Law Review Squared

Law Review Squared header image 1
February 15, 2021  

Hot Coffee For Law Day

Professor Michael Mogill joins the panel to discuss how he used Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, the famous 'hot coffee' case, at a Law Day presentation to explain how the jury system works. Other topics discussed include how to teach legal concepts to various non-lawyer/non-law student audiences ranging from children to senior citizens and challenges of teaching law in the time of COVID. 

Article: Michael A. Mogill, Teaching Law Day: A Senior Moment, 1 Stetson J. Advocacy & L. 34 (2014).

Guest: Michael Mogill

Host: Seth Trott

Panel: Schenley Kent, Jo Ann Fernando, Courtney Buechler, Nicole Signer, Tony Fernando

Audio: Mohammed Saleem

Producer: Tony Fernando

February 1, 2021  

Fortnite, the NFL, Dancing, and Copyright

The panel discusses an article that raises a hypothetical, what claim for an NFL player whose endzone dance is copied by a videogame. Join us for a wide ranging discussion that encompasses the constitution, TikTok, motivations for creative people, and more!

The article that was discussed was: Alex Avakiantz, Stealing Swagger: NFL End Zone Celebrations and Fortnite's Fortune,
94 Wash. L. REV. 453 (2019).

Host: Tony Fernando

Panel: Courtney Buechler, Seth Trott, Jo Ann Fernando

Audio: Mohammed Saleem

Producer: Tony Fernando

January 18, 2021  

The Morality of Grading on a Curve

Law school grades are curved. Why? What are they trying to measure? Do curved grades serve students? Employers? Are curved grades moral? The panel discusses these topics and more, after reading an article which presented a case study of a law school which changed its curve.

The article discussed was: Deborah Waire Post, "Power and Morality of Grading - A Case Study and a Few Critical Thoughts on Grade Normalization", 65 UMKC L. Rev. 777 (1997).

Host: Seth Trott

Panel: Schenley Kent, Tony Fernando, Jo Ann Fernando

Audio: Mohammed Saleem

Producer: Tony Fernando

January 4, 2021  

Snitches Get Stiches

What is the object of having an honor code or conduct code? Should law school honor codes have a "toleration clause", which requires a student who becomes aware of an honor code violation to report it? Should school codes be different than professional codes? Do the honor codes at the top law schools differ from the rest? The panel discusses this after having read:

Meredith C. Manuel, Snitches Get Stiches: Ditching the Toleration Clause in Law School Honor Codes, 33 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 703.

Host: Tony Fernando

Panel: Seth Trott, Jo Ann Fernando

Audio: Mohammed Saleem

Producer: Tony Fernando

December 21, 2020  

Handling Judicial Recusal at the Supreme Court

The panel is joined by our first guest-author, Associate Dean Bekah Saidman-Krauss! We discuss an article she wrote which analyzed a proposal by Senator Leahy (D-VT) to allow the Supreme Court to fill recusal based vacancies with retired Justices. The lower courts have mechanisms to replace a judge who recuses themselves, why doesn't the Supreme Court? What effect does not having a replacement mechanism have on their decision making?  

The article discussed is: Bekah Saidman-Krauss, A Second Sitting: Assessing the Constitutionality and Desirability of Allowing Retired Supreme Court Justices to Fill Recusal-Based Vacancies on the Bench. 116 Penn St. L. Rev 253 (2011).

Guest: Bekah Saidman-Krauss

Host: Tony Fernando

Panel: Schenley Kent, Seth Trott, Jo Ann Fernando

Audio: Mohammed Saleem

Producer: Tony Fernando

December 7, 2020  

Business Information and FOIA

The panel considers exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act which protects financial and business information. Does this create a right to privacy for corporations? Should business information be protected from disclosure, when the business is doing work for the government? 

The article discussed is: Jane E. Kirtley, Scott Memmel, and Jonathan Anderson, More Substantial Harm than Good: Recrafting FOIA's Exemption 4 after Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 46 Mitchell Hamline L. Rev 497.

Host: Tony Fernando

Panel: Nailah Graves-Manns, Seth Trott, Courtney Buechler

Audio: Mohammed Saleem

Producer: Tony Fernando

November 23, 2020  

Are abortions an essential medical service during a pandemic?

The panel discusses court responses to states imposing restrictions on abortion during the present COVID pandemic. Is medicine an area where public necessity can outweigh private rights? Does restricting abortion actually reduce the use of PPE? What are the ethics around using a public health emergency to advance an agenda? 

The article discussed is: B. Jessie Hill, ESSENTIALLY ELECTIVE: THE LAW AND IDEOLOGY OF
RESTRICTING ABORTION DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC, 106 Va. L. Rev. Online 99 (2020)

Host: Seth Trott

Panel: Tony Fernando, Courtney Buechler, Nailah Graves-Manns, Schenley Kent

Audio: Mohammed Saleem

Producer: Tony Fernando

November 9, 2020  

Election Litigation and the Supreme Court

While waiting to learn the outcome of the current election, our team looks back at Bush v. Gore and the decision making of the Supreme Court in the aftermath of the presidential election in the year 2000. Is a presidential candidate meaningfully harmed by being denied a recount? Do states rights over-ride federal interests? Should the Supreme Court grant certiorari to cases with flawed arguments? Also, our free sticker offer is still active!

The article discussed was: David A. Strauss, Bush v. Gore: What were they thinking? 68 U. Chicago L. Rev. 737 (2001).

Host: Seth Trott

Panel: Tony Fernando, Jo Ann Fernando

Audio: Mohammed Saleem

Producer: Tony Fernando 

October 26, 2020  

The Voting Rights Act after Shelby v. Holder

Just in time for the election, Schenley leads the panel in a discussion of Shelby v. Holder and the status of the Voting Rights Act. How pervasive should federal oversight of voting be? Also, instructions on how our listeners can get a free Law Review Squared sticker!

The article discussed was: Ellen D. Katz, Section 2 after Section 5: Voting Rights and the Race to the Bottom,
59 WM. & MARY L. REV. 1961 (2018).

Host: Schenley Kent

Panel: Tony Fernando, Seth Trott

Audio: Mohammed Saleem

Producer: Tony Fernando

October 12, 2020  

Tinkering with the Schoolhouse Gates

The panel discusses Tinker v. Des Moines, a foundational case regarding free speech for students, and subsequent developments. Is the current standard for free speech still applicable in an era of social media and online interactions?

The article discussed is: Stephen Wermiel, Tinkering with Circuit Conflicts Beyond the Schoolhouse Gate, 22 J. Const. L. 1135 (2020).

Host: Tony Fernando

Panel: Mohammed Saleem, Nailah, Graves-Manns, Schenley Kent, Seth Trott, Jo Ann Fernando 

Audio Postprocessing: Mohammed Saleem

Producer: Tony Fernando

Podbean App

Play this podcast on Podbean App