"Making Pregnancy Work: Overcoming the Pregnancy Discrimination Act's Capacity-Based Model" by Professor Joanna L. Grossman and Gillian Thomas was published in Yale Journal of Law & Feminism, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2009, Hofstra Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 09-10.

ABSTRACT:
This article considers the gaps and obstacles in current law faced by the pregnant woman whose job duties may conflict with pregnancy's physical effects. While there is no inherent conflict between pregnancy and work, women in physically strenuous or hazardous occupations, from nursing to law enforcement, routinely confront situations in which they are physically unable to perform aspects of their job or, though physically able, they seek to avoid certain tasks or situations because of the potential risks to maternal or fetal health. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA) broadly protects against "pregnancy discrimination," but it provides absolute rights only to the extent a pregnant woman is able to work at full capacity, uninterrupted by pregnancy's physical effects. To the extent that the law grants the pregnant worker with temporary physical limitations "affirmative" rights, such as the right to workplace accommodation, it is only on a comparative basis - that is, only to the extent those rights already are provided to "similarly situated" temporarily disabled employees. In this way, pregnancy continues to inhibit equal employment opportunity for millions of women, three decades after the PDA's passage.

After briefly examining the medical literature documenting the conflicts between pregnancy and certain kinds of work, as well as the law as applied to pregnant workers who are fully capable or fully incapable due to the effects of pregnancy or childbirth, we consider the predicament of women in physically demanding fields whose work capacity is partially diminished by pregnancy. We focus here on the problem of access to "light-duty" work - temporary alternative job assignments that accommodate the pregnant worker's limitations. Without such accommodation, the pregnant firefighter or home health care aide whose doctor directs her to avoid heavy lifting or other tasks is faced with a Hobson's choice: ignore medical advice and continue to perform all job duties, or stop working altogether, usually sacrificing wages and other benefits for several months. We describe the limits of the existing PDA framework for protecting these pregnant workers, and suggest litigation strategies for maximizing pregnant workers' rights under current law. These include re-framing the "similarly situated" analysis for disparate treatment challenges to light-duty policies, and exploring the untapped potential of the disparate impact theory in the light-duty context.

On Friday, February 13, 2009, Dean and Professor of Law Nora V. Demleitner participated in the 2009 J. Reuben Clark Law Society's annual conference at Harvard Law School.

Together with Pace McConkie, the Director of the Center for Civil Rights Education at Morgan State and Benji McMurray, a Supreme Court Fellow at the Sentencing Commission, Dean Demleitner spoke on the panel about The Impact of Sentencing Guidelines on Civil Rights.

Professor Charles Ogletree of Harvard Law School moderated. Dean Demleitner's remarks focused on the exceptionalism of the U.S. incarceration rate, which is due, in part to the excessive focus on "truth-in-sentencing" and the proliferation of post-release sanctions.

Professor Daniel JH Greenwood was quoted in the following Los Angeles Times article.

Pasadena-based plan for online university draws interest
By Raja Abdulrahim
Los Angeles Times
February 25, 2009

EXCERPT:
Hofstra University law professor Daniel Greenwood, one of a handful of professors helping Reshef shape the curriculum and structure, equated the idea to an academic version of Wikipedia, with the correct answer reached as a group rather than with one person providing the information.

To be admitted, students must have a high school diploma, access to the Internet and fluency in English. Instead of tuition, they would pay nominal fees for enrollment -- from $15 to $50 -- and exams -- from $10 to $100 -- with students from poorer countries paying the lower amounts.

Reshef anticipates opening in September with 300 students, to be admitted on a first-come, first-served basis. Initially, the university plans to offer only bachelor's degrees in business administration and computer science. He expects to apply for accreditation as soon as possible, he said.

Once the university has 10,000 students, it will be self-sustaining, he said. Until then, it needs $5 million to get started, $1 million of which Reshef said he is putting up himself. The rest will be raised.

Stefan Krieger, Professor of Law and Director Emeritus of Clinical Programs, was quoted in the following Newsday article.

Paterson plans to close Hempstead office for tenant aid
By Laura Rivera
Newsday
February 24, 2009

EXCERPT
Tenants of 10,400 rent-regulated apartments in Nassau will have to schlep to Queens to get to the nearest rent office if a proposal to shut down the Hempstead location goes through.

The offices help tenants file grievances about rent increases, evictions, and repair and maintenance.

Gov. David A. Paterson's proposed budget for the upcoming fiscal year has put three state housing agency offices on the chopping block - including the one at 50 Clinton St. - to save an estimated $500,000, an agency spokesman said.

Opponents of the closure called the savings a "drop in the bucket" in light of the gaping $14-billion deficit and worried that fewer area tenants would seek assistance if the local office is shuttered. Ultimately, advocates said, closing the offices means renters will be more likely to fall prey to unscrupulous landlords trying to force them out, decreasing the already limited stock of rent-stabilized units and putting more pressure on the state for affordable housing.

"You need to have a place where tenants can feel like they have an advocate," said Hofstra University law professor Stefan Krieger, director of the law reform advocacy clinic. "That's what you get with the district rent administration office."

Professor Eric M. Freedman, Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, was quoted in the following New York Times article.

Citing Cost, States Consider End to Death Penalty
By Ian Urbina
The New York Times
February 25, 2009

EXCERPT:
Since 1978, five people have been executed in Maryland, and five inmates are on death row.

Opponents of repealing capital punishment say such measures are short-sighted and will result in more crime and greater costs to states down the road. At a time when police departments are being scaled down to save money, the role of the death penalty in deterring certain crimes is more important than ever, they say.

