DOCSLIB.ORG

P. Brooks Fuller a Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
P. Brooks Fuller a Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of The WORDS, WOUNDS, AND RELATIONSHIPS: A MIXED-METHOD STUDY OF FREE SPEECH AND HARM IN HIGH-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTS P. Brooks Fuller A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the School Media and Journalism. Chapel Hill 2017 Approved by: Cathy L. Packer R. Michael Hoefges George W. Noblit William P. Marshall Victoria S. Ekstrand © 2017 P. Brooks Fuller ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT P. Brooks Fuller: Words, Wounds, and Relationships: a Mixed-Method Study of Free Speech and Harm in High-Conflict Environments (Under the direction of Cathy L. Packer) This dissertation is a mixed-method, socio-legal study of First Amendment issues and social practices surrounding free expression and harm in high-conflict speech environments, such as ongoing political protests. Scholarly literature and case law on harmful speech makes clear that context is crucial for courts to understand the relative harms and values associated with speech in such environments. The outcome of a court’s contextual analysis can profoundly impact the outcome of a case involving allegedly harmful speech that falls at the borderlines of First Amendment protection. However, American courts have not articulated clear frameworks for conducting contextual analysis. Thus, lower courts have used an array of contextual factors, often implicitly and in ways that fail to grasp aspects of context that are critical for participants who engage daily in persistent, heated ideological debate in high-conflict environments. Using legal analysis and ethnographic field methods, this dissertation studies how courts conduct contextual analysis in true threats and incitement cases and how participants who engage daily in pro-and-anti-abortion advocacy at a local clinic use context to determine whether and to what extent speech causes harm. The findings in this dissertation reveal that courts and participants frame important aspects of context and harm in dramatically different ways. The apparent gaps between courts’ collective knowledge and the social knowledge of participants have important implications for how courts might choose to conduct contextual analysis and iii consider harm in true threats and incitement cases in the future. Based on a comparative analysis of the cases and the ethnographic findings, this dissertation proposes that courts adopt a contextual analysis framework that considers the following non-exhaustive list of contextual factors when deciding true threats or incitement cases: 1) the social context surrounding speech (particularly the relationship between the parties and the speaker’s intent); 2) speech’s historical context; 3) the medium of expression; and 4) the speech’s linguistic context. This dissertation concludes that the proposed framework would provide clarity and rigor to contextual analysis, which is crucial in all cases in which courts must work to determine whether speech loses First Amendment protection because of the harms it may cause. iv To my participants: This project would not have been possible without you. I am forever in your debt. I hope that a small portion of that debt has been paid through a faithful, though admittedly imperfect, account of your experiences. To readers: “It’s easy to confuse what is with what ought to be, especially when what is has always worked out in your favor.” – D. Benioff & D.B. Weiss v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Though not sure where to begin, I must state plainly and upfront that these acknowledgments do not begin to do justice to the love and support I’ve received from the many people named in these few pages. Nor do they fairly or fully thank the countless others whose influence helped me get to this point. Simply put, there are many to whom I am indebted and for whom I am thankful. At the top of this list is my family. Special thanks go out to my mother, Connie Knight, for encouraging me throughout this process and for sharing in both my successes and my frustrations. You’ve always been one hell of a cheerleader for me, even when I’ve tried to shy away from the praise. I love you. Thanks to my stepmother, Nancy Fuller, for always listening