Faculty News
-
Prof. Meili Presents Research on Constitutionalized Human Rights Law in Germany, the U.K., and the U.S.
June 17, 2019Over the past three weeks, Professor Stephen Meili has presented his research on the constitutionalization of human rights law at conferences and workshops sponsored by the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (Heidelberg), the Refugee Law Initiative at the University of London, Queen Mary University (London), the Law & Society Association (Washington, D.C.), and the Latin American Studies Association (Boston). Meili’s research is part of a long term comparative project funded by the University of Minnesota’s Grand Challenges Research Initiative that looks at the circumstances under which constitutionalized human rights law offers protection to refugees and asylum-seekers beyond that which is provided under international law. Professor Meili’s recent presentations focused on his research in Mexico, which is in the vanguard of countries where lawyers frequently invoke constitutionalized human rights law in their representation of refugees and asylum-seekers from Central America and Venezuela. His research on Mexico will be published in the forthcoming issue of the Harvard Human Rights Journal.
-
Prof. Cotter Quoted by Reuters on Huawei/Verizon Patent Dispute
June 14, 2019Professor Tom Cotter was quoted in a Reuters article titled “Explainer: Why is Huawei seeking $1 billion patent deal with Verizon?” “It was possible Huawei executives believe Verizon has been infringing their U.S. patents for some time but for business reasons waited until now to seek compensation,” Cotter said. “Patent owners ‘may not enforce their patents for a period of time, but they can choose do to so whenever they want to. It happens all the time.’”
-
Prof. Turoski Joins Amicus Brief in U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Supporting Petition for Rehearing En Banc in Patent Case
June 7, 2019Prof. Turoski joined the Brief of Amici Curiae Law Professors in Support of Combined Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc in DODOCASE VR, INC. fka Dodocase, Inc., v. MERCHSOURCE, LLC, DBA Sharper Image in the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.
The brief explains that Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653 (1969) should apply with equal strength to contracts barring AIA Trial Challenges by the licensee: “The panel’s sweeping elevation of boilerplate forum selection clause language is contrary to Congress’s clear intent to allow and even facilitate licensee validity challenges before the PTAB. Lear requires courts to consider the exceptionally important patent policy interests in validity challenges. Because the panel failed to engage in any such consideration and ignored binding precedent, this Court should grant rehearing to correct the error.”
-
Prof. McGeveran Tells MarketWatch About Value of Personal Data
June 6, 2019Dow Jones MarketWatch interviewed Prof. William McGeveran, an expert on data privacy, about the law’s struggle to define the monetary value of individual personal data and the harm caused when it is mishandled. As he summarized the difficult question: “Are privacy invasions wrong just because? Or are they only wrong when something bad happens as a result?”
-
Prof. Hickman Cited by U.S. Supreme Court
June 6, 2019Prof. Kristin Hickman’s Administrative Law Treatise, co-authored with Prof. Richard J. Pierce, Jr., was cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in Azar v. Allina Health Services, No. 17-1484 (June 3, 2019). The case concerned whether the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services failed to satisfy statutory procedural requirements when it published on its website, without public notice and comment, a new policy that changed the calculation method for, and significantly reduced, Medicare payments to hospitals. Invalidating the agency’s new policy for its lack of notice and comment, the Court cited Profs. Hickman and Pierce for the proposition that “[n]otice and comment gives affected parties fair warning of potential changes in the law and an opportunity to be heard on those changes—and it affords the agency a chance to avoid errors and make a more informed decision.”
-
Law360 Quotes Prof. Cotter on Google, Amazon Antitrust Probes
June 5, 2019A June 4, 2019 Law360 article titled Don’t Read Too Much Into Feds’ Google, Amazon Probes discusses the recent announcement that the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division have “agreed to divvy up their antitrust scrutiny of Amazon and Google,” but also notes that “experts caution that doesn’t necessarily mean any major investigation or enforcement is forthcoming.” The article quotes Professor Thomas Cotter, who stated that “there’s a fact-gathering process” before launching a formal investigation.
-
Prof. Ní Aoláin Quoted by Reuters on Practice of Sending Suspected Foreign Islamic State Fighters to Iraq for Trial
June 3, 2019Professor Fionnuala Ní Aoláin was quoted by Reuters in an article on transferring suspected foreign Islamic State fighters captured by U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces in Syria to stand trial in Iraq. “The sub-contraction of trials … to an ill-resourced, under-funded, ill-equipped criminal justice system in Iraq can only be described as an abrogation of responsibility,” said Ní Aoláin, the U.N. special rapporteur for human rights while countering terrorism.
-
Prof. Turoski Presents Research on the Patent Landscape of the Gut Microbiome
June 3, 2019Prof. Turoski and Dr. Anil K. Sharma ’19 presented their research on the patent landscape of the gut microbiome at the IFT Scientific Program Deep Dive: Gut Microbiome, Nutrition, and Health.
The research was presented at the Institute of Food Technologists IFT19 annual meeting, where the most creative minds dedicated to the science of food—including industry, government, and academia—come together with purpose to share and challenge one another with the latest research, innovative solutions, and forward thinking topics in food science and technology to tackle our greatest food challenges. With programming on topics from feeding the world to the future of food safety, IFT19 brings together the brightest minds in the science of food to shape the global food technology landscape in the years to follow. The event attracts nearly 17,000 attendees from around the world.
-
Prof. Hickman “Wins,” Declares Former IRS Official in Tax Notes
May 30, 2019Professor Kristin Hickman’s work has long criticized the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service for their regular practice of issuing temporary regulations interpreting the tax laws and binding taxpayers without first vetting those regulations through public notice and comment as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. The Treasury Department recently issued a new policy statement that promised to issue temporary regulations only when accompanied by a valid claim of good cause, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. Summarizing a panel discussion at a recent American Bar Association Tax Section meeting, a Tax Notes article (subscription required) quoted former IRS Chief Counsel William Wilkins as predicting that temporary regulations “would be exceedingly rare” under the new policy, acknowledging Prof. Hickman’s work, and observing that “she’s won.”
-
Prof. Hickman’s Article Debated by Sixth Circuit Panel
May 30, 2019Prof. Hickman’s article with Gerald Kerska ’17, Restoring the Lost Anti-Injunction Act, 103 U. Va. L. Rev. 1683 (2017), was quoted and cited in both the majority and dissenting opinions in CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 18-5019 (6th Cir. May 22, 2019). Like the article, the case concerned whether tax regulatory actions are exempted from pre-enforcement judicial review by a provision of the tax code known as the Anti-Injunction Act. Though ultimately disagreeing with the article’s conclusion, the majority opinion by Judge Eric Clay acknowledged, as Hickman and Kerska assert, that “courts lack an overarching theory” of how and when to apply the Anti-Injunction Act, leading to “jurisprudential chaos.” The dissenting opinion by Judge John Nalbandian cited Hickman and Kerska in arguing that the panel majority’s interpretation is in tension with Supreme Court precedent and will render many Treasury regulations and IRS guidance documents “effectively unreviewable,” thus erode “public confidence in the quality and legitimacy of agency action.”