BoleyBlogs!

UN Pulse – Dag Hammarskjöld Library Reference Weblog

From BarclayBlog, quoting Peter Scott’s blog (6/21/2005):

“Dag Hammarskjold Library has announced the creation of a new blog called UN Pulse: Connecting to UN Information. The blog focuses on just-released UN system-wide online information, major reports, publications and documents. Created and maintained by a team of reference librarians at the United Nations headquarters in New York, UN Pulse is updated as new information is published and received.”

SCOTUSblog: End of Term Statistics Analysis (pdf)

SCOTUSblog, in BoleyBlogs!’ esteemed opinion the indispensible blog for U.S. Supreme Court news and analysis, has today published their annual End of Term Statistics Analysis (pdf).

The analysis tracks a number of statistical markers for the current term, compares them to previous High Court terms, and notes any trends and conclusions to be drawn from the data.

There is plenty of interesting data for court watchers here, including this nugget which may have been missed by many tracking this court case-by-case:

The Court’s conservative majority (WHR, SOC, AS, AMK, CT) held together in only 4 of 20 (20%) of the 5-4 cases this Term. This represents a notable drop from the previous two terms, when the conservative majority held together in nearly half of the 5-4 cases, and a departure from the relatively higher levels of coherence observed in previous years of the Rehnquist Court. [page 1]

The editors of BoleyBlogs! are particularly interested in the following bit of data, though their usually keen legal minds and cat-like reflexes are not quite sure what to make of it:

Justice Stevens dissented alone in 3 cases. Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas dissented alone only once. The remaining justices had no solo dissents during the Term. [page 3]

Perhaps working our way through the ten various opinions, concurrences and dissents in the Ten Commandments cases (Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU) have blurred our super-legal powers for the week. Regardless, we recommend this fine end-o’-term analysis from the good folks at Goldstein & Howe, P.C.

EFF: Legal Guide for Bloggers

During BoleyBlogs! most recent boleybreak, the hard working attorneys at the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) posted this rich Legal Guide for Bloggers. Topics covered in the FAQ format include: general legal liability issues for bloggers, intellectual property, online defamation law, web host protection, privacy, reporter’s privelege and media access, and specialized FAQs on election and labor law.

Start at the Table of Contents or jump right into this helpful Index of Questions.

Source: Robert Ambrogi’s LawSites (among many others)

The latest issue of Lewis & Clark Law School’s Lewis & Clark Law Review is now out.

Here are the articles published in Volume 9, Number 2 of Lewis & Clark Law Review, complete with links to the abstracts:

Article

• ARTICLE: Environmental Law Grows Up (More or Less), and What Science Can Do To Help by Carol M. Rose
• ARTICLE: Defining the Limits of Supplemental Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 by Michelle S. Simon
• ARTICLE: Toward A More Expansive Welfare Devolution Debate by Steven D. Schwinn
• ARTICLE: The Constitutional Limits To Court-Stripping by Michael J. Gerhardt
• ARTICLE: Same-Sex Marriage, the Constitution, and Congressional Power to Control Federal Jurisdiction by Martin H. Redish
• ARTICLE: Allegory From the Cave by Natasha T. Martin
• ARTICLE: Give the Little Guys Equal Opportunity at Trade Secret Protection by Jermaine S. Grubbs
• ARTICLE: Fashioning Protection by Julie P. Tsai
• ARTICLE: Are We Headed For A New Era In Religious Discrimination? by Allison C. Bizzano

New L&C Law Scholarship is a regular feature of BoleyBlogs! Here we announce new content from the Law Reviews of Lewis & Clark Law School, along with the latest publishing ventures of our own faculty, students and staff.

Allison C. Bizzano, Are We Headed For A New Era In Religious Discrimination?: A Closer Look At Locke V. Davey, 9 Lewis & Clark Law Review 469 (2005)

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Locke v. Davey permitted the State of Washington to exclude the study of devotional theology from its scholarship program. The Court found that such an exclusion did not violate the Free Exercise Clause. This Note discusses the reasoning followed by the Court and possible impacts of the decision.

(abstract from Lewis & Clark Law Review)

Julie P. Tsai, Fashioning Protection: A Note on the Protection of Fashion Designs in the United States, 9 Lewis & Clark Law Review 447 (2005)

Current United States law does not offer fashion designs protection against design piracy. This Note reviews the current state of intellectual property protection for fashion designs, contends that fashion designs should be protected, and proposes a viable option for fashion design protection in the United States.