and for giving me space when I needed to process trying moments during the past four years. I appreciate your seemingly boundless patience and the love you’ve sent my way. To my grandmothers, Lucile “Mimi” Cole and Betty “Grandmama” Fuller, you’ve both been remarkable examples of brilliance and strength for me. I honestly can’t imagine two more perfect women to have as role models. Your husbands, even though they’ve long since passed from our midst, are most certainly beaming. Many thanks to my stepdad, George Knight, for taking an interest in my work and supporting my mother tirelessly just as she’s supported me. To my siblings and cousins (aka “the sneeze”; aka NHSKAMI), I hope that I’ve been a bit less cantankerous during the last four years than during the bar exam. I love you all. When I think about the wonderful family I was given, and how it continues to grow, I’m filled with a deep and abiding sense of gratitude. To Sam Kimball, my best friend, you are like a brother to me. I’m vi grateful to know you, incredibly proud of you, and glad to have been able to turn to you at many times during this journey. To the late Lou Fuller, my loving dad and my constant example, I cannot write a paragraph that fairly or completely explains your importance to me and the role you played in getting me here. Suffice it to say that you were everything to me and I hope I’ve done you proud. You supported me wholly and unceasingly when my professional life turned toward graduate school. You read and questioned my early writing, even from a dull, sterile room at Baptist Medical Center. I will always be thankful for the breakfasts, the cups of coffee, the hugs, the rides in the Chevy and the subsequent tinkering, the stories, and the books you shared with me during the 29 years I had with you. Along with my family, many thanks are due to my wonderful committee. Thanks to Dr. Packer (whom I one day hope to call Cathy) for agreeing to serve as chair and for committing so much effort to stretching my brain and strengthening this project. I am awed by your poise and your devotion to your students. To Michael Hoefges, you have been a consummate mentor to me, especially during the first few months of this program and during my job search. Your advice and insight have been instrumental to my development as a scholar and as a colleague. The journey from a seat in your undergraduate media law class to a research assistantship with you to becoming your friend has been a gift all its own. To George Noblit, thank you for teaching me to question my many assumptions about law and life, and for doing so in new and interesting ways. To Bill Marshall, thank you for holding me to high standards, asking the difficult questions, and letting me arrive at my own answers. To Tori Ekstrand, thank you for helping me think about and critique the layers of this work and the structures that surround it. vii I am also thankful to my talented, kind, and brilliant cohort: Kylah Hedding, for always being willing to take a break from Ph.D. life to talk football and politics; Justin Blankenship, for bringing a clutch level of wit and reason to all of our discussions; Elise Stevens, for managing to find the humor in most anything and for sharing your yoga practice with us; Laura Marshall, for office chats, constant support, and the occasional old fashioned; Scott Brennen, for helping me think deeply about my project and helping me grapple with my research path and with ethnography generally; Dannielle Kelley, for always letting me vent and for sharing my affinity for Vince Staples rhymes. Additional thanks to some of the finest members of the MJ-School I had the privilege to know during my time at Carolina: Joe Cabosky, for his open-door policy and his fierce devotion to friends and to the program; Laura Meadows, for believing in me, constantly reminding me to take care of myself, for the thinking bat, and late-night shooting sessions in Woollen Gym; Jesse Abdenour, for being a stellar officemate who’s always down for Aquemini session during a writing break, “whose mind warps and bends/floats the wind/count to ten/meet the twin/…who extends himself so you go out and tell a friend;” Meghan Sobel and Karen McIntyre, for expertly timed dissertation breaks at R&R; Tanner Frevert and John Fitzgerald, for making me laugh almost daily and always giving me a