Knowles-Gardner tells story of NAACP v. Alabama, landmark civil rights case on freedom of association

Dr. Helen Knowles-Gardner spoke at UMass Law School Wednesday on "When Alabama Tried to Destroy the NAACP (and Freedom of Association)."

In recognition of Black History Month, Dr. Knowles-Gardner, research director at the Institute for Free Speech (IFS), talked about a crucial moment in the nation’s civil rights history. In 1956, Alabama waged war on the NAACP by demanding that the organization turn over its membership lists to the state. The NAACP was unable to operate in Alabama for eight years. Litigation produced the landmark First Amendment freedom of association decision, still relevant today, NAACP v. Alabama (U.S. 1958).

Dr. Knowles-Gardner explained how the civil rights precedent in NAACP has contemporary relevance in cases such as First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin (SCOTUSblog), in which the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in December. The case centers on a New Jersey subpoena for donor names and staff information from a chain of anti-abortion pregnancy centers. The centers argue the state investigation violates the First Amendment freedom of association. The Court seemed skeptical of the state's asserted need for the information. IFS filed an amicus brief, informed by Knowles-Gardner's research, on the side of the centers. The political shoe might be on the other foot in the case, but the freedom-of-association issue is strikingly familiar.

RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Dr. Knowles-Gardner joined the Institute for Free Speech as research director in 2023 after working for almost 20 years as a political science professor. She has written extensively about American law and politics, including editing or author credits on Judging Free Speech: First Amendment Jurisprudence of U.S. Supreme Court Justices (2015), Free Speech Theory: Understanding the Controversies (2020), and The Tie Goes to Freedom: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy On Liberty (upd. ed. 2018) (C-SPAN, 2009), and research articles in political science and law.

In 2024, Dr. Knowles-Gardner published the first in a series of articles related to this talk and her current research, The First Amendment to the Constitution, Associational Freedom, and the Future of the Country: Alabama’s Direct Attack on the Existence of the NAACP, in the Seattle University Law Review. In 2025, she published Without a Little Help from Your Friends: The Supreme Court's Rejection of the American Jewish Congress Amicus Brief in NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson (1958) in the Journal of Supreme Court History, for which Dr. Knowles-Gardner serves as managing editor.

Dr. Knowles-Gardner's third co-authored book is Filming the First: Cinematic Portrayals of Freedom of the Press (2025). With this book, I am teaching a seminar at UMass Law this semester, Free Press and Film.

Dr. Knowles-Gardner earned her Ph.D. in Political Science from Boston University and a B.A. in American Studies with first class honors from Liverpool Hope University College (now Hope University) in Liverpool, England. An avid runner, Dr. Knowles-Gardner participates in races across the country, including the Marine Corps Marathon, running with the American flag for Team RWB, a national organization devoted to enhancing the lives of the nation’s veterans. She and her husband, a disabled U.S. Navy veteran, live in upstate New York.

The talk at UMass Law School was co-sponsored by the Black Law Students Association, the Law & Political Economy student organization, and the Office of the Dean.

Comparative law students explore world with guests, online cohort, and enrich field with new research

Boasting about the accomplishments of my students is a rich indulgence I selfishly embrace. The Savory Tort hosts collections of student abstracts from past courses in Comparative Law and Freedom of Information Law.

This winter, I am happy to share abstracts from students who completed papers in Comparative Law in fall 2025. These might be the most scholarly capable set of papers I've yet seen in a seminar. Their work was a pleasure to read, and I am grateful for all that these students taught me.

Besides their research projects, these students participated vitally in the Global Law Classroom (GLC). They were leaders in their groups and exchanged knowledge and experiences with students from 13 countries over eight weeks of class sessions with contributing faculty.

The students also served as a gracious and inquisitive audience for several guests in the fall semester. I thank my colleagues who gave of their time and expertise to enrich our class:

• Anna Conley, Cliff Edwards Professor of Excellence in Trial Advocacy at the Alexander Blewett III School of Law, University of Montana, and also a member of the GLC faculty, joined us via Zoom to explore customary law and the rights of indigenous peoples.
• Bernard Freamon, professor of law at Roger Williams University Law School, and co-chair of the Bristol (R.I.) Middle Passage Port Marker Project, treated us to a thorough and thought-provoking introduction to Islamic law.
• Dan Greenberg, Cato Institute, shared with us a special screening of the documentary film he produced and directed, American Libel (2025), in relation to the disparate "actual malice" and "public interest" defenses to defamation in U.S. and UK law.
• Wojciech Jarosiński, founding partner of Peak Legal in Poland, and Stefanie Chiba, a corporate attorney and data privacy expert in Austria, led us via Zoom in exploration of differences between civil law and common law practice.
• Ferhat Pekin, attorney with Pekin Bayar Mizraha, and adjunct professor at UMass Law, led us in a study of Turkish law and exercises in the cross-cultural competence required for transnational law practice.
• A friend and colleague working in the international aid sector joined us via Zoom to talk about the challenges of delivering aid from western sources to conflict areas amid political and cultural challenges on the ground. His identity is not published here to protect his security while deployed in Asia.