(abstract from Lewis & Clark Law Review)

Jermaine S. Grubbs, Give the Little Guys Equal Opportunity at Trade Secret Protection: Why the “Reasonable Efforts” Taken by Small Businesses Should Be Analyzed Less Stringently, 9 Lewis & Clark Law Review 422 (2005)

The most important factor considered when determining the appropriateness of trade secret protection is whether the proposed trade secret owner made “reasonable efforts” to ensure the secrecy of the information on which she now seeks trade secret protection. This Comment suggests that the efforts made by a small business to ensure the secrecy of its information should be evaluated less stringently than the efforts made by large businesses. First, the author summarizes the current state of trade secret law and explains why small businesses need trade secret protection and why the evaluation method currently used is too harsh on small businesses. Then, the author details the standard of evaluation for “reasonable efforts” and discusses three cases where the efforts of small businesses were evaluated using the current, inflexible analysis, and severe unfairness resulted. This Comment next suggests a three-step analysis to effectively evaluate whether a small business made “reasonable efforts” to maintain the secrecy of the information. The three-step analysis is then applied to the three cases discussed previously. In conclusion, two potential criticisms to the suggested three-step analysis are addressed.

(abstract from Lewis & Clark Law Review)

Natasha T. Martin, Allegory From the Cave: A Story About A Mis-Educated Profession and the Paradoxical Prescription, 9 Lewis & Clark Law Review 382 (2005)

This Article reviews Ethical Ambition: Living a Life of Meaning and Worth, by Derrick Bell and juxtaposes Bell’s more contemporary critique of the legal profession and practice with the observations of Carter G. Woodson in The Mis-Education of the Negro. The author suggests that the contextual synchronicity of these two works has the potential to dramatically transform the faces of legal education and legal practice and encourage honesty in ethics discourse. In the author’s view, Bell and Woodson’s works are revolutionary in scope and provide the justification and the framework for a more self integrative law practice. The Article begins with a summary of Bell’s and Woodson’s works and demonstrates the connections between them in the context of humanizing the study and practice of law. It then places these works in the broader framework of the entire legal enterprise by offering an examination of the six principles Bell explores in Ethical Ambition and discussing how each principle can contribute to the author’s proposed blueprint for change. The author then addresses some of the practical constraints of implementing a self-integration perspective into law school curricula and legal practice, and attempts to respond to some of the more poignant questions regarding the recommended paradigm. The Article concludes by highlighting the tremendous benefits to be realized if one acknowledges Woodson’s insights and utilizes Bell’s principles as beacons to creating a new framework for training lawyers and engaging in the ethical practice of law.

(abstract from Lewis & Clark Law Review)

Martin H. Redish, Same-Sex Marriage, the Constitution, and Congressional Power to Control Federal Jurisdiction: Be Careful What You Wish For, 9 Lewis & Clark Law Review 364 (2005)

This Article is part of a colloquy between Professor Michael J. Gerhardt and Professor Martin Redish about the constitutionality of court-stripping measures. Court-stripping measures are laws restricting federal court jurisdiction of particular subject matters. In particular, Professor Redish discusses the “outer limits of congressional power” to restrict federal courts’ power to hear suits relating to the constitutionality of government prohibition or regulation of same-sex marriage. Professor Redish argues that there are constitutional limits on congressional power in three circumstances: (1) when Congress uses its power to attempt to resolve substantive constitutional questions; (2) when Congress targets its authority at minorities seeking access to the federal courts; and (3) when Congress attempts to remove particular constitutional questions from adjudication in both federal and state courts. He concludes that Congress may remove adjudication of an asserted constitutional right to same-sex marriage from the purview of the federal courts. However, he suggests that this result may have very mixed political consequences for those who support adoption of such restrictions.

(abstract from Lewis & Clark Law Review)

Michael J. Gerhardt, The Constitutional Limits To Court-Stripping, 9 Lewis & Clark Law Review 347 (2005)

This Article is part of a colloquy between Professor Michael J. Gerhardt and Professor Martin Redish about the constitutionality of court-stripping measures. Court-stripping measures are laws restricting federal court jurisdiction over particular subject matters. In particular, the authors discuss the constitutionality of the Marriage Protection Act of 2004. Professor Gerhardt argues that the Act is unconstitutional and threatens to destroy the principles of separation of powers, federalism and due process. It prevents Supreme Court review of Congressional action and hinders the uniformity and finality of constitutional law. Furthermore, the Act violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause as it burdens a suspect class (gays and lesbians) by restricting their access to the federal courts.

(abstract from Lewis & Clark Law Review)