hand when I need it even when I get pretty salty; Pressley Baird, for the GOAT pound cake and the talks on rides home; Sophia Noor, for one of the world’s greatest smiles and constant encouragement; Brian Dykens, for being a devoted friend and workout (and Med Deli) buddy; Chris Etheridge, for rolling with everything and being a positive force for Carroll 366; Francesca Dillman Carpentier and Heidi Hennink-Kaminski, for helping me get back on my feet after dad passed and for helping me aim high in this program; Rhonda Gibson, to whom I owe a special debt of gratitude for encouraging me to reapply to the viii program and for teaching me the value of balance in academic life; my students, for challenging me and contributing perspective to my work; and to all of the Law Dawgs for sharing your gifts with me during the last four years.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THE UNITED STATES COURTS of APPEALS DATA BASE DOCUMENTATION for PHASE 1 a Multi User Data Base Created by a Grant from the Natio
    THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS DATA BASE DOCUMENTATION for PHASE 1 A Multi User Data Base Created by a Grant from the National Science Foundation (SES-8912678) Principal Investigator: Donald R. Songer Professor of Political Science University of South Carolina Columbia, SC 29208 email: Dsonger @ sc.edu Table of Contents General Introduction................................... 3 Files Distributed...................................... 7 Sampling & Weighting................................... 8 Reliability Analysis................................... 9 Variable list.......................................... 10 DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLES Basic Case Characteristics General Description.......................... 17 History & Nature of Case..................... 21 Participants Appellants................................... 32 Respondents.................................. 58 Other Participants........................... 66 Issue Coding Basic Nature of Issues & Decision............ 68 Provisions Cited in Headnotes................ 95 Threshhold Issues............................102 Criminal Issues..............................109 Civil Law Issues.............................118 Civil Government & Administrative Law........127 Diversity Issues.............................134 Judges and Votes..................................135 Appendix 1: Alphabetical List of Variables.............147 Appendix 2: Variable List in Input Order...............152 Appendix 3: List of Appeals Court Judge Codes..........158 Appendix 4: List of District Court Judge Codes.........173
    [Show full text]
  • PDF Download
    MARCH/APRIL 2019 TURN TO PAGE 5 FOR 2019 KBA Annual Convention Details Individual Own Occupation Disability Coverage for Kentucky Attorneys Affordable KBA Rates from Metlife KBA Member Semiannual Rates Monthly Coverage Amount: $3,000 $5,000 $10,000 Under 30 yrs $152 $252 $502 30-39 yrs $213 $354 $705 40-49 yrs $352 $585 $1,167 ✓ No Medical Exam (Under Age 50) ✓ No Tax Returns ✓ Apply for up to $10,000/month Coverage ✓ Residual Disability Coverage ✓ Industry Standard Disability Definition ✓ Easy Online Application Visit www.NIAI.com/Attorneys for KBA quotes and application Call or Email TODAY | 800.928.6421 | [email protected] | www.NIAI.com This issue of the Kentucky Bar Association’s VOL. 83, NO. 2 B&B-Bench & Bar was published in the month of March. COMMUNICATIONS & PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE Contents James P. Dady, Chair, Bellevue 2 President’s Page Paul Alley, Florence By: Douglas C. Ballantine Elizabeth M. Bass, Gallatin, Tenn. Rhonda J. Blackburn, Pikeville 5 2019 KBA Annual Convention Preview and Jenn L. Brinkley, Bowling Green Registration Information Frances E. Catron Cadle, Lexington Anne A. Chesnut, Lexington 14 Q & A with “Survivor” Winner Kentucky Attorney Nick Wilson Elizabeth A. Deener, Lexington 16 Book Review: Brian Haara’s “Bourbon Justice: Tamara A. Fagley, Lexington How Whiskey Law Shaped America” Cathy W. Franck, Crestwood By: James P. Dady Lonita Baker Gaines, Louisville William R. Garmer, Lexington Features: Information Governance P. Franklin Heaberlin, Prestonsburg 20 Information Governance: “Do You Actually Know Judith B. Hoge, Louisville What You Don’t Know?” Jessica R. C. Malloy, Louisville By: Sandra J.