“How do you put a price tag on crimes that don’t happen because threat of the death penalty deters them?” said Scott Shellenberger, the state’s attorney for Baltimore County, Md., who opposes the repeal bill.

Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, an organization in Sacramento that works on behalf of crime victims, called the anticipated savings a mirage. He added that with the death penalty, prosecutors can more easily offer life sentences in a plea bargain and thus avoid trial costs.

But Eric M. Freedman, a death penalty expert at Hofstra Law School, said studies had shown that plea bargaining rates were roughly the same in states that had the death penalty as in states that did not.

“It makes perfect sense that states are trying to spend their criminal justice budgets better,” he said, “and that the first place they look to do a cost-benefit analysis is the death penalty.”

Professor Daniel JH Greenwood is the subject of the video "How to Regulate Corporations for CO2" which is posted on SolveClimate.com, a "Daily Climate News and Opinion" website.

SolveClimate’s mission is to offer the proof and to shine a spotlight on leaders to make them accountable for solutions.

On February 10, 2009, John DeWitt Gregory, Sidney and Walter Siben Distinguished Professor of Family Law, participated in a Continuing Legal Education Program sponsored by the New York Women’s Bar Association, titled "A Primer on Companion Animal Law". The subjects addressed included Relationships Between Domestic Violence and Pet Abuse; Pet Housing Laws; and Death and Pet Trusts.

Professor Gregory shared the podium with Hon. Jaqueline W. Silberman, J.S.C. Retired, the former Administrative Judge for Matrimonial Matters who is currently of counsel, Blank Rome LLP. , on a panel devoted to Divorce and Pet Custody/Visitation. The focus of the discussion was on the treatment of pets in matrimonial decisions, and whether the best interest standard applicable to child custody and visitation decisions is appropriate in disputes involving pets or companion animals. Professor Gregory argued that the application of the best interest standard in such cases is entirely inappropriate, and that advocates will be better served by applying well developed principles of equitable distribution of property with which courts in matrimonial proceedings are intimately familiar. Simply stated, it is clear under existing law in all of the states that pets are property.

Professor Gregory’s participation in this program, a follow up to his recent involvement in a program on "Teen Animal Cruelty: Legal Issues and Practical Solutions" presented by the New York State Bar Association’s Committee on Animals and the Law, is in furtherance of his current research related to the intersection of family law and the rich and rapidly developing field of animal law.

Professor I. Bennett Capers has published "Policing, Race, and Place," 44 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 43 (2009).

ABSTRACT:
Most Americans live in neighborhoods and communities segregated along racial lines, and take this segregation for granted. To the extent they view their communities as racially segregated at all, they assume that this segregation is largely the result of individual choice, socio-economic status, or perhaps a remnant of de jure segregation. The ambition of this Article is to draw attention to a component of segregation that has been largely ignored: the significant role that criminal law and procedure have played, and continue to play, in maintaining racialized spaces.

This is not a matter of little consequence: spatial separateness allows social relationships to be structured along racial lines, which in turn has the effect of perpetuating and reinforcing social and economic inequality. The thesis of this Article is straightforward: If we hope to achieve our goal of a more perfect union where true racial equality exists, it is critical that we examine and understand the link between policing, race, and place.

Professor J. Scott Colesanti authored the following article in The New York Law Journal.

The SEC's Comment Policy and the Economic Crisis
February 20, 2009

EXCERPT:
As the Obama administration seeks to counter the thousand natural shocks that it is heir to, there expectedly springs an optimism that seeks to ignore that which cannot be undone. For as the grand Bard of Avon advised, "What's gone and what's past help should be past grief." But then again, Shakespeare probably never sank his savings into an exotic investment marketed via a questionable analyst rating or watched helplessly as short sellers pitted his portfolio.

Professor I. Bennett Capers presented his paper "Crime Music" at a faculty workshop at University of Virginia Law School on February 16, 2009. The workshop was sponsored by the Law and Humanities Program.

Professor Ronald J. Colombo has published "Cooperation with Securities Fraud," Hofstra Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 09-08.

ABSTRACT:
Secondary actors, such as lawyers, accountants, and bankers, are oftentimes critical players in securities fraud. The important question of their liability to private plaintiffs has been, and remains, one of considerable confusion. In Stoneridge Inv. Partners LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court could have, but failed to, dispel some of this confusion.

Contrary to the common understanding, Stoneridge did not foreclose liability on the part of secondary actors who manage to remain anonymous participants in securities fraud. Read carefully, Stoneridge instead held that proximity to fraud should drive the liability determination.

Although "proximity" is itself an indefinite concept, we are not without tools in deciphering it. For we have at our disposal a well-developed, long-tested method of analyzing proximity with an eye toward the just imposition of culpability: moral theology's "principles of cooperation." By turning to these principles, we have at our fingertips a ready-made set of factors to consider in assessing whether one's conduct should be deemed proximate versus remote to another's fraud.

The principles of cooperation also provide a framework around which we can organize securities fraud jurisprudence in general. For the insights gleaned from the principles regarding moral culpability in many respects parallel the conclusions reached by courts and commentators construing liability under the securities laws. Perhaps, in addition to the assistance it provides us in resolving the difficult issue of proximity, this framework could serve as a useful aid in resolving other, and future, securities fraud questions.

Professor Elizabeth M. Glazer and Professor Zachary A. Kramer of Penn State University - Dickinson School of Law have published "Trans Fat."

