The 2009-10 edition of the University of Louisville Law Alumni Magazine is now available.
- Entering Class and Career Statistics
- Dean's Reflections
- Student News
- Faculty and Administrative News
- Faculty Scholarship
- Honored Alumni
- Alumni Council Report
- Class Notes
- May 2010 Graduate Profiles
- Development News
Come karaoke with PALS!! We need votes for our Pepsi Grant, and what better way to get them than a karaoke party! Everyone is welcome! Invite all your friends!
When: Friday, June 11th from 5:30pm to 9:30pm
Where: Akiko's, 1123 Bardstown Rd Louisville, KY
Who is PALS? Rexéna Napier, Lauren Bean, Victoria Steinbach and Melissa McHendrix, four May graduates of the University of Louisville, Brandeis School of Law, have created Partnership for Animal Law Services (PALS). PALS plans to provide legal services and education to people in rural and urban areas of Kentucky focusing on the intervention and prevention of animal abuse and neglect. These services will empower clients and the public to build a compassionate community for all. PALS will take a grassroots approach by providing three main programs: general legal services, prosecution support, and education.
Why are we having a karaoke party? PALS is currently a candidate for a $50,000 Pepsi Refresh project grant. Pepsi is giving away over 1 million dollars each month to individuals striving to bring about social change. The public votes for the ideas they want to see happen, and those ideas get funded. Please help PALS by voting for us every day in June! You can vote at www.refresheverything.com/pals. If you want more information about PALS you can visit our website at www.animallawservices.org, or search for us on Facebook: Partnership for Animal Law Services.
Citizens United: The Aftermath
An Issue Brief by Monica Youn
ACS is pleased to distribute Citizens United: The Aftermath, an Issue Brief by Monica Youn, Counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School. In this Issue Brief, Ms. Youn examines the political impact of the Supreme Court's January 21, 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and outlines potential responses that, the author contends, "would buttress existing campaign finance safeguards from further attacks and mitigate some of the harmful effects of [the decision]." In Citizens United, the Court held that limitations on corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections violate the First Amendment, striking down a significant portion of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act. Ms. Youn contends that the 5-4 decision represents an undermining of precedent with potentially grave consequences:
By holding, for the first time, that corporations have the same First Amendment rights to engage in political spending as people, the Supreme Court re-ordered the priorities in our democracy -- placing special interest dollars at the center of our democracy, and displacing the rightful role of voters.
Ms. Youn proposes a variety of responses to the decision. In the short term, the author recommends a legislative response that includes enactment of stop-gap measures (such as shareholder consent and increased corporate disclosure requirements) and larger structural reforms (such as public financing and voter registration modernization). However, in the longer term, Ms. Youn recommends closer attention to the Judiciary and judicial nominations:
[I]n the long term, reclaiming the First Amendment for the voters will be the best weapon against those who seek to use the First Amendment for the good of the few, rather than for the many. Judges whose conception of the First Amendment takes account of the interests of voters can speed this process. As the nation seeks a successor to Justice Stevens, we hope that his successor advances a vision of a democratic, deliberative, and voter-centric First Amendment.
PALS is currently a candidate for a $50,000 Pepsi Refresh project grant. Pepsi is giving away over 1 million dollars each month to individuals striving to bring about social change. The public votes for the ideas they want to see happen, and those ideas get funded. Please help PALS by voting for us every day in June! You can vote at www.refresheverything.com/pals. If you want more information about PALS you can visit our website at www.animallawservices.org, or search for us on Facebook: Partnership for Animal Law Services. Thanks for your votes!!
Five students from the Central High School Law & Government Magnet competed at the Marshall-Brennan National Civil Liberties Moot Court Competition in Philadelphia on March 20-21, 2010. Keylandance Carpenter, Tevin Payne, Barbie Parker, Corey Thomas and Gabriel Vaughn represented Central and achieved incredible success in the tournament.