    [Show full text]
  • FIXING the VOTE Wendy Weiser, Michael Waldman, Myrna Pérez, Diana Kasdan CONGRESS and the CRISIS in the COURTS Alicia Bannon R
    FIXING THE VOTE Wendy Weiser, Michael Waldman, Myrna Pérez, Diana Kasdan CONGRESS AND THE CRISIS IN THE COURTS Alicia Bannon REFORMS TO CURB MASS INCARCERATION Inimai Chettiar, Lauren-Brooke Eisen, Nicole Fortier NATIONAL SECURITY, LOCAL POLICE Michael Price PLUS: DEMOCRACY TODAY Bill Moyers ‘MONEYBALL’ FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE Peter Orszag ON POLITICAL POLARIZATION Richard Pildes, Monica Youn, Robert Bauer, Benjamin Ginsberg WILL SOCIAL MEDIA CHANGE OUR POLITICS? Walter Shapiro THE LIES WE TELL ABOUT THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL Andrew Cohen AN INNOVATION MOMENT FOR CAMPAIGN REFORM Gov. Andrew Cuomo, AG Eric Schneiderman, Lawrence Norden, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Lawrence Lessig1 The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that seeks to improve our systems of democracy and justice. We work to hold our political institutions and laws accountable to the twin American ideals of democracy and equal justice for all. The Center’s work ranges from voting rights to campaign finance reform, from racial justice in criminal law to Constitutional protection in the fight against terrorism. A singular institution — part think tank, part public interest law firm, part advocacy group, part communications hub — the Brennan Center seeks meaningful, measurable change in the systems by which our nation is governed. About Democracy & Justice: Collected Writings 2013 The material in this volume is excerpted from Brennan Center reports, policy proposals, and issue briefs. We’ve also excerpted material from public remarks, legal briefs, congressional testimony, and op-ed pieces written by Brennan Center staff in 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • Detroit Free Press V. U.S. Dep't of Justice and A
    Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice Volume 37 Article 5 Issue 3 Electronic Supplement April 2016 Mean Muggin’ No More: Detroit Free Press v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice and a Non-Trivial Privacy Interest in Booking Photographs Meghan Looney Boston College Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/jlsj Part of the Criminal Procedure Commons, Internet Law Commons, Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons, and the Privacy Law Commons Recommended Citation Meghan Looney, Mean Muggin’ No More: Detroit Free Press v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice and a Non-Trivial Privacy Interest in Booking Photographs, 37 B.C.J.L. & Soc. Just. E. Supp. 45 (2016), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/jlsj/vol37/iss3/5 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MEAN MUGGIN’ NO MORE: DETROIT FREE PRESS v. U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE AND A NON-TRIVIAL PRIVACY INTEREST IN BOOKING PHOTOGRAPHS * MEGHAN LOONEY Abstract: On July 14, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that criminal defendants have a legitimate privacy interest in their booking pho- tographs, thereby reversing and remanding a grant of summary judgment in favor of the Detroit Free Press’s request for the booking photographs of four police of- ficers who had recently been indicted for bribery and drug conspiracy.
    [Show full text]
  • If You Have Issues Viewing Or Accessing This File Contact Us at NCJRS.Gov
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. • COURT',.---------. DIRECTORY MARCH 1987 '. 106091 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization cfiglnating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this c~d material has been granted by Public Domain/Administrative Office of the United states Courts to the National Crimi nat Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of th~ht owner. UNITED STATES COURT DIRECTORY Issued by: The Administrative Office of the United States Courts Wa~hington, D.C. 20544 Contents: Personnel Division " Office of the Chief (202-633-6115) Printing & Distribution: Administrative Services Division Printing & Distribution Facility (301-763-1865) The information in this Directory is current as of February I, 1987. TABLE OF CONTENTS Supreme Court . ................................................................................ United States Courts of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit ............................................... "................... 2 First Circuit. .. 4 Second Circuit. .. 5 Third Circuit. .. 8 Fourth Circuit. .. 10 Fifth Circuit ................................................................................. 12 Sixth Circuit ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Branch
    JUDICIAL BRANCH SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES One First Street, NE., 20543, phone (202) 479–3000 JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., Chief Justice of the United States, was born in Buffalo, NY, January 27, 1955. He married Jane Marie Sullivan in 1996 and they have two children, Josephine and Jack. He received an A.B. from Harvard College in 1976 and a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1979. He served as a law clerk for Judge Henry J. Friendly of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 1979–80 and as a law clerk for then Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist of the Supreme Court of the United States during the 1980 term. He was Special Assistant to the Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice from 1981–82, Associate Counsel to President Ronald Reagan, White House Coun- sel’s Office from 1982–86, and Principal Deputy Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice from 1989–93. From 1986–89 and 1993–2003, he practiced law in Washington, DC. He was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2003. President George W. Bush nominated him as Chief Justice of the United States, and he took his seat September 29, 2005. ANTONIN SCALIA, Associate Justice, was born in Trenton, NJ, March 11, 1936. He married Maureen McCarthy and has nine children, Ann Forrest, Eugene, John Francis, Catherine Elisabeth, Mary Clare, Paul David, Matthew, Christopher James, and Margaret Jane. He received his A.B. from Georgetown University and the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, and his LL.B.
