Washington College of Law
     
Home

Announcements

Congratulations to the Volume 66 Editorial Board!

Welcome to the Volume 66 Junior Staff!

We're honored to have an article from Volume 63 cited in the Supreme Court's decision, Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., holding that disparate-impact claims may be brought under the Fair Housing Act.

Federal Circuit Issue

Federal Circuit Issue

The American University Law Review is the only law review in the country to publish an issue exclusively dedicated to the Federal Circuit.  Each year, practitioners and academics provide a synopsis of the Federal Circuit's caseload from the previous year in five major areas of the court's jurisdiction:  patent law, trademark law, government contracts, international trade, and veterans' benefits.  Click here to learn more.

The 2016 Federal Circuit Symposium, "Reviewability of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's Decision to Institute Post-Grant Proceedings" was held on March 24, 2016, at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  This year's Federal Circuit Issue is forthcoming in Spring 2016.

Symposium Issue

Symposium Issue

Our Annual Symposium was titled "Taxing Remote Sales in the Digital Age."  The keynote speaker was Heidi Heitkamp, United States Senator for North Dakota.  It was held on Friday, November 13, 2015, at the law offices of Jones Day.  Click here for more information.

This year's Symposium Issue is forthcoming in Spring 2016.

 

Current Issue, Volume 65.3

Ribbon-Cutting Ceremony: Keynote Address

By The Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsburg | 65 Am. U. L. Rev. 525 (2016)

On February 12, 2016, the Washington College of Law celebrated the opening of its new Tenley Campus.  During the Ribbon-Cutting Ceremony, we were honored to receive a keynote address from Associate U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Click here to view this Keynote Address

 
Ribbon-Cutting Ceremony Remarks: President Kerwin

By Dr. Cornelius “Neil” M. Kerwin | 65 Am. U. L. Rev. 529 (2016)

On February 12, 2016, the Washington College of Law celebrated the opening of its new Tenley Campus.  During the Ribbon-Cutting Ceremony, we were honored to receive an address from American University President Neil Kerwin. 

Click here to view these Remarks

 
Ribbon-Cutting Ceremony Remarks: Dean Grossman

By Claudio M. Grossman | 65 Am. U. L. Rev. 531 (2016) 

On February 12, 2016, the Washington College of Law celebrated the opening of its new Tenley Campus.  During the Ribbon-Cutting Ceremony, we were honored to receive an address from Washington College of Law Dean Claudio Grossman.  

Click here to view these Remarks

 
ESSAY: The Court and the Cannonball: An Inside Look

By Lee Levine and Stephen Wermiel | 65 Am. U. L. Rev. 607 (2016)

As lawsuits over the right of publicity proliferate among athletes and other celebrities, there is renewed interest, by litigants and judges alike, in the one decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that addresses a tort action arising from a “publicity” related claim, Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.  Although the 1977 ruling is often cited as holding that the right of publicity tort survives constitutional scrutiny under the First Amendment, an examination of the case and of the Supreme Court Justices’ available papers shows that the Court did not view the case as presenting the type of claim that has become prevalent today.

The Zacchini case involved a human cannonball act in which a television station filmed and broadcast the entire fifteen-second performance of Hugo Zacchini being shot from a cannon to a landing pad.  The Supreme Court rejected the television station’s First Amendment defense that it had a right to broadcast the act on a newscast because the performance itself constituted a matter of public interest.

For the Supreme Court, the internal papers indicate the case was about the right of a performer/producer to control the display of his entire act.  The Court was not focused on the more contemporary claim that athletes, celebrities, and others have a right to control the use by anyone else, especially for commercial purposes, of their name or their visual image.  Nor did the Court’s ruling address the First Amendment issue raised in contemporary cases when a name or likeness is used in a creative work or other public communication.

Click here to view this Essay

As lawsuits over the right of publicity proliferate among athletes and other celebrities, there is renewed interest, by litigants and judges alike, in the one decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that addresses a tort action arising from a “publicity” related claim, Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.  Although the 1977 ruling is often cited as holding that the right of publicity tort survives constitutional scrutiny under the First Amendment, an examination of the case and of the Supreme Court Justices’ available papers shows that the Court did not view the case as presenting the type of claim that has become prevalent today.

The Zacchini case involved a human cannonball act in which a television station filmed and broadcast the entire fifteen-second performance of Hugo Zacchini being shot from a cannon to a landing pad.  The Supreme Court rejected the television station’s First Amendment defense that it had a right to broadcast the act on a newscast because the performance itself constituted a matter of public interest.

For the Supreme Court, the internal papers indicate the case was about the right of a performer/producer to control the display of his entire act.  The Court was not focused on the more contemporary claim that athletes, celebrities, and others have a right to control the use by anyone else, especially for commercial purposes, of their name or their visual image.  Nor did the Court’s ruling address the First Amendment issue raised in contemporary cases when a name or likeness is used in a creative work or other public communication.
 
Juvenile Life Without Parole in Law and Practice: Chronicling the Rapid Change Underway

By John R. Mills, Anna M. Dorn, and Amelia Courtney Hritz | 65 Am. U. L. Rev. 535 (2016) 

This Article provides a comprehensive examination of juvenile life without parole (“JLWOP”) both as a policy and in practice.  Beginning in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution restricts the reach of JLWOP sentences, first prohibiting it for non-homicide offenses, then proscribing its mandatory application for any offense, and, in 2016, clarifying that it may only be imposed in the rare instance in which a juvenile’s homicide demonstrates his or her “irreparable corruption.”  The legislative responses to these cases have been to either abandon or restrict JLWOP’s application.  These legislative changes undo aspects of the rapid expansion of harsh juvenile sentencing policies enacted across the country starting in the early-1990s and represent a trend away from using JLWOP sentences.

