraged. Authors and presenters are invited to submit proposals on topics including but not limited to the following:
The Anthropology & Law and Law & Social Science Sections invite paper proposals for a joint panel on “Corruption and Legitimation,” to be held at the 2019 meeting of the American Association of Law Schools (New Orleans, January 2-6, 2019). How does government corruption work and what effects does it have? Equally importantly, what constitutes corruption in any given society, and how do we recognize corruption’s inverse, legitimation? The panel seeks to address these questions from a range of methodological and disciplinary perspectives.
We welcome proposals for papers that discuss, among other topics, local perceptions of government action; the conditions for its validity in particular places; debates in legal, scholarly, or popular work about what constitutes corruption; as well as research analyzing recognized corruption and its effects. We hope this panel will lead to a stimulating discussion about both the corruption in government and the malleability of the very concept of corruption.
Confirmed speakers include:
Mary Fan, University of Washington Eugene Mazo, University of Baltimore Christopher Robertson, University of Arizona Mary Szto, Valparaiso University
We will select the remaining panelists through this call for papers.
Please send an abstract (around 500 words) outlining the paper that you’d like to present by May 1, 2018, to Anya Bernstein (firstname.lastname@example.org) and David Kwok (email@example.com).
The 2018 Immigration Law Scholars and Teachers Workshop will be held at my shop - the Drexel University Kline School of Law - from May 24-26, 2018. Organizers seek submissions from those interested in presenting a work-in-progress or an incubator idea, or in serving as a commentator. The deadline is this Friday - March 23. More details are here.
The U.S. Feminist Judgments Project seeks contributors to rewrite judicial opinions to reflect feminist perspectives, and commentaries on the rewritten opinions, for an edited book collection tentatively titled Feminist Judgments: Employment Discrimination Opinions Rewritten. This edited volume is part of a collaborative project among law professors and other legal specialists to rewrite, from feminist perspectives, key judicial decisions in the United States. The initial volume, Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court, edited by Kathryn M. Stanchi, Linda L. Berger, and Bridget J. Crawford, was published in 2016 by Cambridge University Press. Cambridge University Press has published the first volume in the series, Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Tax Opinions (2017). Other approved volumes in the series include family law and reproductive justice. Cambridge University Press welcomes proposals for additional volumes in the series that focus on other areas of law.
The Employment Discrimination volume will be edited by Ann McGinley and Nicole Porter. We seek prospective authors for a number of employment discrimination opinions, listed below. We have selected the cases with the goal of creating a body of cases that can be largely internally consistent and that ultimately would improve employment discrimination law from feminist perspectives. Opinion authors will be given the freedom to choose how to rewrite their opinions from various feminist perspectives. The volume editors will provide initial guidance on how the rewritten opinions might have improved the outcomes for all women (and some men), regardless of the particular feminist approach taken by the author of the rewritten opinion. We are open to your ideas, and would love to discuss them and our own ideas with you. We are particularly interested in opinions that use intersectional and multidimensional analyses, and that recognize the rich diversity of individuals who are protected by the employment discrimination laws.
Interested prospective contributors should submit a proposal to either: (1) rewrite an opinion (subject to a 10,000 word limit, including footnotes), or (2) comment on a rewritten opinion (4,000 word limit, including footnotes). Unlike the original volume, and because we seek to create a body of consistent opinions, all rewritten opinions should be written as majority opinions of the court, without regard to whether political or practical considerations would have permitted the author to achieve an actual majority at the time of the original opinion. Authors of rewritten opinions will be bound by the law and precedent in effect and supplemental materials available at the time of the original decision. Commentators should explain the original court decision and its context, how the feminist judgment differs from the original judgment, and what difference a feminist judgment might have made. Commentators may also explain how the rewritten opinion would have changed the law, for example, by noting subsequent cases that would not have been decided or would have been decided differently, if the rewritten opinion had been adopted.
Those who are interested in rewriting an opinion or providing commentary should apply no later than February 12, 2018, by e-mailing the following information to Ann McGinley, firstname.lastname@example.org and Nicole Porter, email@example.com:
Your CV, your areas of employment discrimination interest or expertise, and why you are interested in and well suited to participate in this project. We are committed to including authors and commentators from diverse backgrounds and encourage applications from authors representing traditionally marginalized groups (for example, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or status within the academy). If you feel an aspect of your personal identity is important to your work on this project, please feel free to include that information.
Your top three preferences from the list of proposed cases below, whether you propose to write a commentary or a feminist majority opinion; and
Any time constraints and other obligations that may impact your ability to meet the submission deadlines.