ABSTRACT:
In her book, Fat Rights: Dilemmas of Difference and Personhood, Professor Anna Kirkland uses fat discrimination as a case study to examine the ways in which we talk about difference in antidiscrimination law. She argues that the proper way to frame questions of difference in antidiscrimination is not in terms of protected traits or categories, but rather in terms of what she calls "logics of personhood." The logics of personhood are narratives that enable us to talk about which differences matter in a given discrimination case. In other words, they are ways of talking about what happens when people do or do not have rights, as well as whether certain people should be protected by antidiscrimination law. After applying the logics to the case of fat discrimination, Kirkland joins a growing community of scholars seeking to transcend antidiscrimination law's categories. By identifying in the logics of personhood the presumptions that lay beneath the surface of antidiscrimination law, Kirkland creates an entirely new way to talk about differences among people.

In this Book Review, we extend Professor Kirkland's discussion of fat plaintiffs to a discussion of transgender plaintiffs. Much like fat plaintiffs, transgender plaintiffs' only hope of articulating actionable discrimination claims is to map their claims onto existing antidiscrimination norms. As Kirkland demonstrates in Fat Rights, fat plaintiffs must cast themselves as disabled in order to state an actionable discrimination claims. And as we demonstrate in this Book Review, transgender plaintiffs must cast themselves as gender-nonconformists in order to state actionable claims. While both fat and transgender employees may be willing to negotiate their identities to win lawsuits against their discriminatory employers, the purpose of this Book Review is to ask whether they should have to. We use Kirkland's logics of personhood to demonstrate that fat plaintiffs and transgender plaintiffs share a common frustration with respect to antidiscrimination law's protected categories, namely, that antidiscrimination law sees both fat people and transgender people differently from how they see themselves. And we argue further that this is a significant harm to a plaintiff's dignity and that antidiscrimination law should take into consideration such dignitary harms.

Professor Jeremy J. Sarkin, Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law and Professor Erin Daly of Widener University School of Law have published "Too Many Questions, Too Few Answers: Reconciliation in Transitional Societies," Columbia Human Rights Law Review, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 101-168, 2004, Hofstra Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 09-07.

ABSTRACT:

Understanding reconciliation in times of political transition raises fundamental and ultimately unanswerable questions about the human condition. Talk of reconciliation invariably comes after there has been some gross violation of norms: widespread disappearances, killings, torture, and rape. Reconciliation necessarily conjures its antecedents and forces us to ask how men (and sometimes women) can visit such horrors upon one another. When we look at the face of evil, are we, as many people contend, seeing ourselves, or on the contrary are some people capable of evil in a way that others would never approach? Reconciliation is perhaps deeply compelling, however, because it not only implicates the worst that human beings are capable of, but the best as well. Reconciliation embodies the possibility of transforming war into peace, trauma into survival, hatred into forgiveness; it is the way human beings connect with one another, against all odds. It exemplifies the potential for virtually limitless strength and generosity of spirit that is also immanent in human nature. This Article explores some of the questions that must be confronted when incipient governments promote reconciliation to palliate the ills of transition. In Part II, this article raises broad conceptual questions about reconciliation. Part III then examines the historical factors that have contributed to the spread of reconciliation initiatives throughout the world in recent years. In Part IV, we examine why nations pursue reconciliation and whether reconciliation can achieve the goals imputed to it. Finally, Part V looks at the mechanisms by which nations pursue reconciliation. This article concludes with suggestions for developing a further understanding of reconciliation.

Professor Eric Lane was quoted in a Spotlight News article.

Ethics laws, charges questioned in Joe Bruno case
Charles Wiff, Spotlight Staff
February 18, 2009

Former Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno was indicted in late January on corruption charges, but the laws the federal prosecutors are using against him are not for run-of-the-mill larceny. They are instead much murkier charges that not only highlight the unusual nature of how politicians can run afoul of the law, but how the state keeps an eye on them in the first place.

Bruno’s arrest was the result of a three-year federal investigation. Prosecutors allege that he used his political connections to steer business in the direction of entities he then took money from, and that he also took fees for consulting work when, in fact, he provided none. He allegedly collected $3.2 million between 1993 and 2006 in this manner, and failed to report that income to the state Legislative Ethics Committee, as well.

So what crime do these allegations lead to? Mail fraud. Specifically, “a scheme to artifice and defraud the state of New York and its citizens of the intangible right to honest services,” a charge that prosecutors sometimes use to nail down perpetrators of white collar crime and whose legal value is hardly bulletproof.

“It’s taking a statute and expanding it in a way that creates tremendous powers for prosecutors to go after legislators,” said Eric Lane, a professor at Hofstra Law School in Long Island.

The phrase “to artifice and defraud” was an addendum in an 1872 mail fraud law and is the reason Bruno is being charged with that offense. It’s often used in charging public servants, most notably former Illinois Gov. George Ryan in 2003. Ryan sold government contracts and licenses in return for bribes, and will be incarcerated until 2013 for it.

To some lawyers, the law is written a bit too broadly for comfort; it gives prosecutors the right to make charges on a wide range of things that some might see corrupt, but others might not. Who’s to define what’s “honest,” after all?

“It’s the prosecutors deciding what’s honest service,” said Lane. “One of the big problems is that it doesn’t allow the potential defendant to know what the charges against them are.”

That’s what Bruno is arguing. He’s called the indictment “prosecutorial sleight of hand” and said “they cannot find one example of criminal or illegal intent.”

Prosecutors will try to prove otherwise when the case goes to trial Nov. 2.
Bruno’s case is only another example of what some decry as a long string of ethics failures in the Empire State and further evidence that change to the system itself is long overdue.

“There’s no meaningful public oversight,” said Blair Horner, legislative director of the New York Public Interest Research Group. “The fact that the Legislative Ethics Committee doesn’t have any real power … it results in the fact that the lawmakers don’t take ethics disclosure requirements seriously.”

Horner argues that an independent watchdog is needed to enforce ethics regulations in the legislature and the executive branch.