Read more...
 
COMMENT: Impermissive Counterclaims: Why Nonresident Plaintiffs Can Contest Personal Jurisdiction in Unrelated Countersuits

By Jon D. Bressler | 65 Am. U. L. Rev. 641 (2016) 

The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that fairness is the guiding principle in determining whether, by his activities, a defendant has submitted to personal jurisdiction in a particular forum.  However, this question has never been explicitly addressed with respect to unrelated counterclaims a defendant may bring against a plaintiff, where the plaintiff’s only connection to the forum is his litigation with the defendant.  While some have concluded that it would be fair to automatically subject a plaintiff to jurisdiction in the forum in which he chooses to sue, that conclusion is at odds with the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and modern understandings of fair play.  This Comment, therefore, argues that an original nonresident plaintiff should have the right to contest personal jurisdiction when a defendant brings an unrelated counterclaim against him.

Click here to view this Comment

 
COMMENT: Sweat Makes the Green Grass Grow: The Precarious Future of Qatar’s Migrant Workers in the Run Up to the 2022 FIFA World Cup Under The Kafala System and Recommendations for Effective Reform

By Paula Renkiewicz | 65 Am. U. L. Rev. 721 (2016)

Migrant labor in Qatar is increasing as Qatar makes preparations to host the 2022 FIFA World Cup.  Under the kafala system, Qatar’s sponsorship system, migrant workers must seek sponsorship to enter Qatar and be eligible to work.  As it stands, the kafala system places tremendous power in the hands of sponsors, giving them control over a migrant’s freedom to change employment or leave the country.  This imbalance of power subjects migrants to various forms of exploitation and furnishes conditions fit for human trafficking.  Human trafficking for the purpose of labor exploitation represents a large proportion of human trafficking cases.  The UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, is an international convention that requires a comprehensive international approach among state parties to prevent human trafficking, protect victims, and prosecute traffickers.  As a party, Qatar is required to uphold the UN Trafficking Protocol’s object and purpose.  This Comment argues that Qatar’s restrictive sponsorship system perpetuates human trafficking by exploiting migrant workers.  Qatar is violating its obligations under the UN Trafficking Protocol and, therefore, must reform its kafala system to comply with the Protocol’s mandates.  Given Qatar’s increasing reliance upon migrant labor for the 2022 World Cup preparations, Qatar must act promptly to protect the rights of migrant workers.

Click here to view this Comment

 
COMMENT: How Dramatic Shifts in Perceptions of Parenting Have Exposed Families, Free-Range or Otherwise, to State Intervention: A Common Law Tort Approach to Redefining Child Neglect

By David Manno | 65 Am. U. L. Rev. 675 (2016) 

Parenting norms have shifted dramatically in recent years, favoring overprotection over traditional notions of childhood independence.  This shift has permeated vague and overbroad legal standards governing child neglect, allowing parents to be held civilly and criminally liable despite the absence of harm to their children.  Indeed, parents who allow their children to remain unsupervised, whether as a lesson in independence or not, are at risk of removal based on subjective decision making processes that largely favor overprotection.  Because this shift conflates neglect with non-conformity, those who favor traditional notions of child-rearing are unlikely to implement their own parenting style out of fear of intervention.

Read more...
 

Welcome!

Thank you for visiting the American University Law Review website!  This site provides a central and convenient location to browse our volumes, preview forthcoming scholarship, and learn more about our publication.  Please send any questions or comments to lawrev@wcl.american.edu.

Founded in 1952, the Law Review is the oldest and largest student-run publication at the Washington College of Law and publishes six issues each year.  The Law Review is consistently ranked among the top fifty law journals in the nation and is the most-cited journal at WCL, according to the Washington and Lee University Law Library.

Rather than focus on a particular area of law, the Law Review publishes articles, essays, and student notes and comments on a broad range of issues.  Recent topics have included the Second Amendment right to bear arms; the Freedom of Information Act; electronic copyright infringement; attorney-client privilege; immigration law; international trade law; and many other timely legal issues.

The Law Review receives approximately 2,500 submissions annually and publishes articles from professors, judges, practicing lawyers, and renowned legal thinkers.  The Law Review has published articles or commentary by Supreme Court Chief Justices Warren Burger, William Rehnquist, and Earl Warren, as well as Associate Justices Hugo Black, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Arthur Goldberg.

Click here to learn more.

Forthcoming, Vol. 65.4

Federal Circuit Issue

The Honorable Alan D. Lourie:  Foreword

Jonathan Stroud:  NFC Technology LLC v. HTC America, Inc.:  Judge Bryson’s Sitting-By-Designation Guide to Securing Stays in Light of Inter Partes Reviews

Craig E. Countryman:  2015 Patent Decisions of the Federal Circuit

Kathleen Hsu:  2015 Survey of Government Contract Cases Before the Federal Circuit

Kevin J. Fandl:  2015 International Trade Decisions of the Federal Circuit

Linda K. McLeod and Lindsay B. Allen:  2015 Trademark Law Decisions of the Federal Circuit

Paul M. Schoenhard:  2015 Veterans Law Decisions of the Federal Circuit

Follow Us!

facebook twitter
linkedin Instagram Icon