Here are the fall's compelling student projects:

Jake Fruchter, Civil Rights in Extra-Ordinary Prosecutions: a Comparative Analysis of Ireland and the United States Trial Rights in Terrorism Prosecutions. The United States is witnessing a growth in domestic terrorism charges. As these cases make their way through state and federal courts, questions arise over what rights and procedures apply. One country with a well established history of prosecuting domestic terrorism is the Republic of Ireland. This history led the Republic to establish a Special Criminal Court with unique rules and procedures for terrorism and organized crime cases. This paper, using a comparative method, compares the Republic’s Special Criminal Court with procedures in the United States at the state and federal level. In particular, the rights this paper analyzes pertain to the right to silence as, protected by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the right to a trial by jury and to face your accuser, as protected by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Kyle LaMont, Belonging by Blood or Soil?: A Functionalist-Historical Comparison of Italian and American Citizenship Traditions. This paper examines how Italy and the United States have developed their jus sanguinis and jus soli citizenship traditions, respectively, over time. Using a functionalist and historical approach, it compares and analyzes the legal frameworks and the different legal consequences of citizenship for each country. Culturally, Italy has had a long-standing tradition of focusing on citizenship through lineage, which was a core part of Italy’s unification since 1861 and further reinforced with Law No. 91/1992. In stark contrast, the United States primarily uses jus soli and the territory approach of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. These different approaches to citizenship show how historical, cultural, and economic factors have molded the traditions that each country has embraced. By comparing these different systems, this paper reveals differing understandings of belonging and how both traditions survive in each country today. 

Kennis Levano, Language, Law, and Identity: A Functionalist Comparison of Indigenous Language Rights Protection in Bolivia and Peru. Focusing on the divergent political trajectories since the 1980s, this paper conducts a functionalist microcomparison of the frameworks for indigenous language rights in Bolivia and Peru. The research first establishes the historical and political contexts of both countries. It then provides a detailed examination of the Bolivia legal framework, highlighting recent legislative advancements, key provisions, and their successful implementation and impact in the country. In contrast, I discuss Peru's evolving legal framework, identifying differences and significant challenges in implementation. The analysis uses a functionalist approach to compare legal frameworks, identifying successful elements in the Bolivian model that are absent or underdeveloped in the Peruvian. The study culminates in the proposal of a solution designed to catalyze a significant leap forward in Peru's constitutional recognition of indigenous language rights, mirroring the progress achieved in Bolivia.

John McCauley, The Merchant: The Object of Economic Legislation & Regulation. This paper is focused on the differences and similarities between the U.S. Uniform Commercial Code Article 2 definition of “merchant” and the Egyptian Commercial Code definition of “Trader,” and how those definitions work into other statutes when a dispute arises. The UCC is analyzed according to different jurisdictions within the United States, with jurisdictional splits being noted, particularly around farmers. The topic is introduced with a brief history of each codification effort, how disputes of trade are handled procedurally, and how the courts of each respective jurisdiction interpret their definitions of those who conduct trade. This paper seeks to adhere to critical comparative methodologies and be mindful of the different cultural contexts that lead to the expression and subsequent regulation of one who conducts trade and said merchant’s explicit duties. In essence, this paper seeks to unravel choices of law with policies in mind which lead to the defined terms of “merchant” and “trader,” and who or what is interpreted as falling within and without that category, and what are some of the obligations attached to the merchant status. This paper looks at global market dynamics, and interpretive and legislative fiats, as well as statutory language to conclude who or what is defined as a merchant in the United States and Egypt and why. A commercial code is an expression of what a government believes is the proper way of doing business and thus regulates it, and the merchant or trader is the one who is to adhere to that regulation. With those premises in mind, it is key to look at the similarities and differences in these systems and cultural contexts to examine potential policy goals in enacting such legislation.

Hannah Patalsky, Comparing Mechanisms for Artist Compensation in the United States and the European Union (Taylor’s Version). This paper compares two distinct legal frameworks: the Living Wage for Musicians Act (2024) (LWMA), a bill recently reintroduced in the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, and Articles 18 through 22 of the EU Digital Single Market Directive (DSM Directive). Both of these mechanisms are designed to address the persistent issue of inadequate artist compensatory rights in the era of online streaming. The LWMA aims to establish an “Artist Compensation Royalty Fund” as an economic intervention, which would guarantee artists near-immediate payment through a statutory framework and additional stream of revenue flowing from listener to musician. In contrast, the DSM Directive focuses on member-state involvement in a contractual approach, seeking to balance the relationship between artists, on one side, and labels and agents, on the other. The primary DSM Directive articles of focus in this paper are Articles 18 through 22, which are designed to counteract the power dynamics and inequalities between these groups. This paper examines the benefits of each approach, as well as the limitations and drawbacks. The paper demonstratively applies each framework to the well-known ownership dispute between Taylor Swift and Scooter Braun, demonstrating how outcomes may differ under each mechanism to showcase the practical, real-world applications of these compensatory mechanisms. Fundamentally, this paper compares a statutory and contractual framework to find the best approach to artist compensation. Ultimately, this paper argues that each framework seeks to remedy a different issue in the modern digital and stream-based economy, and that understanding the differences among these remedies is essential to evaluating how legal systems can meaningfully address inherent inequalities and imbalances across the music industry. The LWMA aims to address the problem of insufficient streams of revenue for artists. At the same time, the DSM Directive directly targets any inequalities that may have arisen during the contracting phase that may lead to long-term exploitation of artists. In comparing these legal mechanisms that are addressing the same issue, this comparison reveals not only the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, but also the potential benefits of creating a hybrid model, including fair revenue and fair contracting conditions.

