FIU Law hosts visiting legal scholars from institutions worldwide to provide insight and encourage discussion on myriad legal topics. The purpose of the Faculty Workshops series is to encourage interactive discussion between FIU Law faculty on current legal issues, and provide an open forum through which such discussion can take place. Each workshop features a different legal subject, and is lead by a scholar in that field.
The FIU Faculty Workshop Series started archiving presentations from visiting legal scholars in October 2015. When possible, the workshops were recorded and are provided here. When available, the working drafts of works in progress discussed at the time of the Workshop were also obtained and archived. For access to those hidden works, please contact the eCollections administrator.
Dean Nancy C. Staudt
Dean Nancy Staudt, of the Washington University-St. Louis School of Law, presented the Fifth Decanal Lecture: Five Years After Ferguson: Lessons Learned and Mistakes Made. This work examines how, located just 12 miles from Ferguson, Missouri, Washington University has learned many important lessons over the last 5 years. With social change, social justice, and community partnerships now playing an important role in the revised academic mission, many are calling the institution: Washington University FOR St. Louis rather than, simply, Washington University IN St. Louis.
Professor Gabilondo, of the FIU College of Law, presented his work in progress God Returns to Cuba: Straight Supremacy, Catholic Statecraft, and the 2019 Constitution. This work examines how religious operatives blocked Cuba’s Constitutional provision for same-sex marriage.
Tanya K. Hernández
Professor Tanya K. Hernández, of Fordham University School of Law, presented a working draft of her work Multiracials and Civil Rights: Mixed-Race Stories of Discrimination. This work examines what it means for civil rights law when and how mixed-race persons experience racial discrimination.
Professor Chris Jenks, of SMU Dedman School of Law, presented a working draft of his work Is (or should) Better Be Good Enough? Legal Reviews of Learning or Adaptive Weapons Systems. This work considers the weapons legal review process as applied to learning systems.
Caroline M. Corbin
Professor Caroline M. Corbin, of University of Miami School of Law, presented a working draft of her work The Free Speech Right Against Government Propaganda. This work advocates dropping the rule that the Free Speech Clause never applies to government speech.
Beth K. Zilberman
Professor Beth K. Zilberman, now associated with The Willamette University College of Law, presented Limitations on Legal Representation in Immigration Benefits Adjudications. This work analyze the lawyer’s role in immigration benefits adjudications at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) field offices.
Professor Adam Candeub, of Michigan State University College of Law, presented a working draft of his work Nakedness and Privacy. This work examines that publicity rights offer an efficient, private remedy for “revenge porn” as well as naked photographs from the locker room or hospital, placed without subjects’ permission on the web.
A Copyright Office Update: Discussion of the Seventh Triennial Section 1201 Rulemaking and Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp v. Wall-Street.com
Work presented: A Copyright Office Update: Discussion of the Seventh Triennial Section 1201 Rulemaking and Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp v. Wall-Street.com
Professor Jeffrey Lipshaw , of Suffolk University Boston, Suffolk Law School, presented Unlearning How to Think Like a Lawyer. The talk was based on his book exploring how traditional thinking like a lawyer can be problematic in non-litigation contexts.
Dr. iur. Erdem Büyüksagis
Professor Erdem Büyüksagis, now associated with University of Fribourg, presented a working draft of his work Pharmaceutical Product Liability in a Comparative View. This work examines two recent products liability cases in Europe.
Professor Caroline Davidson, of Willamette College of Law, presented a working draft of her work Nunca Mas Meets #NiUnaMenos— The Prosecution of Dictatorship-era Sexual Violence in Chile. This work seeks to explore reasons for delay in justice for sexual violence in Chile and what international criminal justice can learn from the Chilean example. If accountability for sexual and gender violence is a priority, and the ICC regime is premised on decentralized enforcement by national judicial systems, then a greater attention to obstacles to domestic justice for sexual and gender violence and ways of encouraging domestic prosecution is needed.
Professor Dmitry Karshtedt , of George Washington University Law School, presented a working draft of her work The More Things Change: Improvement Patents, Drug Modifications, and the FDA. In this Article, he explains that the rules and institutions involved in determining the validity of patents on chemical inventions, certain features of drug regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and unique market forces in the pharmaceutical sector combine to allow strategic product hopping.