“You would never leave the oil companies in charge of enforcing environmental law,” he said. “It’s in their own political self interest to fix the system, but they don’t do it out of self interest or sheer stubbornness.”

New York is considered to have some of the poorest ethics law in the nation, leaving it wide open for federal prosecutors to go after statesmen with mail fraud corruption charges and other litigation. Part of the problem is legislators work part-time and are expected to make money outside of their Capitol offices, said Susan Lerner, executive director of Common Cause in New York, a nonprofit lobby organization aimed at advocating for openness in government.

“We have a part-time legislature, and our legislators are permitted to have side income, but these are people who are career politicians … how are they going to generate that income?” she said.

She argued that lawmaking should be a full-time position and disclosure requirements should be bolstered in a reflection of federal standards.

“There’s no reason why New York would not require the same, except that they do not want to put themselves into trouble, and they don’t want to reveal things that they don’t want questioned,” said Lerner. “It can be done in a way that permits you to have a reasonable amount of privacy.”

A letter by Professor Ronald J. Colombo was published in Newsday on February 19, 2009.

Where's the sense of duty?
By Ronald. J. Colombo

Members of Congress have heaped a fair amount of blame and criticism upon corporate America over the past few months, culminating in seven hours of chastisement when the CEOs of America's top banks were called to testify before the House Financial Services Committee ["Execs get an earful," News. Feb. 12]..

The criticism is just, insofar as corporate officers, and corporate directors, owe a fiduciary duty of care to the corporation and its shareholders.

As commonly articulated, this duty obliges officers and directors to discharge their corporate responsibilities with the degree of skill and diligence that a reasonably prudent person would exercise over his or her own personal affairs.

Sadly, it appears as though many corporate officers and directors fell short of this standard.

But Congress' criticism is also most hypocritical. For as Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) frankly admitted, neither he nor any of his colleagues were likely to read the entire version of the $790-billion stimulus bill before voting upon it.

Were Lautenberg and his colleagues corporate directors and officers, shareholders would have a prima facie case against them for breaching their duty of care. Aiding and abetting this breach was a congressional leadership and an administration that demanded a vote on the bill before anyone could fairly review - let alone digest - it.

I had audaciously hoped that our government would have learned a thing or two about the duty of care from last the CEO's lengthy testimony, and from the travails of corporate America over the past year. Sadly, that does not appear to be the case.

Hofstra Law School Professor Grant M. Hayden and Saint Louis University School of Law Professor Matthew T. Bodie have published "Arrow's Theorem and the Exclusive Shareholder Franchise," Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 62, No. 4, 2009, Hofstra University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 09-06.

ABSTRACT:
In this paper, we contest one of the main arguments for restricting corporate board voting to shareholders. The doctrine of shareholder primacy sits at the center of American corporate law. And shareholders do, in fact, have primacy of place within the corporation, as they alone generally have the right to elect the firm's directors (other constituents - such as employees, creditors, suppliers, and others affected by corporate decision-making - do not have the right to vote). In justifying the limitation of the franchise to shareholders, scholars have repeatedly turned to social choice theory - specifically, Arrow's theorem - to justify the exclusive shareholder franchise. Citing to the theorem, corporate law commentators have argued that lumping different groups of stakeholders together into the electorate would result in a lack of consensus and, ultimately, the lack of coherence that attends intransitive social choices - perhaps even leading the corporation to self-destruct.

We contend that this argument from Arrow's theorem makes very little sense. First, we argue that commentators have overestimated the concerns raised by the theorem about the aggregation of more diverse preferences. Almost any time that different viewpoints are converted into social choices, disparate preferences must be reconciled. In fact, the only way around this would be to assume that shareholders will never disagree - increasingly a flawed premise. More importantly, the shareholder primacy argument misreads the import of the theorem - namely, that any voting system will fail to achieve perfection and thus we must confront the weaknesses of the particular system at hand. The shareholder franchise, like any other system, may avoid violating one of the conditions of Arrow's theorem only by violating another condition - a tradeoff that has never been explicitly acknowledged or defended. Ultimately, we argue that Arrow's theorem fails to support shareholder primacy or the limitation of corporate voting rights to shareholders.

Professor Mitchell Gans spoke on ethics in tax practice at the New York County Lawyers' Association.

Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Faculty Development Julian Ku was quoted in the following Newsday article.

Experts: Schools have broad rights to search students
By Joie Tyrrell
February 16, 2009

EXCERPT:
Students have a very diminished expectation of privacy when they are in school, and if a security dog detects something suspicious in their backpacks or lockers, they can be searched, legal experts said.

School officials have much broader discretion than police to search students pursuant to their needs to manage the school, said Julian Ku, law professor at Hofstra Law School.

"Ordinarily, you would need probable cause to do this if you were a police officer, but this is not a search for criminal purposes," Ku said. "A policeman would have much stricter rules to comply with."

Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law Scott Horton had an article British Court Reopens U.S. Torture Case as Obama is Lobbied to Change Course published in Harper's Magazine on February 12, 2009.

In two cases in the last year the British Government has represented to courts that continuation of proceedings that included allegations of criminal wrongdoing by British and foreign officials would undermine national security if they were to proceed. In both cases British officials claimed that the foreign government would stop cooperation with counterterrorism efforts if the case were to proceed. And in both cases, as soon as the legal proceedings were terminated, the government immediately proceeded to claim that the suggestion that the foreign government had made a threat of any kind was simply a “misunderstanding.” From the perspective of many observers it was an astonishing example of bait-and-switch involving the national legal system.