Tamar Shimon, Hate Speech: Overprotected or Undervalued? A Comparative Analysis Between U.S. and German Student Speech on College and University Campuses Post October 7. This paper analyzes the impact of protecting hate speech, particularly antisemitic speech, on post-secondary institutions within the United States and Germany. The world is no stranger to antisemitism. This type of hate has existed for millennia. However, with the events of October 7, 2023, a new wave of antisemitism found a home amongst a new generation of people: young university and college students. For months, U.S. college and university officials allowed for antisemitism to take hold on their campuses, subjugating Jewish students to abuse from their fellow students. But this was not the same response in Germany. Rather than allow the “protests” to become rampant and violent, German university and college officials quickly placed bans and restrictions for fears of antisemitism reemerging at such a drastic rate that was last seen in the 1920s. Free speech is a fundamental right within the United States and Germany; however, both countries take different approaches when it comes to protecting hate speech. This paper explores the differentiations in each country’s free speech rule, specifically focusing on the way in which each country sees the importance of hate speech to its society. To understand this differentiation, the events on and post October 7, 2023, on college and university campuses across the United States and Germany will be analyzed to determine whether the United States can somehow implement Germany’s model but still uphold the values of free speech.

Tryon P. Woods, Indigenous Fishing Rights, Comparative Settler Colonialism, and the Problem of Modern Law. This paper is a comparative legal analysis of United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash. 1974), known as the “Boldt decision” after the presiding judge’s opinion, and the 2024 ruling in Sapporo District Court on the Raporo Ainu Nation fishing rights lawsuit in Japan. Regarded as a legal landmark in indigenous rights and land use management in North America, the Boldt decision recognized the treaty rights of Native tribes to off-reservation inland fishing.  It held that such Native fishing was not subject to State regulation.  The recent Ainu lawsuit in Japan similarly sought to assert indigenous rights to fish Japanese inland waters but was rejected by the court. Comparative analysis of the two cases reveals distinct national histories regarding indigenous rights in law, which in turn, are indicative of differing forms of racialization in the national development of the United States and Japan that align with distinct histories of settler colonialism. This discrete legal comparison raises further questions regarding law’s mutability in the face of dynamic culture; how dominance is reworked as rule of law; and the problems stemming from shared ecology.

Ellie Zhang, Fair Use vs. Second Creation: A Comparative Study of Short-Video Law Between the United States and China. This paper examines how U.S. and Chinese copyright law treat short-video “second creations,” focusing on two common formats: (1) reaction and review videos that intersperse short excerpts and (2) parody. After setting out the U.S. open-ended, fair-use framework under 17 U.S.C. § 107 and China’s rights-first, enumerated “reasonable use” approach under Article 24, the paper asks when these videos amount to protected commentary and when they become unlicensed, market-substituting derivatives. For interspersed-clip reactions, U.S. doctrine tends to credit transformation and lack of substitution, whereas Chinese courts emphasize “reasonable use” and substitution risks; both systems disfavor compilation-style recaps. For parody, U.S. law treats targeted critique as paradigmatic transformative use so long as the borrowing is reasonably necessary and does not usurp cognizable licensing markets. By contrast, Chinese law lacks an explicit parody exception, channeling analysis through “appropriate quotation,” the two-step constraints, and moral-rights concerns, producing a narrower space for unlicensed parody. The paper closes with practical guidance for creators and a policy recommendation: clearer, semi-open exceptions in China and more attention in U.S. cases to audiovisual modes of critique when judging transformation and necessity.

The students' research was well supported by ace Law Librarian Katelyn Golesby, who updated and reconstructed a superb library guide in foreign, comparative, and international legal research.

Lead image by Google Gemini. Guest images from respective biographical pages, as linked; no claim to rights. Flags by Flagpedia.

Author of 'Surviving Your Friend's Cancer,' law alumna Kayleigh Ellison made world better, brighter

Kayleigh's relentless smile,
from the UMass Dartmouth
soccer roster

I'm sad to hear and to share news of the death of Kayleigh Dawn Marie Ellison on November 27.

Originally from Troy, Mo., and a graduate in diplomacy and international relations from Seton Hall University, Kayleigh was an alumna of my first-year torts class at UMass Law.

Kayleigh was an extraordinary and inspiring person. Because full-time law school could not keep her busy enough, she played soccer for the campus Corsairs at UMass Dartmouth.

