This panel discussion was co-hosted by our Asian Pacific American Law Student Association and International Law Student Association. The event flyer, slides from our speakers, and a video of the discussion are available here if you missed attending this event.
Dr. James Nolt, Adjunct Associate Professor at New York University Program in International Relations and Senior Fellow at the World Policy Institute
Edward Harris, Assistant Dean and Associate Professor for International LL.M. programs at Chicago-Kent College of Law
Bartram S. Brown, Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Program inInternational and Comparative Law at Chicago-Kent College of Law
Kofi Ademola gave some historical context for the Black Lives Matter movement, which was founded by Alicia Garza, Opal Tometi, and Patrisse Cullors. These three black queer women started the hashtag on social media in reaction to the verdict in the Trayvon Martin case.
The Black Lives Matter website helped build the movement when activists protesting the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson used it to start local chapters across the country.
Criminal Justice Reform in Chicago
In Chicago, Kofi Ademola noted there had already been 20 police shootings in 5 years with no convictions, so the issue of police violence has always been central. He said the goal of Black Lives Matter Chicago is to decentralize power and to centralize marginalized voices and communities.
Our Muslim Law Student Association hosted an “Ask Muslims Anything” event during our Diversity Week 2017, giving students a chance to submit questions about Islam or Muslims anonymously.
These questions covered a range of topics from historical Islam to understanding religious practices and challenges Muslims face in the United States due to common misconceptions or outright discrimination.
The panelists represented a range of different personal and religious backgrounds and offered contrasting perspectives throughout the discussion.
Please join us Thursday, March 2, for “Public Protest and the Law.” In this panel discussion, civil rights and advocacy experts will discuss First Amendment rights as they relate to protests, local protest permit laws and how they relate to spontaneous protests, issues undocumented immigrant and non-citizen protesters might face if arrested, and more.
On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 the Chicago-Kent Immigration Law Society and the SBA Diversity Committee sponsored an event reviewing recent executive orders related to immigration law, the BRIDGE ACT and volunteer opportunities.
The speakers were Chicago-Kent alumni with experience in immigration law for corporate cases, family law, and volunteer advocacy.
The ACS Chicago Lawyer Chapter and the Chicago-Kent College of Law and Northwestern University School of Law Student Chapters hosted a panel discussion on progressive advocacy and activism under the Trump administration.
Professor Harold Koh of Yale Law School presented his paper ” Triptych’s End: A Better Framework To Evaluate 21st Century International Lawmaking” at a faculty workshop preceding our 2017 Centennial Lecture.
What does a Trump Presidency have in store for the Supreme Court? Answering this question requires considering two separate, albeit related, questions: (1) the impact of one or more Trump nominees on the Supreme Court, and (2) the possible legal challenges to policy Trump has endorsed that might end up in the Supreme Court. In this post, I’ll focus on the first question; in a subsequent post, I’ll look at the second.
One of the immediate implications of Trump’s victory is that President Obama nominee Merrick Garland’s hopes of getting on the Supreme Court are over. The seat left vacant by Justice Scalia’s death in February will remain open until the new President has an opportunity to make his own nomination. (Some haveurged Obama to simply give Garland his seat based on the fact that the Senate’s refusal to hold hearings constitutes some sort of consent. But it is hard to imagine the current President seriously considering this constitutionally questionable path.) The Republican strategy of refusing to hold Senate hearings on the nominee until after the election worked. What looked a few weeks ago like a desperate stalling action that had run its course now looks like a high-stakes gamble that paid off.