Today the High Court in London agreed to reopen the most recent case, involving British Guantánamo detainee Binyam Mohamed, making clear that it was highly dissatisfied with Foreign Secretary David Miliband. Mohamed’s lawyers also issued an appeal directly to President Obama asking him to intervene directly in the case. The Guardian reports:

US defence officials are preventing Barack Obama from seeing evidence that a former British resident held in Guantánamo Bay has been tortured, the prisoner’s lawyer said last night, as campaigners and the Foreign Office prepared for the man’s release in as little as a week. Clive Stafford Smith, the director of the legal charity Reprieve, which represents Ethiopian-born Binyam Mohamed, sent Obama evidence of what he called “truly mediaeval” abuse but substantial parts were blanked out so the president could not read it.

In the letter to the president [PDF] , Stafford Smith urges him to order the disclosure of the evidence. Stafford Smith tells Obama he should be aware of the “bizarre reality” of the situation. “You, as commander in chief, are being denied access to material that would help prove that crimes have been committed by US personnel. This decision is being made by the very people who you command.”

During the transition period, Obama staffers were regularly denied access to information relating to the Bush Administration’s torture programs. Stafford Smith notes that a number of Bush Administration officials involved in administering these programs, although political appointees, subsequently “burrowed” into career positions where they continue to have on-going responsibility and appear to be obstructing disclosure of what has happened. Two leading Congressional Democrats yesterday pointedly criticized the Obama Administration’s conduct with respect to the Binyam Mohamed case. House Human Rights Subcommittee chair Bill Delahunt told The Times (London) that:

There seems to be no valid national security reason that would prevent full disclosure. I know the President has concerns about this kind of affair and expressed a desire to be transparent. I believe he will act in good faith.

On the Senate side, Russ Feingold also took the administration to task over its handling of the Binyam Mohamed matters. Greg Sargent reports:

“I am troubled by reports that the Obama administration has decided to invoke the state secrets privilege in a case brought by five men who claim to have been the victims of extraordinary rendition,” Feingold said in a statement sent to me by his office, in a rare instance of criticism directed at Obama by a Senator in his own party… “I have asked for a classified briefing so that I can understand the reasons for this decision,” Feingold’s statement said.

A group of senior House Democrats led by New Yorker Jerrold Nadler announced that he is reintroducing legislation setting limitations on the Justice Department’s ability to claim national security concerns as a basis for blocking litigation. Under Nadler’s measure, which previously was endorsed by Vice President Joe Biden and earned supporting comments from Obama, but was opposed by the Bush White House, judges would be required to form an independent view as to the bona fides of Justice Department claims of national security, particularly when the claim was interposed to stop a lawsuit. The measure is being backed by the New York City Bar Association and is expected to gain the backing of other bar groups. Nadler took the occasion to attack the Obama Administration’s stance in the Binyam Mohamed case:

The administration’s decision this week to adopt its predecessor’s argument that the state secret privilege requires the outright dismissal of a case challenging rendition to torture was a step in the wrong direction and a reminder that legislation is required to ensure meaningful review of the state secret privilege.

Professor of Law Monroe Freedman was quoted in the following Bloomberg.com article.

Madoff's Lawyer Sorkin May Have Conflict Over Family Investment
By Erik Larson
February 13, 2009

EXCERPT:
The potential conflict can be waived “if Sorkin explains fully to Madoff the disadvantages of his representation, which include that, even unconsciously, he might not be as zealous or effective as he might otherwise be,” said Monroe Freedman, a legal ethics professor at Hofstra University Law School in Hempstead, New York.

Sorkin’s name and those of his parents appeared among thousands of Madoff customers on a 162-page list filed Dec. 4 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan, where Madoff’s investment advisory firm is being liquidated.

Theo Liebmann, Clinical Professor, Attorney-In-Charge of the Hofstra Child Advocacy Clinic and Director of the Clinical Programs, was quoted in the following Newsday article.

Officials report record number of child abuse cases
By Michael Amon
February 11, 2009

EXCERPT:
The percentage of allegations where investigators found credible evidence of child abuse or neglect in both counties remained roughly the same from 2007 to 2008 - 27 percent in Nassau and 31 percent in Suffolk.

Nassau and Suffolk police said there were not more criminal cases of abuse last year.

Child-welfare experts said caseworkers with high workloads can miss signs of abuse and neglect. Without mentioning workloads, a state report released this week on the Brewer case said the woman's parenting problems were repeatedly given too low a priority by caseworkers.

"Now, the system is far more overloaded, so the chances of the same thing happening again are greater than ever," said Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform in Alexandria, Va., referring to the Brewer case.

Theo Liebmann, director of the Child Advocacy Center at Hofstra University Law School, said heavy workloads have taken a toll on workers dealing with children he represents. "What you mostly see are caseworkers who are so overwhelmed that they can't follow up on referrals they give to families," Liebmann said.

Long Island agencies say they've hired new caseworkers - about 30 in Nassau and three in Suffolk - and shifted around staff to cope with the spike.

Professor I. Bennett Capers presented his paper "Canaries, The Fourth Amendment, and the Equality Principle" at a faculty workshop at Fordham Law School on February 5, 2009.

Professor Theo Liebmann has contributed a chapter to the book "Child Interests: Socio-Legal Perspectives," K. Padjama, ed., Amicus Books 2008.

Professor Liebmann 's piece, excerpted from an article on youth in foster care (What’s Missing From Foster Care Reform? The Need for Comprehensive, Realistic, and Compassionate Removal Standards, 28 Hamline Journal of Public Law & Policy 141 (Fall 2006)) analyzes and questions the standards currently used to remove neglected and abused children from their homes.