Her remarkable obituary offers ample illustration of life well lived. She met every challenge with unflinching determination, and every setback with joyful resilience, from cancer to law school to defenders on the pitch, and she exuded infectious vibrancy all the while.

Surviving Your Friend's Cancer
by Kayleigh Ellison,
available at Lulu 

Among the countless ways in which Kayleigh made the world a better and brighter place, she authored a book, Surviving Your Friend's Cancer (2015). She told me that as hard as it was to fight cancer, it was just as hard to help friends overcome their anxiety over what to say and how to be present for her. She figured she could help other sufferers and their friends and families by giving some simple guidance. Her characteristic gentle humor outshined painful context.

I appreciated the book when I read it in the abstract. I have treasured it since, when I have needed its advice. I highly recommend it.

And I highly recommend taking inspiration, a recommitment to live every day to its fullest, from Kayleigh's life story. I know she would much prefer that to anyone's overindulgence of grief.

The UMass Dartmouth Torch wrote about Kayleigh and her book in 2016. The same year, Kayleigh appeared in a short UMass Law promo video. A related public relations piece features two fantastic photos from the soccer pitch by award-winning (New Bedford, Mass.) Standard-Times photographer Mike Valeri. Notice Kayleigh's smile in the latter. (If anyone can reach The Standard-Times or Valeri, please ask whether they might contribute the photos to Kayleigh's obituary page. I tried, but The Standard-Times staff directory is 403.)

Surviving Your Friend's Cancer remains available from Lulu at the time of this writing.

Commencement speakers envision new beginnings

Commencement at UMass Law yesterday featured a couple of great speeches. And I'm not an easy critic.

Both speakers implicitly recognized the nature of a "commencement" as a new beginning.

Giving the student address, graduate Jack Lovely, now JD, an accomplished alumnus of my Comparative Law class, spoke eloquently to inspire his class on the road, and opportunities, that lie ahead in their professional careers. 

I especially liked Lovely's use of a quote from Jon Stewart: "[T]he unfortunate and truly exciting thing about your life is there is no core curriculum. The entire place is an elective." The quote often is, as here, taken a bit out of context—Stewart was speaking more to how young people mature at university than after—but the extrapolation is fair, and the spirit fits.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Justice Serge Georges Jr. impressed on graduates that they have the opportunity, and should endeavor, to shape the law, not just use it, and certainly not just reap benefits without giving back. He admonished, "The law is not a monument. It's a living promise."

Justice Georges similarly advised, "Don't confuse having a good life with living a good life." To wit, he memorably urged graduates to distinguish superficial interaction on social media, such as food posts, from human connections that really matter: "No one cares about the calamari."

A few of my now-former students were among award winners, including: brilliant researcher and top Torts students Christopher J. Sanacore, Academic Achievement for Part-Time Student; dedicated Veterans Law Association President Timothy Trocchio, External Legal Education Award (CLEA); and Comparative Law distinguished alumna Naydin Natasha Zepeda, Thurgood Marshall Social Justice Award. My congratulations to them and all of the class of 2025.

Awards recognize law students Girouard, Riley

A moment to celebrate two of my ace former students, Kaitlyn Girouard and Jack Riley, who took home awards from the UMass Law Student Bar Association this spring.

Girouard earned the Excellence in Leadership Award, and Riley won the Outstanding Part-Time Student Award.

Girouard created this chart to help students navigate multiple liabilities.
© Used with permission. Contact RJ Peltz-Steele for licensing.

Girouard just finished out a spectacular year of service as my teaching assistant in Torts I and Torts II. I had to create a new virtual folder to keep track of student accolades for her mentoring. I asked Girouard to serve in this capacity not only because she excelled academically, but because she took a lead as a cheerful supporter of her own class in the first year. On her own initiative, for her study group, she created some terrific visuals to accompany my texts, a welcome complement to the pedagogy and indication of her talent for understanding learning styles.

Girouard is a Public Interest Law Fellow and leader in a range of student activities: president of the Criminal Law Society, president of the First Generation Law Students Association, and secretary of the Environmental Law Club. She came to law school with highest academic honors at Middlebury College, where she graduated summa cum laude in economics and environmental policy and served as an economic statistics tutor and faculty research assistant.

For all the workplaces that would relish having her, public service is on Girouard's heart. Already before law school, she worked summers in her native Concord, Vermont, for the Agency of Natural Resources, Sheriff's Department, and State's Attorney Office. Last summer, she worked a prestigious internship with the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office in New Bedford. She's headed back to Vermont to work in public service again this summer, this time supported by a prestigious Michael S. Dukakis Public Service Internship Award. Next academic year, Girouard will serve as a teaching assistant in Constitutional Law, further deepening her remarkable mastery of American legal fundamentals.

While Girouard was the star of her 1L Torts day section, Riley was the star of his night section, when I taught both in 2023-24. Riley is one of those exceptional people—an elite group that would not have included me—who manage to thrive in the workplace and in law school at the same time, all while maintaining a mentally healthy home life. He is a long-time manager and executive with 15 years' experience in finance, presently working for HarborOne Bank in Massachusetts. Riley is rightly lauded by professional and academic peers for his leadership skills and commitment to community service. In the law school, he also serves as a peer mentor.

