June 15, 2021
In his dissent in Borden v. United States (decided June 10, 2021), Justice Brett Kavanaugh cited Professor Francis Shen’s law review article, Sorting Guilty Minds. The case involved interpretation of the required mens rea in the Armed Career Criminal Act, and Justice Kavanaugh cited Professor Shen’s article when discussing the often blurry line between “reckless” and “knowing” mental states. The article, co-authored with colleagues from the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience, is part of Professor Shen’s extensive work at the intersection of psychology, neuroscience, and criminal mental states.
Prof. Turoski Serves as Symposia Chair of Chemistry and the Law Workshop at American Chemical Society's Great Lakes Regional MeetingJune 14, 2021
Professor Chris Turoski served as symposia chair of the Chemistry and the Law Workshop at the American Chemical Society’s Great Lakes Regional Meeting 2021. Elevating the importance of diversity and inclusion in chemistry was a meeting theme. Turoski led an interactive discussion about intellectual property.
June 9, 2021
Professor Caleb Smith was quoted discussing the Treasury’s “green book” proposals to Congress modifying how IRC 6751 applies to tax penalties. IRC 6751 is a provision that requires “supervisory approval” before most tax penalties can be assessed. While agreeing that changes to the statutory language are needed, Professor Smith explained how he believes the proposed changes could negatively effect low-income taxpayers.
May 25, 2021
A May 24, 2021 Bloomberg Law article titled Apple Points to IP in Bid to Defeat an Epic Antitrust Claim discusses Apple’s efforts to defeat one of the antitrust claims plaintiff Epic has raised in a high-stakes antitrust lawsuit against the smartphone maker. More specifically, Epic claims that federal antitrust law requires Apple to permit competing app distributors like Epic to have access to Apple’s iOs platform as an “essential facility,” even though the platform incorporates some IP-protected features. The article quotes Professor Tom Cotter as stating, among other things, that “Generally we don’t impose a duty under U.S. law to share or license your intellectual property,” but that “it’s probably an overstatement to say that there could never possibly be a viable claim under the essential facilities doctrine, even if we are dealing with intellectual property.”
May 20, 2021
Prof. Kristin Hickman was quoted in an article for Bloomberg’s Daily Tax Report, “Supreme Court Seen as Opening Door to More Tax Guidance Lawsuits,” discussing the Supreme Court’s decision in CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service. The court in that case uanimously interpreted the Internal Revenue Code’s Anti-Injunction Act as allowing judicial review of pre-enforcement challenges against Treasury and IRS rules and regulations for violating the Administrative Procedure Act. Prof. Hickman was quoted as acknowledging that the decision would prompt more taxpayers to bring such challenges, but also as contending that Justice Kagan’s opinion for the court left unanswered questions. Prof. Hickman filed amicus briefs supporting the taxpayers at various stages of the litigation, and the court cited one of her articles — “Restoring the Lost Anti-Injunction Act,” 103 Va. L. Rev. 1683 (2017) (with Gerald Kerska (‘17)) — as part of its analysis.
May 17, 2021
Prof. Kristin Hickman’s article with Gerald Kerska (‘17), Restoring the Lost Anti-Injunction Act, 103 Va. L. Rev. 1683 (2017), was cited by Justice Elena Kagan for a unanimous United States Supreme Court in CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 19-930 (Sup. Ct. May 17, 2021). The case concerned whether a lawsuit challenging an IRS Notice for failing to comply with Administrative Procedure Act requirements was barred by a provision in the Internal Revenue Code known as the Anti-Injunction Act. The article, and a subsequent amicus brief filed by Hickman in the case, offered extensive statutory and historical analysis in favor of reading the Anti-Injunction Act narrowly to allow the taxpayer’s case to proceed. The unanimous Supreme Court decided the case in the taxpayer’s favor.
ALI membership approves Compliance project, including Professor Hill's chapter on compliance risk management, at 2021 annual meeting.May 17, 2021
On May 17, 2021, the ALI membership approved the final chapters of Principles of Compliance and Enforcement for Organizations, thus giving its approval to the project. Professor Claire Hill was an associate reporter on the project, principally responsible for the chapter on compliance risk management.
May 12, 2021
Professor Jill Hasday testified in support of legislation to prohibit employers from asking job applicants about their pay history.
May 3, 2021
Professsor Maria Ponomarenko spoke with CBS News Minnesota about the doctrine of qualified immunity, which shields officers from liability when they violate constitutional rights. Ponomarenko explained that although originally intended to provide officers with a bit of leeway when acting in fast-moving situations, it has over the years become a substantial obstacle to accountability: ”in practice it means that lots and lots of victims never recover … [and] there aren’t enough incentives for departments to reform.”
April 29, 2021
Minnesota Lawyer recently profiled Professor JaneAnne Murray in its “Breaking the Ice” feature. She discussed her clemency and compassionate release work, as well as sharing her thoughts and insights on a variety of other topics.