Professor Amanda Frost, now associated with University of Virginia School of Law, presented a working draft of her work In Defense of Nationwide Injunctions. This work provides the first sustained academic defense of nationwide injunctions. In some cases, nationwide injunctions are the only means to provide plaintiffs with complete relief, or to prevent harm to thousands of individuals who cannot quickly bring their own cases before the courts.
Professor Binyamin Blum , of UC Hastings College of the Law San Francisco, presented a working draft of his work Bones of Contention: Skeletal Maturity and Criminal Responsibility in the British Empire. This work examines the genealogy of establishing chronological age through skeletal maturity.
Bernard J. Hibbitts
Professor Bernard J. Hibbitts, of University Of Pittsburgh School Of Law, presented a working draft of his work Letters of the Law: The Rise and Fall of University-Based Legal Education by Mail, 1875-1885. This work examines the early experiments in correspondence legal education that took place in university settings during the last decade of the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th.
Sharon K. Sandeen
Professor Sharon K. Sandeen , of Mitchell Hamline School of Law, presented a working draft of her work Out of Thin Air: Trade Secrets, Cybersecurity, and the Wrongful Acquisition Tort . This draft chapter examines how the “acquisition by improper means” prong of U.S. trade secret law developed and how it became disconnected from the requirement of a subsequent disclosure or use of the trade secrets.
Andrew F. March
Professor Andrew F. March, of Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University, presented a working draft of his work The Difference that Politics Makes: From Ideal to Non-Ideal Islamic Constitutional Theory. This work examines three primary goals: (1) to give an account of the ideological contours of the ideal of “Muslim Democracy” in contrast with the ideal Islamist theory developed in the decades prior to the 2011 revolution, (2) to ask what kind of moral commitment or consensus undergirds the commitment to the 2014 constitutional order in Tunisia, and (3) to provide a series of theoretical answers to the question “was the ideal form of an Islamic democracy impossible, and why?”.
From Kampala to New York: The Final Negotiations to Activate the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over the Crime of Aggression
Professor Jennifer Trahan, of the NYU School of Professional Studies, Center for Global Affairs, presented a working draft of her work From Kampala to New York: The final negotiations to activate the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over the crime of aggression. This work concludes that even with the limitations on jurisdiction, States Parties still have made an historic contribution to the development of international criminal law. Moreover, if even one aggressive use of force is prevented, then the crime of aggression negotiations conducted over the last two decades will have been well worth the efforts. ICC States Parties concerned about limitations on jurisdiction now have even more reason to ratify the crime of aggression amendment.
Sean D. Murphy
Professor Sean D. Murphy, of the George Washington University School of Law, presented a draft of his work Crimes Against Humanity. This paper examines the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity. it summarizes the definitions of acts that constitute crimes against humanity, the obligation of their prevention by each State, and to put into practice the necessary measures to guarantee that those acts are crimes under their criminal legislation.
Mr. John Castellano
Mr. John Castellano, Deputy Executive Assistant District Attorney at Queens County District Attorney's Office, presented United States v. Carpenter (on Fourth Amendment Protection for Historic Cell Records). In the United States v. Carpenter, the Supreme Court will decide the scope of the IV Amendment protection for cellular carrier information. This pending case raises significant privacy concerns involving the warrantless access to data that can be used to pinpoint the location of a phone and track its movement over extended periods.
Drumbl A. Mark
Professor Mark A. Drumbl, of Transnational Law Institute of Washington and Lee University, presented a working draft of his work From Timbuktu to The Hague: The War Crime of Intentional Attacks on Cultural Property. This work examines that the guilty plea offered a path forward for both Al Mahdi and the people of Timbuktu. The verdict and sentence placed the crime of intentional destruction of cultural property within the heart of unacceptable conduct during armed conflict, and finally the judgment authenticated what happened to the shrines, why, and explained why such desecration is so hurtful.
Professor Jay Tidmarsh, of Notre Dame Law School, presented a working draft of his work Opting Out of Discovery. This work proposes a system in which both parties are provided an opportunity to opt out of the civil discovery system. This system immunizes any party who opts out from motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim or for summary judgment.