There's a lot to complain about teaching in higher ed today, and I am not reticent to voice it. At the same time, even the most frustrated of us keep coming back to the classroom every fall, and no wonder, for the opportunity to meet, to learn from, and to be inspired by people such as Girouard and Riley.

Student Shieh shakes up Brown with DOGE-like query, but universities hold fast in defense of admin 'bloat'

University Hall and Van Wyckle Gates at Brown University
Robert Barnett via Flickr CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

A conservative student journalist who roiled Brown University in March with a DOGE-like investigation of administrator efficacy was cleared of disciplinary charges under university policies, at least for now, WPRI reported yesterday.

In mid-March 2025, Brown sophomore Alex Shieh emailed more than 3,800 university staff—including administrators, but not faculty, nor students—with a DOGE-inspired query, "Describe what tasks you performed in the past week," the free speech-protective Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) reported.

Shieh told WJAR (NBC 10 Providence) that he planned to "use[] information he gathered to launch an online database using artificial intelligence, detailing the different administrators working for the school." Writing under the banner of the conservative Brown Spectator, Shieh was unabashed in advancing his self-described "Bloat@Brown" thesis: that the sky-high price of higher education at Brown—$96,000 annual cost of attendance—could be chalked up in large part to an excess of well compensated staff.

Brown swiftly charged Shieh with conduct infractions, namely, violation of computer use policy and having inflicted "emotional harm" on staff.

The charges come right from the contemporary higher ed playbook. Even mired in the muck of early-20th-century, callow conceptions of academic freedom, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) as soon as the 1990s managed to perceive the misuse of "electronic communication policies," later commonly known as "acceptable use policies," as a constraint on free campus inquiry. FIRE today sometimes considers such policies in its campus free speech rankings.

The "emotional harm" claim is rich: a charge staff are encouraged to assert in a world in which there's no I in Team Corporatocracy, and which the university eagerly backs to suppress dissent. One might think a university would be cognizant of how the charge of "emotional harm"—not actionable in tort for the very reason that the law should not infiltrate and suffocate social interaction in liberal society—feeds the "snowflake" stereotype. But no, higher ed is committed blindly to its moral condescension. 

My own employer has selectively (and unconstitutionally?) enforced a university policy requiring faculty to "accord respect to ... others" (my emphasis). Calling out misfeasance is an offense, notwithstanding state whistleblower policy.

For an institutional home of so many smart people, Brown apparently couldn't see beyond its bubble to anticipate the public firestorm of support for Shieh. Turns out, Americans are fed up with our uniquely-in-the-world outrageous cost of higher education and the refusal of universities, especially well endowed private ones, even to acknowledge the problem, much less part with their wealth to redress it. Whether staff at Brown are too numerous or too well compensated, I can't say; I haven't made a study of it. But Brown's problem is that Shieh's thesis sounds credible. "Bloat@Brown" hit a nerve.

My reaction was exactly what manifested on Reddit. For example, in the r/Professors thread ("sub") "How Do We Feel About Alex Shieh?," in April, biomedical sciences associate professor the_Stick put it much more eloquently (typos corrected) than I could:

I suspect this sub will automatically dismiss him because he is an undergrad, used AI, is brash, likes the idea of DOGE removing inefficient and wasteful positions, has been interviewed by FoxNews, is Asian, dislikes DEI, and intentionally challenges the university structure. 

However, the curious aspect is that he is targeting administrative bloat with his 'investigation,' specifically positions that we on this sub have often complained about for years and years. While he indelicately lumps positions into what he classifies as DEI/woke, he also uses the term "bullshit jobs" which we have discussed here too. He also specifically does NOT target students or faculty but deanlets and administrators with complicated titles that we have made fun of here. I am NOT saying he is 100% correct, but I am saying he is making arguments we have made here for a decade about the ongoing administrative expenditures having priority over things like faculty salary and facility maintenance. His concerns appear to have arisen from working in a flooded room while observing a 50% increase in tuition over the past decade.

While his language is unrefined (as one might expect from an undergrad, even at an Ivy), I am not a big fan of the university response to him either. From various sources, he seems to have asked in his emails what is your job description or what do you actually do (without making a call for justification). We've done that here, and I know many of us have asked some administrators with a strange title what they do. But that email, perhaps because he made so many at once, is being held up as infliction of harm. The idea of misusing publicly available data seems to be a witch hunt. The charge of misrepresenting himself as a journalist goes against idea of citizen and activist journalists which have been recognized much more widely. He might be a jerk, but Brown's response seems exceedingly vindictive in tone so far.

Indeed, before I read Professor the_Stick's missive, just this week, I engaged in an annual tradition of my own: an audit of positions and salaries at my workplace, in the University of Massachusetts, using the state's public and transparent, but difficult to search, online payroll system. I say it's an "annual" tradition, but really it's more often biennial, because I can't stand to have my stomach turned every year.

