An advocate can be confronted with few more formidable tasks than to select his closing arguments where there is great disparity between his appropriate time and his available material. In eight months–a short time as state trials go–we have introduced evidence which embraces as vast and varied a panorama of events as has ever been […]
The law is rarely black and white, especially in the realm of employment law. In order to achieve fair outcomes in employment law, particularly in the area of wrongful discharge litigation, a variety of perspectives must be considered both by the parties before the court, and by the court itself. This Article highlights the importance […]
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Secretary of State) held last year, in the context of a conflict between an act of Congress and an executive decision, that the recognition of foreign states and governments is an exclusive executive power. Now, the case spurred by a seemingly innocuous passport statute has made its way up to the Supreme Court for the second time.
In this article, Professor Reinstein provides the first in-depth analysis in nearly a century of the historical relationship of the executive and legislative branches to the recognition power. A must-read for those awaiting the Zivotofsky arguments, scheduled for November 3, 2014.
Established in 1975, Juvenile Law Center initially represented individual youth in a wide range of court and administrative proceedings throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania. Over time, Juvenile Law Center expanded its advocacy for children across Pennsylvania and, by the early 1990s, was addressing child welfare and justice system reform nationwide. Today, Juvenile Law Center plays […]
Details of the 2018 Symposium will be announced in the fall.
Please save October 24, 2014 for a special event in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, honoring and building on the work of Bill Whitford, Emeritus Professor of Law, The University of Wisconsin Law School. Topics will include corporate reorganization, consumer law (including consumer bankruptcy), and contract law.
A confession is considered the “golden standard” in a criminal prosecution. Jurors place great weight on evidence that the defendant actually confessed to the crime. Yet the Innocence Project estimates that approximately 25% of their cases resulting in exoneration after examination of DNA evidence involved people who made incriminatory statements about themselves, sometimes outright confessing to the crimes they did not commit. This symposium explored why innocent people confess, which law enforcement methods and techniques may contribute to obtaining false confessions, and potential methods for change to avoid these disturbing results. Details on the event may be found at the following link: http://www.templelawreview.org/symposia/2012-symposium/. Content from the Fall 2012 Symposium appears in Volume 85, Issue 4 (Summer 2013) of the Temple Law Review.
Discrimination has become more subtle and complex since the advent of modern day civil rights legislation. Although “smoking gun” evidence of clear, overt racial animus is much rarer than 50 years ago, large-scale statistical analyses of employment outcomes and mortgage originations continue to indicate significant, and troubling, disparities based on race, gender, and other protected characteristics. While the use of social science in the courtroom has sparked controversy for decades, large-scale litigation against employers and lenders has become increasingly reliant on statistical analyses and other forms of social science (including a growing body of social psychology research on “unconscious bias”). In this symposium, the Temple Law Review, presenters, panelists, and attendees explored the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of civil rights litigation in the employment and housing context, including the nature of the evidence being marshaled, and the many legal questions such evidence raises. Contributions from the Symposium were published in Volume 83, Number 4 (Summer 2011) of the Temple Law Review.
The current debate on the need for reform of the U.S. healthcare system has largely ignored the disparities in health and healthcare among Americans in terms of race, ethnicity and gender. Disparities in health based on class have been raised, but usually only to acknowledge that more than 44 million people do not have health insurance. The public has not benefited from a serious debate about why particular groups face disproportionate barriers to obtaining health insurance coverage or why they bear disproportionate burdens of poor hear health. The failure to identify health disparities as critical social, economic and moral problems is disturbing in light of the evidence that exists documenting the disproportionate hardships endured by many individuals and families.
Pennsylvania has now joined the state governments that have acknowledged that the problems related to health disparities have such enormous economic and social consequences that state governments need to begin addressing the issue and has created the Pa. Office of Health Equity. The Office of Health Equity has been compiling information on disparities and best practices aimed at addressing those problems. In the present conference we have the benefit of three speakers who were either involved in the creation of the Office of Health Equity. Dr. Calvin Johnson, our keynote speaker was Secretary of Health and the creation of the Office of Health Equity is due in large part to his leadership. Marla Davis, Esq., currently Executive Director of the Anti-Violence Partnership of Philadelphia served as Dr. Johnson’s Chief of Staff. In addition, one of our panelists, Jamahal C. Boyd, is currently the Executive Director of the Pa. Office of Health Equity.
This conference reviewed and highlighted findings of health disparities, offer explanations of the causes and propose strategies to reduce the disparities. The contributions of the distinguished panelists and contributors to this Symposium were published in Volume 82, Number 5 (Spring-Summer 2010) of the Temple Law Review.