Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Podia And Pens: Dismantling The Two-Track System For Legal Research And Writing Faculty, Kristen K. Tiscione, Amy Vorenberg
Podia And Pens: Dismantling The Two-Track System For Legal Research And Writing Faculty, Kristen K. Tiscione, Amy Vorenberg
Law Faculty Scholarship
At the 2015 AALS Annual Meeting, a panel was convened under this title to discuss whether separate tracks and lower status for legal research and writing (“LRW”) faculty make sense given the current demand for legal educators to better train students for practice. The participants included law professors, an associate dean, and a federal judge.2 Each panelist was asked to respond to questions about the “two-track” system—a shorthand phrase for the two tracks of employment at many law schools whereby full-time LRW faculty are treated differently than tenured and tenure-track faculty. The panelists represented differing views on the topic. This …
Deconstructing And Reconstructing Rights For Immigrant Children, Erin B. Corcoran
Deconstructing And Reconstructing Rights For Immigrant Children, Erin B. Corcoran
Law Faculty Scholarship
Children rights advocates and scholars alike continue to call for the development of innovative and alternative rights models, which specifically provide for an expansive conceptualization of children’s rights. Central to their calls for reform is a simultaneous recognition that children’s rights must embody agency – a child’s voice (a proxy for autonomy) – free from governmental interference, as well as the establishment of certain fundamental “needs” that place an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure the child has, and affirmatively provide, when necessary. Reimagining children’s rights also requires reforming our laws in such a way that reflects children as …
Brief For Professor Albert E. Scherr As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Albert E. Scherr
Brief For Professor Albert E. Scherr As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, Albert E. Scherr
Law Faculty Scholarship
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Professor Scherr agrees with petitioner that review is warranted because the Maryland Court of Appeals decision is erroneous. The Fourth Amendment does not sanction police harvesting of DNA without probable cause and a warrant and without the subject’s knowledge or consent, to be used however the authorities deem appropriate and without restriction. The Maryland Court of Appeals’ decision is contrary to the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence as articulated in the Riley v. California – Maryland v. King – United States v. Jones trilogy. This case fits squarely in the center of the triangle formed by that …