I would tell you what I found, but ... I don't want to inflict any, uh, emotional harm or disrespect. It must suffice to say that there are a lot of people making a lot more money than the law faculty. Like me, many of them have "Chancellor" in their titles. But I've never seen them in a classroom doing the, you know, educating that universities are so famous for. Nor the research. In fact, many of them I've never seen.

Like the_Stick observed, Shieh's suspicion is neither new nor devoid of merit. It's rather an echo of Benjamin Ginsburg's superb The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters. The 2011 book made waves, inspired demands for reform, and then effected no change whatsoever.

So it's likely to go for Alex Shieh.

House cap of 435 is unconstitutional, prof argues

My colleague Professor Anoo Vyas has published Why Capping the House at 435 is Unconstitutional in the Penn State Law Review.

Here is the abstract.

Expanding the House of Representatives could offer several benefits, as noted by various public policy experts. It could make gerrymandering more difficult and mitigate the impact of money in our political system. Additionally, it could lessen political polarization, which some scholars argue has reached levels that threaten the long-term viability of our democracy. In fact, increasing the size of the House theoretically could impact all potential legislation at the federal level.

Congress fixed the House at 435 members nearly a century ago when it passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. Though the population of the country subsequently has increased by more than 200 million, the number of House delegates remains at 435. This Article argues that the Permanent Apportionment Act is unconstitutional because it eliminates Congress’ responsibility to assess the size of the House every ten years. This review of House size in connection with the census was a significant tool used by proponents of the Constitution during the ratification period to convince skeptics who feared the House may one day transform into an oligarchical body.

Prof. Anoo Vyas
UMass Law

The Permanent Apportionment Act violates various modes of originalism and textualism, as favored by more conservative jurists. Moreover, it runs afoul of living constitutionalism, espoused by more liberal judges. Finally, a formula, such as one that automatically adjusts House size to the cube root of the population, could avoid contentious fights while simultaneously passing constitutional muster.

As I discussed with Professor Vyas in the development of his work, I believe his thesis is important regardless of whether it precipitates an accordant Supreme Court ruling anytime soon. The impact the article can and should have is to spark serious consideration of the dysfunction of our Congress and why it has failed as an institution to meet the needs of voters. Look no farther than U.S. Rep. Mike Flood's (R-Neb.) disastrous town hall.

In fact, when Professor Alasdair Roberts lectured at the law school last week about deficiencies in the design of American government—I wrote about Roberts's lecture yesterday—Roberts specifically listed the small size of Congress, relative to the legislatures of the world's comparably large and complex polities, as a cause of our defective democracy.

Roberts explains 'real crisis' of American government

Flyer by RJ Peltz-Steele (with AI art) CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

At UMass Law last week, Alasdair S. Roberts, UMass Amherst professor of public policy, lectured on "The Real Crisis of American Government" and spoke to my international law class about his 2023 book, Superstates: Empires of the 21st Century.

In research for his next book, Professor Roberts is investigating deficiencies in the design of American government and how they might be remedied. The work follows naturally after Roberts's most recent book, The Adaptable Country: How Canada Can Survive the Twenty-First Century (2024), as the author turns his scrutiny to the United States. 

The subject could not have been more timely with the dramatic and controversial changes afoot in the federal government. Here was the teaser for the talk:

The United States isn’t facing a crisis of democracy. It’s facing a crisis of adaptability: the inability to adjust institutions to meet today’s challenges.

Prof. Alasdair S. Roberts
RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

I don't want to steal Professor Roberts's thunder; his ideas will be more fully developed as the research unfolds. I will summarize two prongs of his presentation this way:

First, as Roberts put it, if one were to design a government for a polity as socially pluralistic, geographically vast, and ideologically diverse as America is today, it would not look like the system of the U.S. Constitution. The delta between what we have and the ideal is the root of our problems, which span the three branches of government.

Second, fixing things won't be easy or fast, even after, and if, we acknowledge our problems. The drifts of dysfunction have accumulated for more than a century at both federal and state levels, and it will take just as long to reverse adverse trends and to re-revolutionize—one hopes bloodlessly—American government.

Problems wrought by the unanticipated contemporary complexity of the American nation were precisely where Professor Roberts left off in Superstates, in which he pondered the expansiveness, population, diversity, and complexity, unprecedented in the history of human civilization, of the United States, European Union, China, and India. Roberts talked to my international law class about how these modern polities are and are not like extinct historical empires, and what that means for our species in an era of existential challenges such as climate change. 

Superstates has been one of my favorite nonfiction books since I read it two years ago, when Professor Roberts visited my freedom-of-information seminar. Re-reading its first chapter last week, I found it only more salient to rapidly evolving international relations.

Professor Roberts's school-wide lecture was well attended in large thanks to sponsorship by student organizations, the Federalist Society, the Law and Political Economy Society, the National Lawyers Guild, and the Veterans Law Association, for which I am faculty adviser; and by the public interest law program and the Office of the Dean, which provided pizza. I am grateful to Professor Roberts for visiting campus and to all the students, faculty, and deans who supported his visit.