Both Barbie Parker and Gabe Vaughn, reached the semi-final round of the competition, which placed each of them among the 16 most outstanding competitors in the entire nation on the side of the case they argued. Teams came from all over the country, representing Marshall-Brennan programs from Washington, D.C., to Phoenix, and from Boston to Baton Rouge. Parker’s semi-final round performance left her just barely short of qualifying for the national finals, which would have placed her among the top four students in the entire competition.
The team was coached by Brandeis School of Law students Noelle Rao and Duffy Trager, who accompanied the team to Philadelphia. Both were third-year students who taught at Central in the Marshall-Brennan program this year as part of the Brandeis School of Law’s Signature Partnership with Central, working with Joe Gutmann, the Law & Government program’s long-time teacher. Noelle and Duffy were joined in Philadelphia by law school professor and Marshall-Brennan faculty supervisor Sam Marcosson, who also helped coach the students as they prepared for the competition.
“Barbie and Gabe’s performances in particular were terrific,” Marcosson said. “They proved that our Central students can compete with the very best students from around the country. And all five students worked hard to prepare, and impressed the judges with their knowledge of the law, the facts of the cases, and ability to deal with tough questions. They did a great job, and I couldn’t be prouder of them.”
"The Prop 8 Court Can Have it All: Justice, Precedent, Respect for Democracy, and an Appropriately Limited Judicial Role"Posted June 1st, 2010 by Virginia Mattingly
ACS is pleased to distribute The Prop 8 Court Can Have it All: Justice, Precedent, Respect for Democracy, and an Appropriately Limited Judicial Role, an Issue Brief by Rebecca L. Brown, Newton Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law. In this Issue Brief, Professor Brown discusses Perry v. Schwarzenegger, in which the United States District Court for the Northern District of California is considering whether the United States Constitution requires states to permit marriage between individuals of the same sex. While strong arguments may very well exist for a broad ruling, Professor Brown suggests that the case might also lend itself to a more modest resolution of the claims raised. Proposition 8 was a ballot initiative that originated as a reaction to a California Supreme Court decision interpreting California's Constitution as requiring the state to permit same-sex couples to marry; Proposition 8 subsequently added to the California Constitution a provision that "[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." After extensive analysis of case law, the author concludes that the United States Constitution's Equal Protection jurisprudence dictates that Proposition 8 be struck down, since "[a]ny legislation must have a public purpose other than stigmatization," and "no public purpose that could plausibly be served by this retroactive reduction in status has been offered to dispel the usual inference that any act of stigmatization is a violation of the state's obligation to legislate impartially."
While a decision along these lines would not touch upon the breadth of the fundamental right to marry, Professor Brown suggests that this modest resolution of Perry "would fulfill the best expectations we have of the federal judicial role, to resolve the case on strong, unassailable, time-honored, and yet narrow, grounds."
As the author argues:
A ruling of the kind I will advocate would not be an act of minimalism, but neither would it be an act of maximalism. Rather, this would be an exercise in judicial optimalism -- using good judgment to determine just how much judicial intervention is necessary to vindicate the core and essential purposes of the judicial role, without unnecessarily diverting the course of more widespread social and political movements that are at the heart of healthy and lasting legal change.
- 1st place $1,000 (and possible publication in Kentucky Bench & Bar)
- 2nd place $300
- 3rd place $200
Entries must be received no later than June 1, 2010.
Click here to access the document.
On May 25, 2010, members of the law school community gathered at Central High School's library to celebrate the accomplishments of the Central High School Law Magnet Program. Professor Laura Rothstein, with the assistance of Jina Scinta and Principal Dan Withers, conducted the ceremony.
Renowned portrait artist, Robert Shetterly unveiled reproductions of two paintings from his Americans Who Speak the Truth Collection. He shared quotes from both Justice Louis D. Brandeis and Representative John Lewis during his discussion about the essential principles of a democracy.
Following his remarks, Joe Gutmann, Central High School Law and Government Magnet Coordinator, presented awards to the program's outstanding students. Professor Sam Marcosson and Noelle Rao, '10 both received awards and standing ovations from the participants. Mary Jo Gleason, Coordinator of the Junior Writing Skills Program, Scott Furkin, Executive Director of the Louisville Bar Association, and Emily Zahn, '08 were also recognized for their contributions.