The editors will inform selected authors and commentators by February 26, 2018. After we have selected the authors and commentators, and the authors have had an opportunity to begin thinking about their drafts, we plan to host a Feminist Judgments Writing Workshop at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Boyd School of Law on April 20 and 21, 2018. All authors, commentators, and members of the Advisory Board are invited and urged to attend. Selection of authors does not depend on their ability or willingness to attend the April workshop. Draft opinions will be due by June 30, 2018. Draft commentaries will be due by August 15, 2018. If review and approval takes longer than expected, we may have to extend these deadlines, as we do not expect authors to begin to draft opinions until after the publisher has accepted the proposal for publication.
See below the fold for the list of proposed cases.
The American Inns of Court invites judges, lawyers, professors, students, scholars, and other authors to participate in the competition. Please submit an original, unpublished, essay of 10,000 to 20,000 words on a topic of your choice addressing issues of legal excellence, civility, ethics, and professionalism. The author of the winning essay will receive a cash prize of $5,000. The essay will be published in the South Carolina Law Review. The prize will be presented to the recipient at the American Inns of Court annual Celebration of Excellence at the Supreme Court of the United States. Submissions are due July 1, 2018.
Yale, Stanford, and Harvard Law Schools are soliciting submissions for the 19th session of the Yale/Stanford/Harvard Junior Faculty Forum, to be held at Harvard Law School on June 13-14, 2018. Twelve to twenty junior scholars (with one to seven years in teaching) will be chosen, through a blind selection process, to present their work at the Forum. One or more senior scholars will comment on each paper. The audience will include the participating junior faculty, faculty from the host institutions, and invited guests. The goal of the Forum is to promote in-depth discussion about particular papers and more general reflections on broader methodological issues, as well as to foster a stronger sense of community among American legal scholars, particularly by strengthening ties between new and veteran professors.
TOPICS: Each year the Forum invites submissions on selected topics in public and private law, legal theory, and law and humanities topics, alternating loosely between public law and humanities subjects in one year, and private law and dispute resolution in the next. For the upcoming 2018 meeting, the topics will cover these areas of the law:
- Administrative Law - Constitutional Law—theoretical foundations - Constitutional Law—historical foundations - Criminal Law - Critical Legal Studies - Environmental Law - Family Law - Jurisprudence and Philosophy - Law and Humanities - Legislation and Statutory Interpretation - Public International Law - Race/Gender Studies/Antidiscrimination - Workplace Law and Social Welfare Policy
A jury of accomplished scholars, not necessarily from Yale, Stanford, or Harvard, will choose the papers to be presented. There is no publication commitment. Yale, Stanford, or Harvard will pay presenters' and commentators' travel expenses, though international flights may be only partially reimbursed.
The University of Detroit Mercy Law Review is pleased to announce its annual academic Symposium to be held on March 23, 2018 at University of Detroit Mercy School of Law. It is titled: The Return of Sanctuary Cities: The Muslim Ban, Hurricane Maria, and Everything in Between.
This Symposium will contemplate a broad range of issues associated with Sanctuary Cities – presentations may focus on a specific era – past, present, or future – or may discuss a subject through the past, present and propose future solutions. Presentation topics could include, but are not limited to:
• The potential consequences of Trump’s immigration policies (including the Muslim Ban); • The ability or inability of Trump and ICE to carry out these immigration policies; • The constitutionality of Trump’s and ICE’s policies and actions; • The efficacy of Program 287(g) and the potential consequences thereof; • The impact of the Countering Violent Extremism (“CVE”) program; • The efficacy of states’ Sanctuary legislation, like (pro) California and (anti) Texas; • The ability or inability of cities and states to provide protection to undocumented citizens; • The rights that undocumented citizens, particularly youth, should enjoy; • Strategies and policies that cities and states can adopt to protect their undocumented citizens; • The potential benefits or consequences for cities and states who adopt Sanctuary laws; • The consequences for the changes made to the DACA program and possible solutions; and • The position that SCOTUS would take on these issues, including existing legislation & DACA.
The Law Review invites interested individuals to submit an abstract for an opportunity to present at the Symposium. Those interested should send an abstract of 300-400 words that details their proposed topic and presentation. Included with the abstract should be the presenter’s name, contact information, and a copy of their resume/curriculum vitae.
Since the above list of topics is nonexhaustive, the Detroit Mercy Law Review encourages all interested parties to develop their own topic to present at the Symposium. In addition, while submitting an article for publication is not required to present at the Symposium, the Law Review encourages all speakers who are selected to submit a piece for publication in the 2018-2019 edition of the Law Review.