Professor Mitchell Gans published "Notable Changes Seen with 2008 Amendments to Section 6694 and Treasury's Final Tax Return Preparer Penalty Regulations," The Bureau of National Affairs Daily Tax Report, No. 25 at J-1 (February 10, 2009)

Professor Norman I. Silber announced the
SPRING 2009 HOFSTRA LAW SCHOOL FACULTY WORKSHOP AND SPEAKER SERIES

Workshops generally begin at noon in the third floor faculty lounge (with lunch
preceding); lectures generally start at 11:10 a.m. in the Sidney R. Siben and Walter
Siben Moot Courtroom, (Room 308).

Those who are not on the Hofstra faculty are asked please to email Norman.Silber@Hofstra.edu or call 516-463-4157 to reserve a space.

The schedule and speaker list follow:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

February 11, 2009.

Robert C. Post
David Boies Professor of Law
Yale Law School

"Democracy and Knowledge: Opinion and the First Amendment"

Professor Post is the author of some one hundred articles and comments, and eight
books, including ANOTHER COSMOPOLITANISM (with Seyla Benhabib, ed., 2006);
CIVIL SOCIETY AND GOVERNMENT (with Nancy Rosenblum, ed., 2002; PREJUDICIAL
APPEARANCES: THE LOGIC OF AMERICAN ANTIDISCRIMINATION LAW (with K.
Anthony Appiah, Judith Butler, Thomas C. Grey and Reva Siegel), 2001); and
CONSTITUTIONAL DOMAINS: DEMOCRACY, COMMUNITY, MANAGEMENT (1995). He
will present a chapter from a book in progress exploring "the relationship between
First Amendment rights and the production and communication of knowledge."

Previously in this series in this series: Teri Ravenell, Villanova Law School (10/13/2008); "Blame it On the Man: The Relationship Between Section 1983 Municipal Liability and the Qualified Immunity Defense."

March 4, 2009

Clark Lombardi

Associate Professor of Law
University of Washington School of Law

"Church and State in Nineteenth Century America"
Professor Lombardi's current research focuses on comparative judicial institutions
and on the way that constitutional systems deal with religious organizations and
religious law. He is the author of "Nineteenth-century Free Exercise Jurisprudence
and the Challenge of Polygamy," 85 Oregon Law Review 100-175 (2006). A specialist
in Islamic law, Professor Lombardi is the author of the book STATE LAW AS ISLAMIC
LAW IN MODERN EGYPT ( 2006).

TECHNOLOGY AND HEALTH LAW

March 17, 2009.

Glenn H. Reynolds,

Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Tennessee School of Law (3/17-3/20/2009)
Distinguished Scholar in Residence

"Small is the New Big: Technology and the Practice of Law (and everything else)"

In addition to many articles, Professor Reynolds is the author of the book OUTER
SPACE: PROBLEMS OF LAW AND POLICY (1989)(co-authored); and THE APPEARANCE OF
IMPROPRIETY: HOW THE ETHICS WARS HAVE UNDERMINED AMERICAN GOVERNMENT,
BUSINESS, AND SOCIETY (1997)(co-authored) . He has testified before Congressional
committees on space law, international trade, and domestic terrorism. He has been
executive chairman of the National Space Society and a member of the White House
Advisory Panel on Space Policy. He is also a contributing editor to the TechCentralStation.Com website, and writes a regular column for the FoxNews website.

Previously in this series: Lois Shepherd, U. Virginia School of
Law (10/20/2008), "The Minimally-Conscious Mental State".

ELECTIONS AND ELECTION LAW

April 20, 2009.

Janai Nelson

Assistant Professor of Law
St. John's Law School

"White Challenges, Black Majorities"

Prior to her appointment to St. Johns in 2006, Professor Nelson was the Director of
Political Participation at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.,
where she oversaw all voting related litigation and matters, litigated voting rights and
redistricting cases, and worked on criminal justice issues on behalf of African
Americans and other under-served communities.

Previously in this series: Richard Briffault, Columbia University
(12/1/2008), "The Uncertain Future of Public Election Funding";
Eric Lane, Hofstra University Law School (10/01/08)),comment;
Jeffrey Wice, Hofstra University Law School, moderator
09/22/08), "Will Your Vote Count?" (a panel discussion).

JURISPRUDENCE AND LEGAL HISTORY

February 25, 2009.

Oren Bracha,

Assistant Professor of Law
University of Texas Law School

"The Ideology of Authorship, Revisited"

A legal historian and an intellectual property law scholar, Professor Bracha's.
dissertation "Owning Ideas" is a comprehensive intellectual history of Anglo-
American intellectual property law. Bracha was a law clerk for Chief Justice Aharon
Barak of the Supreme Court of Israel. He will present part of a forthcoming book.

April 15, 2008.

Professor Mary Dudziak,

Judge Edward J. and Ruey L. Guirado Professor of Law, History and Political
Science, USC Gould School of Law
University of Southern California Law School

"Thurgood Marshall's Global Impact"

Professor Dudziak is the author of Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's
African Journey (2008); Cold War Civil Rights: Race and the Image of American
Democracy (2000); editor of September 11 in History: A Watershed Moment? (2003);
and co-editor (with Leti Volpp) of Legal Borderlands: Law and the Construction of
American Borders, a special issue of American Quarterly (September 2005). Current
projects include How War Made America: A 20th Century History. She founded the
Legal History Blog.

Previousl;y in the series: Ethan Lieb, Hastings Law
School (9/28/08), "Criminal Justice and the Challenge of
Family Ties".

HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

Hans Correll (3/11/09),

Under-secretary for Legal Affairs
The United Nations
(topic to be announced)

Previously in this series: Aditi Bagchi, University of
Pennsylvania School of Law (10/22/2008), "The Limits
of Torture"; Julian Ku, Hofstra Law School (10/27/08),
Scott Horton, Hofstra Law School, and Jeremy Sarkin,
Hofstra Law School, "Beyond Guantanamo" (panel
discussion); Harold Koh, Yale University (10/14/2008),
"Human Rights & Immigration: Challenges for the Next
President"; Jeremy Sarkin, Hofstra Law School
(9/3/2008), "Transitional Justice"; Philip Schrag,
Georgetown University (9/24/2008), "Human Rights &
Immigration: Challenges for the Next President";
Fernando Teson, Florida State University (10/06/08),
"Brain Drains".

THE LAW AND SEXUALITY COLLOQUIUM

Professors Elizabeth Glazer and Holning Lau are Co-directors of the Colloquium.

January 28, 2009.

Professor Suzanne Goldberg
Columbia University Law School

"Categorical Instability: Identity-Based Discrimination and the
Adjudication Constraint"

Professor Goldberg, who directs Columbia's Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic, will
highlight the practical aspects of litigating on behalf of sexual minorities who have
been inadequately captured by anti-discrimination law's protected categories.

February 4, 2009.

Professor Marc Poirer
Seton Hall Law School

"The Standardization of Legal Kinship Forms: What Numerus Clausus
Theory May (or May Not) Have to Offer the Civil Union / Same-Sex
Marriage Controversy"
Professor Poirier will discuss the ways that property theory may offer insight into the
same-sex marriage debate.

February 18, 2009.

Darren Hutchinson,
American University Law School

"Sexuality, Politics, and Doctrinal Evolution"

Professor Hutchinson, who specializes in constitutional law and Equal Protection
Theory, will present his work on the intersection of race and sexuality.

March 9, 2009.

Dean Spade
Seattle University School of Law

"Discrimination, Recognition, and the Politics of Impossibility"

Professor Spade will describe the ways in which the law has made impossible the
recognition of transgenderism and discrimination on the basis of being transgender.

March 23, 2009.

Professor Kees Waaldijk,
Universiteit Leiden Faculty of Law

"Methods for Comparative Research on Sexual Orientation Law"
Professor Waaldijk, the preeminent authority on the rights of LGBT people in
international law, will travel from the Netherlands to explain his research methods for
comparing sexual orientation law in different parts of the world.

April 22, 2009.
Professor Catherine Smith,
Sturm Law School, Denver University
"Straight Scrutiny"

Professor Smith, whose work is concentrated at the intersection of race and sex
discrimination, will present on the constitutional law aspects of adjudicating sexual
orientation discrimination cases.
Previously in this series: Darren Rosenblum, Pace Law School
(10/29/08), "Unsex CEDAW"

CORPORATE AND COMMERCIAL LAW

January 26, 2009.

Timothy Glynn
Miriam T. Rooney Professor of Law
Seton Hall Law School

"Regulatory Risk Management and the Race to the Bottom"

Professor Glynn has written in the areas of corporate law, employment law, the law of
evidentiary privileges, and civil procedure. From a variety of perspectives, he addresses
how prevailing legal norms in the corporate context affect not only shareholders and
managers, but also employees, creditors, counsel, and society. He is the author of the
casebook Employment Law: Private Ordering and its Limitations (2007).
Previously in this series: Michael Westbrook, University of Buffalo Law
School (9/8/2008), "Between Citizen and State: The Modern
Corporation".

Professor Holning Lau will be presenting his paper “Tailoring Equal Protection to Address Today’s Democratic Deficit” at two scholarly forums in February. On February 11, Professor Lau will give his presentation as part of Cardozo Law School’s Baum Lecture Series. On February 18, Professor Law will present his paper at UCLA School of Law’s Critical Race Studies Colloquium.

For a copy of Professor Lau’s draft, please email holning.lau@hofstra.edu.

Professor Mitchell Gans has published "Final Return Preparer Penalty Regulations" in the Steve Leimberg Newsletter.

Leimberg is a monthly subscription service providing financial service professionals fast, frank and incisive analysis of proposed and recent legislation, regulations, cases, and rulings by experts.

Professor Monroe H. Freedman's article, "Getting Honest About Client Perjury," 21 Georgetown Jour. Legal Ed. 133 (2008), is being excerpted in Cohen, Davis & Ellston, Ethics and the Legal Profession (2d ed., 2009).

Professor Vern R. Walker recently published a chapter entitled “A Default-Logic Model of Factfinding for United States Regulation of Food Safety,” in the volume Uncertain Risks Regulated (Ellen Vos and Michelle Everson, Editors; Routledge-Cavendish Publishing, 2008).

The chapter applies his default-logic framework to the United States regulatory system for food safety, focusing on the rules and regulations for food additives and for pesticide chemical residues. The chapter is part of a book that “compares various models of risk regulation in order to understand how these systems shape the relationship between law and science, and how they attempt to overcome public distrust in science-based decision-making.”

Professor Vern R. Walker and Professor Giovanni Comandé of the Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna in Pisa, Italy are collaborating on a research project blending theory and practice in a comparative law context by applying cutting-edge methods for analyzing legal reasoning, with particular focus on the area of health law. Their first specific project will focus on comparative logical analysis and software modeling of the legal reasoning in compensation cases for vaccine-related injuries.

In May, Hofstra and the Scuola will sponsor The International and Comparative Law Program in Pisa.

In June, the Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna will organize an International Workshop on “Medical liability and medical accidents compensation: From the blame game to individual rights protection in the provision of medical services,” in collaboration with Opinio Juris in Comparatione and the “Associazione Italiana di Diritto Comparato,” the Italian committee of the Association Internationale des Sciences Juridiques.