    [Show full text]
  • Enough for a Minyan: a Jewish Who's Who of Biden's Cabinet
    YOUR SHABBAT EDITION • JANUARY 22, 2021 Stories for you to savor over Shabbat and Sunday GET THE LATEST AT FORWARD.COM 1 GET THE LATEST AT FORWARD.COM News Enough for a minyan: A Jewish who’s who of Biden’s cabinet-to-be By Jacob Kornbluh As President-elect Joe Biden announced his picks for Hannah and Michael — would be raised Jewish, but that the Cabinet, the joke went around on Jewish Twitter the family would also celebrate Christmas. that the West Wing would have a minyan. A Harvard Law School graduate, Klain first served as Indeed, at least 10 prominent Jews have been chief of staff to former Vice President Al Gore and later nominated to key positions. There’s Ronald Klain (chief as chief of staff to Biden during his first term as vice of staff); Anthony Blinken (Secretary of State); Janet president. In 2014 he was appointed as President Yellen (Treasury); Merrick Garland (Attorney General); Barack Obama’s Ebola response coordinator. Alejandro Mayorkas (Homeland Security); and Avril Klain — an active Twitter user — played a key role in Haines (Director of National Intelligence). One level drafting Biden’s plan to address COVID-19 during the down are Wendy Sherman (deputy Secretary of State); presidential campaign. Eric Lander (science and technology adviser); Ann Neuberger (deputy National Security Adviser); and Tevi Troy, a historian and author of “Fight House,” a David Cohen (deputy CIA director). book about rivalries at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, pointed out that a number of Jews have preceded Klain Plus there’s Doug Emhoff, the Jewish husband of Vice in the role.
    [Show full text]
  • Judiciary Supreme Court of the United States
    JUDICIARY SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES One First Street NE 20543, phone 479±3000 WILLIAM HUBBS REHNQUIST, Chief Justice of the United States; born in Milwaukee, WI, October 1, 1924; son of William Benjamin and Margery Peck Rehnquist; married to Natalie Cornell of San Diego, CA; children: James, Janet, and Nancy, member of Faith Lutheran Church, Arlington, VA; served in the U.S. Army Air Corps in this country and overseas from 1943±46; discharged with the rank of sergeant; Stanford University, B.A., M.A., 1948; Harvard University, M.A., 1950; Stanford University, LL.B., 1952, ranking first in class; Order of the Coif; member of the Board of Editors of the Stanford Law Review; law clerk for Justice Robert H. Jackson, Supreme Court of the United States, 1952±53; private practice of law, Phoenix, AZ, 1953±69; engaged in a general practice of law with primary emphasis on civil litigation; appointed Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, by President Nixon in January 1969; nominated Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States by President Nixon on October 21, 1971, confirmed December 10, 1971, sworn in on January 7, 1972; nominated by President Reagan as Chief Justice of the United States on June 17, 1986; sworn in on September 26, 1986. JOHN PAUL STEVENS, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; born in Chicago, IL, April 20, 1920; son of Ernest James and Elizabeth Street Stevens; A.B., University of Chicago, 1941, Phi Beta Kappa, Psi Upsilon; J.D. (magna cum laude), Northwestern University, 1947, Order of the Coif, Phi Delta Phi, co-editor, Illinois Law Review; married to Maryan Mulholland; children: John Joseph, Kathryn Jedlicka, Elizabeth Jane Sesemann, and Susan Roberta Mullen; entered active duty U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Cases Involving Unauthorized Disclosures to the News Media, 1778 to the Present
    Federal Cases Involving Unauthorized Disclosures to the News Media, 1778 to the Present Introduction and Methodology This chart attempts to comprehensively survey every federal case involving an effort by law enforcement, an executive branch agency, the courts, or Congress to formally investigate or prosecute someone for, or compel the disclosure of information about, the unauthorized disclosure of government information to the news media. In short, it is our attempt at an exhaustive list of “leak” cases. Please note that, in addition to the cases one would usually think of as “leaks” matters—that is, cases arising out of the disclosure of national defense information, such as those involving Daniel Ellsberg, Chelsea Manning, and Edward Snowden—we include cases where courts have ordered an investigation into grand jury leaks (e.g., BALCO, Taricani, and Walters), where Congress has formally investigated