The deadline for abstract submissions is December 3, 2017. Individuals selected to present at the Symposium will be contacted by December 10, 2017. Law Review editorial staff will contact those selected for publication in 2018 regarding details and deadlines for full-length publication. The submissions, and any questions regarding the Symposium or the abstract process, should be directed to Law Review Symposium Director, Jessica Gnitt at firstname.lastname@example.org. Please cc the Detroit Mercy Law Review Editor-in-Chief, Matthew Tapia, at email@example.com.
California Western School of Law invites proposals for its Gender Sidelining Symposium to be held April 26-27, 2018 in San Diego, California. The symposium will bring together legal academics, practicing lawyers, business leaders, judges, and others to discuss subtle yet pernicious forms of unequal treatment that often are not actionable under anti-discrimination or other laws, but that nonetheless may hinder the ability of women to advance in their respective professions. We refer to this unequal treatment as Gender Sidelining. There are a myriad of behaviors, policies, and practices that lead to this phenomenon of Gender Sidelining that the law does not (and arguably should not) proscribe, but which still require solutions.
The Symposium will begin with a panel discussion that will provide the relevant context and background for the concept of Gender Sidelining, followed by a dinner and remarks by a panel of highly respected judges who will provide their thoughts and insights regarding this topic. The second day will include lunch and a keynote address by American University Washington College of Law Dean Camille Nelson, a well-respected and widely published scholar who focuses on gender inequality. The second day will also include three salon-style sessions, in which a primary anchor will discuss their work in conjunction with others who will provide commentary and response. Finally, the Symposium will conclude with a final reception and rap session, where participants will be encouraged to share their reflections in an open discussion.
In seeking to explore this Gender Sidelining phenomenon, we invite proposals for three interactive salon-style sessions surrounding the themes of Employment, Entrepreneurship/Business, and Popular Culture. Interested participants also are free to suggest other salon session topics that are consistent with the Symposium’s broader theme. Each individual submitting a proposal should indicate the following: (1) whether you would like to serve as a primary anchor for one of the themed salon-style sessions or (2) have an interest in providing commentary in one of the themed salons.
Proposals should be submitted to firstname.lastname@example.org no later than November 17, 2017, and include an abstract that indicates the specific themed salon session of interest, the presenter’s proposed role (primary anchor or commentator), a description of the presenter’s research/expertise, and a CV. We also welcome proposals that are fully developed in terms of a primary anchor and commentators. Please include “Gender Sidelining Symposium” in your email subject line. Questions should be directed to Prof. Jessica Fink at email@example.com. More complete descriptions of the salon sessions appear below.
Employment: Women in the workplace often face obstacles which may impede their advancement and success, but which may not – without more – provide grounds for legal action. For example, women are significantly under-represented in positions of leadership and power across professional sectors; they often are not given adequate credit or recognition for their work; they may find their voices silenced in meetings with their male peers; they may lack appropriate mentors or other professional guidance. While such barriers and slights, standing alone, generally will not rise to the level of being legally actionable, the aggregation of these incidents leads to egregious inequality in the workplace that begs solutions. In this salon, participants will contribute to a vibrant discussion on this visible, yet often unactionable, inequality in employment contexts like academia, the military, religious institutions, law enforcement, law, medicine, and beyond.
Entrepreneurship and Business: The news has been replete of late with stories of sexism at tech startups and reports finding gender bias in business funding, especially in the world of venture capital. For this salon, we invite contributions to a discussion about how gender sidelining plays a role in business and entrepreneurship. How does gender impact decisions about which entrepreneurs are funded, which markets are “disrupted,” or who is appointed to boards of directors and other leadership positions? How might these decisions affect both women in the business world and women as consumers? How do issues of intersectionality complicate this analysis? And is there a role for the law to play in addressing these issues, which are traditionally left to the market to sort out? Ideally this salon will feature a mix of academics, practitioners, and business leaders.
Popular Culture: Popular culture often contributes to narratives that displace women and make them secondary in status to men within the collective imagination. From sports, to movies, to mainstream news and music, popular culture reproduces cultural norms, practices, and narratives that allow women to be overlooked and disregarded. Proposals that address the relationship between popular culture and gender sidelining might consider any of the following questions: How does mainstream news media coverage overlook the contributions of women politicians, lawyers, judges, and businesswomen, or subject them to different standards than men? How are women athletes and other women in entertainment exposed to unequal conditions due to gender sidelining? How do pop culture portrayals of women politicians, athletes, professionals, and artists create barriers that prevent or discourage women from entering these fields, or make it difficult for women within these fields to advance? Is there a role for the law to mitigate any of these issues?
Hannah Brenner Leslie Culver Jessica Fink Catherine Hardee India Thusi Daniel Yeager