Christian law students hear advice on grounding oneself in faith amid stresses of law practice

🍀 St. Patrick's Day Zoom.
RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

The newly constituted student Christian Legal Society at UMass Law School held its first event on St. Patrick's Day.

In a hybrid meeting, "Faith and the Legal Field," CLS students in Dartmouth, Mass., and I were joined via Zoom by Anton Sorkin, director of law student ministries at the Christian Legal Society in Springfield, Va.; attorney J.A.A. Purves, Penner & Purves, Santa Barbara, Cal.; and Kathy Cooper, InterVarsity regional director for faculty and graduate ministries, working out of Brown University in Providence, R.I.

The new student organization and this panel in particular were the work product of the tireless Tiffany Trott-McKenna and her executive board, Sophia Chiotis, JuliaBianca Josen, Dream Whitaker, and Paul Steinman. They're all wonderful students whom soon I will miss when they graduate and begin law practice.

A veteran of the U.S. Marines, Trott-McKenna is a phenom I have been especially privileged to know in her time in law school. She serves also as president of the Black Law Students Association and member of the Veterans Law Association, and she will practice law in California after graduation.

Trott-McKenna asked the panelists to share their experiences with faith and law practice, and also asked for takeaways that might be useful as Christian law students transition to practice.

Purves talked about family practice and explained, for example, the distinctly professional role of the lawyer in a divorce case. Both faith and one's professional responsibility call for compassionate and informed counseling of a client seeking divorce, he said—even though marital reconciliation will spell the early end of the representation.

Sorkin spoke to the challenges of practicing in Big Law while maintaining ethical and moral lines, dictated by faith, that one won't cross. Constant vigilance and self-interrogation are required to resist the "win at any cost" mentality that too often dictates legal maneuvering. I'm reminded of Daniel 6:3.

For my part, I spoke of the temptation to bifurcate one's life into faith and secular work, and how I came to understand that no one, lawyers included, truly lives a life of faith while indulging that duplicity.

In takeaways, Cooper spoke to the importance of prayer to keep an even keel. Likewise, I talked about the importance of staying in the Word—while admitting that my track record isn't perfect, as daily struggles inevitably pull us all toward materialism and the secular. The important thing is to try, try again.

Trott-McKenna succeeded magnificently in navigating the bureaucracy to obtain official recognition of the CLS student group at the law school and in the university. I have been blessed to serve as the inaugural faculty adviser for the CLS group.

The group is not yet an official chapter of the national CLS organization. That will be a job for an up and coming new board. I look forward to CLS contributing vitally to the formation of law students' professional identity in the coming years.

Researcher seeks to ease persistent anticompetitive constraints on indie films in online environment

Yaleth Calderon, a film school graduate and candidate for the California bar, has published a law review note on antitrust, online technology, and independent filmmaking.

Are There Plenty of Movies in the Sea?: How a Revision of the Terminated Paramount Decrees Could Benefit the Market for Independent Filmmakers appears in the latest issue, volume 20, page 111, of the UMass Law Review. Here is the abstract:

In the early years of filmmaking, the Supreme Court passed the Paramount Decrees as a set of rules prohibiting certain practices by major production companies that restrained competition within the industry. The creation of the internet has not only changed the way society has consumed media, but it has also affected the opportunities for filmmakers to share their works with the world. In 2020, the Paramount Decrees were overturned, dramatically limiting the distribution channels, creative control, and marketing opportunities held by independent filmmakers. This note outlines the injury felt by independent filmmakers and proposes specific rules inspired by the Paramount Decrees that the Federal Trade Commission could enact to mitigate some of the adverse effects of the decision.

The journal is transitioning to a new online publication platform, so volume 20 is not yet online. The new platform is expected to launch in summer 2025. Meanwhile, Calderon generously has made the piece available to Savory Tort readers here.

In an author's note, Calderon wrote that "[t]his article is an attempt to contribute to the ever-changing challenges towards film distribution in the digital era."

Calderon is an alumna of my comparative law class, in which it was a pleasure to have her. She received her B.A. in Cinema and Digital Media and English, with an emphasis in literature, criticism, and theory, from the University of California Davis. Last year, she served as a judicial extern at the L.A. Superior Court. After finishing law school this spring, Calderon plans to return to her home Los Angeles to practice law in California.

Calderon's subject matter is dear to my heart, too. Morgan Steele, my daughter, works in film in Los Angeles and has directed shorts. She just made a cameo in an Instagram promo (below) for The Gorge (streaming today on AppleTV+ (subscription wall)). Paul McAlarney, my friend and former TA and RA, now a New York lawyer, was an independent filmmaker before law school.

Exactly as Calderon recognizes, the streaming environment has multiplied the potential for independent distribution in film, but anticompetitive practices in the market have precluded the full realization of that potential, to the detriment of both creators and viewers.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Apple Films (@applefilms)

Mother of slain scholar publishes his account of academic workplace mobbing at UMass (Amherst)

At the inaugural Niagara Conference on Workplace Mobbing at Niagara University last summer, easily the most moving and haunting presentation was that of Kimberly Lewis, whose son lost his life after being victimized by workplace mobbing.

