9571 research outputs found
Sort by
Developing Lawyering Skills in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: A Framework for Legal Education
No full textThis Article explores the emergence of generative artificial intelligence technology in legal education and law practice. It first offers historical perspective by examining the development of online legal research systems and other existing law practice technology tools that leverage artificial intelligence. This Article then proposes a framework for legal education based on twenty-first-century competencies that advance human interaction with legal technology tools. Next, this Article recommends that law schools incorporate these competencies into learning outcomes along with a holistic approach to teaching technology-driven lawyering skills as a strategy to narrow the learning gap between legal education and law practice. It concludes by using legal research instruction as a model for integrating twenty-first-century competencies into the law school curriculum
A Patent System for Temple Grandin
No full textThis article explores the intersection of neurodiversity and innovation through the lens of Temple Grandin’s contributions to livestock handling systems and her philosophical alignment with the U.S. patent system. Drawing on cognitive research by Simon Baron-Cohen, archaeological insights from Penny Spikins, and personal reflections, I argue that autistic cognitive styles—characterized by heightened “folk physics” aptitudes and visual thinking—have historically driven technological progress. Grandin’s patented inventions, motivated by sensory-based empathy for animals, exemplify how neurodivergent inventors seek to embed their conceptions of ethical utility into the nation’s technological infrastructure. The article critiques modern patent litigation trends, advocating instead for a system that prioritizes concrete, inclusive innovation (“real stuff”) over abstract financial instruments. By analyzing doctrines like non-obviousness and enablement through a neurodiversity framework, the work posits that patent law’s legal fictions inadvertently reflect autistic cognitive patterns, making it a critical social mechanism for integrating neurodivergent thinkers into America’s legacy of practical problem-solving. Ultimately, this article argues that fully recognizing neurodivergent inventors like Temple Grandin requires rethinking patent law doctrines to consciously embrace neurodiversity—not merely as an incidental source of inventive talent but as a fundamental, valuable perspective deserving respect and integration into our broader legal and social infrastructure
Scrutinizing Transgender Healthcare Bans Through Intersex Exceptions
No full textMajor professional medical organizations—for example, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, and Endocrine Society—consider gender-affirming care to be safe and, at times, essential for vulnerable transgender youth. Despite these benefits, 26 states have banned gender-affirming care for minors. Proponents of these bans raise concerns about potential medical harms, the irreversibility of treatments, and the adequacy of informed consent.
Every state ban includes an exception for so-called gender-normalizing surgeries, which are performed on intersex infants to conform their bodies to socially constructed expectations about the male/female binary. The procedures are rarely medically necessary, but proponents of the surgeries contend that they alleviate stigma. Far too often, these procedures result in ongoing pain, loss of sexual sensation, psychological harm, physical scarring, or even sterilization. The irreversibility of these surgeries and the inability of infants to consent are abundantly clear, and research suggests widespread failures to obtain informed consent from parents.
At first blush, the intersex exception in transgender healthcare bans appears to create a stark inconsistency. The very concerns cited to justify the bans—medical harm, irreversibility, and lack of informed consent—are even more pronounced in the context of intersex surgeries. This inconsistency raises the question: Why do the very laws that purport to protect against these factors include exceptions for intersex surgeries?
This Article argues that the intersex exceptions are, in fact, consistent with sentiments behind bans on gender-affirming care: a deep-seated fear of and discomfort with children who do not conform to traditional sex stereotypes. By examining the intersex exceptions, the Article reveals that sex stereotypes, irrational fear, and disgust are foundational motivations underpinning the laws.
The Article further contends that these motivations call into question the bans’ constitutionality. As parents of transgender youth challenge these bans in court, with one case—United States v. Skrmetti—pending before the Supreme Court, this Article offers a crucial perspective for evaluating the forthcoming Supreme Court ruling and for analyzing subsequent legal developments surrounding gender-affirming care for minors
Reflections on the Ferguson Report
No full textThis Essay reflects on the significance of the Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (“Ferguson Report”). The Ferguson Report is a valuable teaching tool for criminal procedure because it documents detailed cases of police misconduct. But it also reveals how many deeply intrusive and over-reaching policing practices are not, in fact, unconstitutional. Reading the Report offers a window into how the law can enable misconduct, and it reveals how little opportunity the community affected had to create change
The Lawyer\u27s Obligation as Public Citizen
No full textThis essay by Gene R. Nichol examines the lawyer’s duty as a “public citizen,” drawing from the ABA Model Rules’ preamble and historical, civic, and religious touchstones to argue that legal professionals bear a unique obligation to sustain democracy, the rule of law, and public confidence in justice. Situating the discussion in contemporary struggles—particularly in North Carolina—the essay details court-documented gerrymandering, voter suppression, and politicization of the judiciary, and laments the comparative silence of the institutional legal community, including bar associations, law schools, and leading firms.
Nichol juxtaposes today’s reticence with past episodes of vocal resistance (and support) from the bar, urging renewed public engagement by lawyers, academics, and legal institutions despite political pressures on universities and faculty governance. The essay concludes that fulfilling the profession’s public-citizen role requires sustained advocacy—“finding and telling and teaching the truth”—to meet threats to democratic norms and to reinforce dignity, equality, and constitutional accountability across red and blue states alike
Arrest Unbound
No full textArrest has long been legally defined as a seizure, or temporary restraint on liberty, under the Fourth Amendment. But when the government arrests someone today, it imposes far more than a seizure. The government also marks individuals with arrest records, which enable wide-ranging penalties, such as deportation, civil detention, loss of a professional license, and disruption of custody. One consequence is that this regulatory structure unravels arrest from the key institutional checks that would permit the public or key actors to examine whether the government-imposed consequences stemming from arrest are fair and justified. Proportionality depends on the public at large being able to recognize and mediate the full government-imposed consequences of arrest. But we are rapidly moving toward a regulatory landscape where no one—not a prosecutor, defense attorney, informed voter, and certainly not the arrested individual herself—genuinely has the tools to recognize what the full consequences of an arrest might be, much less mediate them.
This Article argues responding to these penalties requires recognizing arrest as more than just a seizure. Arrest should be understood in light of the relationship between government action and the political and legal process. The more systemic government action is tied to arrest, the greater the need for systemic safeguards. It unpacks one proposal for reform: conceptualizing arrest not just as a seizure, but as a government-imposed marker with attendant penalties