a leak (e.g., Nugent, Schorr, and Phelps/Totenberg), where the leak involved non-national security information (e.g., Agnew and Lacker), where the surveillance or targeting of reporters was conducted as part of domestic espionage activity (e.g., Project Mockingbird), and where a Privacy Act plaintiff who has had information leaked to the press about a pending investigation seeks a subpoena to uncover the source (e.g., Lee and Hatfill). This chart excludes cases involving purely internal unauthorized disclosure inquiries within the government (such as the Raj Rajaratnam inquiry at the SEC1), unless they involve the formal investigation of members of the news media. We include the two cases involving U.S. submarine-based surveillance (Operations Holystone and Ivy Bells), where senior officials actively discussed using the 1950 amendment to the Espionage Act regarding the publication of communications intelligence to prosecute the outlet.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview: Biden Administration: Cabinet Members and Biographies President-Elect Biden's Cabinet Is Currently Expected to Incl
    Overview: Biden Administration: Cabinet Members and Biographies President-elect Biden’s Cabinet is currently expected to include all heads of major agencies and departments; the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations; the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers; the Director of National Intelligence; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; and the White House Chief of Staff. This document is organized alphabetically by last name. General Lloyd J. Austin III Secretary of Defense Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III was born in Mobile, Alabama and raised in Thomasville, Georgia before graduating from the United States Military Academy (West Point) with a BS. General Austin also holds an MA in counselor education from Auburn University and an MBA from Webster University. General Austin’s Army career began in 1975. Since then he has led joint forces in combat at the one-, two-, three- and four-star ranks. He has been a Commanding General for the 10th Mountain Division and Fort Drum; Chief of Staff and Commander for U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) at the Department of Defense; Commander of the Army’s XVIII Airborne Corps; Director of the Joint Staff; member of the Reserve Forces Policy Board; Vice Chief of Staff for the Army; and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Requirements Oversight Council. He has served around the world, including Operation Safe Haven in Panama with the 82nd Airborne Division; Operation Iraqi Freedom as the assistant division commander for the 3rd Infantry Division; and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan as the commander of the 10th Mountain Division.
    [Show full text]
  • Luxembourg Forum 2017 University of Michigan Law School
    University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Event Materials Law School History and Publications 2017 Luxembourg Forum 2017 University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.law.umich.edu/events Part of the Legal Education Commons Citation University of Michigan Law School, "Luxembourg Forum 2017" (2017). Event Materials. http://repository.law.umich.edu/events/29 This Program is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School History and Publications at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Event Materials by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LUXEMBOURG FORUM 2017 COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION VISIT TO THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL April 15-17, 2017 6 Conference Schedule 12 Participant Bios 22 Central Campus Map 3 WELCOME It is a great pleasure and honor to welcome the Court of Justice of the European Un ion to Ann Arbor for discussions with the Law School faculty, the Michigan Supreme Court, and judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The visit comes as part of a series of exchanges between the U.S. Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice, which have been taking place for nearly two decades, and which have more recently become known as the "Luxembourg Forum." The Law School, which pioneered the study of European Union law and whose collective faculty scholarship places Michigan Law among the leaders in international legal education , has a special and longstanding connection to these exchanges, having facilitated the meetings on both sides of the Atlantic since their inception.
    [Show full text]