This fall, Prof. Vern Walker and Prof. Giovanni Comandé will produce a coordinated website for the joint research project as well as a baseline and methods paper on the comparative vaccine research, including hypotheses and preliminary results. In addition, the two institutions will develop courses for the 2010 International and Comparative Law Program in Pisa, as well as tentative proposals for joint summer or CLE programs.

Professor Joanna L. Grossman is a FindLaw columnist. Her latest column "The Supreme Court Restores Title VII’s Protection Against Retaliation, but Employees Still Face Gaps in Retaliation Law" appeared February 3, 2009. FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business, is the world's leading provider of online legal information and Internet marketing solutions for law firms.

EXCERPT:
Recently, the Supreme Court voted unanimously in Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County to reverse a federal appellate ruling that had denied protection from retaliation to employees who participate as witnesses in an employer's internal investigation of sexual harassment charges brought by other employees. This was a clear win for victims of discrimination, but the ruling stops short of a slam-dunk for employees who risk retaliation for participating in an employer investigation into discrimination charges.

Professor Julian Ku, along with Mark Tushnet of Harvard, John Harrison of UVA and Louis Fisher of the Library of Congress, will participate in a panel on the Unitary Executive and Inherent Executive Power this weekend at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

The panel is part of a symposium hosted by the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law entitled Presidential Power in Historical Perspective: Reflections on Calabresi and Yoo's The Unitary Executive.

Hofstra's Environmental Law Society and Professors James E. Hickey, Jr. and Katrina Fischer Kuh will honor the late William R. Ginsberg, environmental advocate and former Hofstra Law faculty member, during The William R. Ginsberg Memorial Alumni Dinner on Thursday, March 19, 2009 at the Hofstra University Club.

The event is presented in conjunction with The Energy and the Environment: Empowering Consumers Conference to be held March 19 and 20, 2009.

For more information about the Ginsberg Dinner or the conference, visit www.law.hofstra.edu/Environment.

Hofstra University's Law School, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and School of Education, Health and Human Services will hold the second annual Health Policy Breakfast Lecture on Friday, February 13, 2009 from 8 to 10 a.m. at the Hofstra University Club.

The event is by invitation only. For more information or to RSVP, contact Janet L. Dolgin, director of Hofstra Law's Institute for Health Law and Policy and Jack and Freda Dicker Distinguished Professor of Health Care, at 516.463.5873 or lawjld@hofstra.edu.

Richard Umbdenstock, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association, will present "AHA's Framework for Health Care Reform: Health for Life - Better Health, Better Health Care." Michael Dowling, CEO of the North Shore/LIJ Health System and Art Gianelli, CEO of the Nassau University Medical Center will participate as respondents.

The Health Policy Breakfast Series was established to set the stage for the New Directions in American Health Care Conference Hofstra is hosting March 11 and 12, 2010. The series and conference are co-directed by Dolgin, Corinne Kyriacou, assistant professor of health professions and family studies and Rachel Kreier, assistant professor of economics.

Hofstra Law School offers a J.D. Concentration in Health Law and supports a Fellowship for Health Law and Policy.

Touro Law Center's Journal of Race, Gender and Ethnicity is holding a symposium, Transgender Law: Challenging the Boundaries of Law and Gender, on Friday, February 20, 2009 at the Touro Law Center in Central Islip, New York. Associate Professor of Law Elizabeth Glazer will be speaking on Transitional Discrimination in a session entitled "Transgender Indentity and Framing Transgender Equality." There is no fee to attend the program. To register, follow this link. There are three sessions.

Leon Friedman, Joseph Kushner Distinguished Professor of Civil Liberties Law, was mentioned in the following Boston Herald article.

US Supreme Court asked to keep open Fernald
By Associated Press
February 2, 2009

BOSTON — An attorney representing supporters of the Fernald Developmental Center has filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the planned transfer of more than 150 developmentally disabled residents.

David Kassel, the spokesman for the Fernald League for the Retarded, said Hofstra University Law School professor Leon Friedman filed the appeal last week.

The appeal is another chapter in the legal dispute between the state of Massachusetts and families of Fernald residents. Gov. Deval Patrick is seeking to close Fernald and move residents to other facilities.

Fernald is the nation’s oldest publicly funded facility for people with developmental disabilities.

A Patrick spokesman was not immediately available for comment.

Professor I. Bennett Capers presented his paper "Canaries, The Fourth Amendment, and the Equality Principle" at a faculty workshop at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles on January 29, 2009.

Professor I. Bennett Capers was recently elected Treasurer of the AALS Section on Law and the Humanities.

Professor Frank Gulino was quoted in a Newsday article.

Syosset mall developer must re-start approval process
By Susana Enriquez
January 30, 2009

EXCERPT:
Because the Appellate Division sent the matter back to the town so that the application can make its way through the town's permitting process, the developer's chances of a successful appeal aren't high, said Frank Gulino, who teaches advanced appellate advocacy at Hofstra University's School of Law.

"It's not likely to be granted - possible, but not likely," Gulino said. "This is not novel enough or of enough importance - let alone constitutional importance - for the state court to take it."

Professor Roy D. Simon, Jr. was quoted in a New York Law Journal article.

Ethics Experts Say Former Partners Could Face Liability
By Noeleen G. Walder
February 02, 2009

EXCERPT:
Roy D. Simon Jr., a legal ethics professor at Hofstra University School of Law, said that the limited control ex-Dreier partners reportedly had over the firm could go a long way to shield them from exposure to liability.

"Based on my limited understanding . . . it's very difficult to say that they should have known [about Dreier's alleged fraud] since the structure of the firm made them a lot like associates," Mr. Simon said.