A scholar, Joel Inbody authored a book manuscript about his experience as a victim of academic workplace mobbing at the University of Massachusetts (Amherst). After his death, his mother, Lewis, edited and completed the book in partnership with the pugnacious publisher Herb Richardson, founding editor of Mellen Press. 

Inbody wrote: "I wrote this book to critically explore an academic mobbing that sociologists subjected me to as a graduate student in 2018-2019. After thoroughly reviewing available literature on mobbing to highlight their history, severity, and progression, I analyze content from numerous records (emails, police reports, notes, letters, blog posts, pictures) and rely on autoethnography to describe the mobbing that I lived through."

A Student's Account of the Mobbing That Led to His Murder (How U. Mass Faculty Bullied Him to Death (2024) became available for sale at Mellen Press late last year.

Lewis's presentation, along with most of the presentations at the 2024 Niagara Conference on Workplace Mobbing, is available on YouTube.  The 2025 Niagara Conference on Workplace Mobbing (via The Savory Tort) is open for registration.

Q&A: 

New book examines 'rise of classical legal thought' through experience of South Asia, British Empire

Professor Chaudhry
UMass Law

Professor Faisal Chaudhry has published a book on history and the development of classical legal thought.

South Asia, the British Empire, and the Rise of Classical Legal Thought: Toward a Historical Ontology of Law (2024) is available now from Oxford University Press. Here is the publisher's description:

This book delves into the legal history of colonial governance in South Asia, spanning the period from 1757 to the early 20th century. It traces a notable shift in the way sovereignty, land control, and legal rectification were conceptualized, particularly after 1858. During the early phase of the rule of the East India Company, the focus was on 'the laws' that influenced the administration of justice rather than 'the law' as a comprehensive normative system. The Company's perspective emphasized absolute property rights, particularly concerning land rent, rather than physical control over land. This viewpoint was expressed through the obligation of revenue payment, with property existing somewhat outside the realm of law. This early colonial South Asian legal framework differed significantly from the Anglo-common law tradition, which had already developed a unified and physical concept of property rights as a distinct legal form by the late 18th century. It was only after the transfer of authority from the Company to the British Crown, along with other shifts in the imperial political economy, that the conditions were ripe for 'the law' to emerge as an autonomous and fundamental institutional concept. One of the contributing factors to this transformation was the emergence of classical legal thought. Under Crown rule, two distinct forms of discourse contributed to reshaping the legal ontology around the globalized notion of 'the law' as an independent concept. The book, adopting a historical approach to jurisprudence, categorizes these forms as doctrinal discourse, which could articulate propositions of the law with practical and administrative qualities, and ordinary language discourse, which conveyed ideas about the law, including in the public domain.

Professor Chaudhry is a valued colleague of mine. I admire his critical and historical approach to first-year property, with which he complements my social and economic emphases in teaching torts.

Law class visits Constitutional Court of Portugal

Law students and Dean Sam Panarella (left)
visit the Constitutional Court. © RJ Peltz-Steele

Since last week, ten talented U.S. law students have been making the most of Lisbon, Portugal, in UMass Law's first class abroad.

In our maiden venture, we are studying comparative data protection law in the United States, European Union, and Portugal. We have been treated to superb lectures by law faculty of our partner institution, the Universidade Católica Portuguesa (UCP).

Today, a UCP faculty member welcomed us to the home of the Portugal Constitutional Court, where he also serves as Vice-President. Justice Gonçalo de Almeida Ribeiro spoke to us there about constitutional conflict in the EU legal system.

The justice had instructed students to prepare by reading Digital Rights Ireland, a 2014 case in the EU Court of Justice (CJEU), and the "Metadata Ruling," a 2019 decision of the Constitutional Court of Portugal. In Digital Rights, the CJEU had struck down an EU directive on data retention as inconsistent with fundamental rights under the European Charter. 

Justice Gonçalo de Almeida Ribeiro addresses law students.
RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

The case marked a recognition of the CJEU's own power of judicial review. But it also raised a confounding question. The CJEU lacks authority to review national legislation directly. So what would become of national, domestic laws that had been enacted already pursuant to the stricken EU directive? 

The Portuguese Constitutional Court in Metadata construed Portuguese constitutional law in harmony with the EU Charter to strike down as well the problematic provisions of Portuguese law that had been enacted pursuant to the directive. The responses of the Portuguese and other national constitutional courts to Digital Rights thus marked a pivotal point in the evolution of the EU's peculiar brand of "federalism" (to jam a square peg into a round word).

All of the law students in the class deserve praise for being good-natured and flexible in the face of a fluctuating itinerary for this fledgling Portugal project. They all assert, nonetheless, that they are here first and foremost for this remarkable learning opportunity, and not for myriad other benefits, for example, to see Taylor Swift at Benfica Stadium at what are by U.S. standards bargain ticket prices. That was icing.

UMass law students with me at Universidade Católica Portuguesa
© Prof. Sofia Pinto (licensed)