Section Highlights

The Non-AI Issues in IP Law discussion group, moderated by Professors Lucas Osborn and W. Keith Robinson, offered a welcome shift from the recent AI-saturated discourse in intellectual property. The panel featured a set of presentations tackling diverse, timely topics in copyright, trademark, and publicity rights. Professor Justin Koo examined how a fair use doctrine might be constructed from the ground up in Commonwealth countries that currently rely on more limited fair-dealing regimes. Professor Emma Perot critiqued New York’s “substantial fictionalisation” test under its right of publicity law. She contrasted it with California’s more speech-protective framework and raised nuanced questions about copyright preemption and the role of defamation. The conversation continued with Professor Dustin Marlan’s project, “The Arbitrary Myth.” This

Roundtable: Twenty-First Century Procedure After Two Decades of the Roberts Court This annual roundtable—organized and moderated by Charles “Rocky” Rhodes (Missouri) and Tom Metzloff (Duke)—explores developments in civil procedure. As it has done every five years, the group focused on the round-number anniversary of the Roberts Court—this year, the twentieth. Zoe Niesel (South Carolina) presented Hertz and the “Hard Cases:” Examining Fifteen Years of the Nerve Center Test (forthcoming Kan. L. Rev.). She examined the “hard cases” on corporate citizenship, identifying two classes: Complexities over corporate structure and corporations with executives working remotely, located in many places, or located away from general operations. Her key takeaways: Courts look at the sued entity and have developed a hierarchy of factors for

Stephen Henderson talked about developing the use of AI in the promotion of criminal justice. Lauryn Gouldin discussed a concept entitled “specific suspicion” addressing whether police have to list a particular offense in seeking a warrant.  She also presented a topic involving when the Fourth Amendment was triggered with the use of handcuffs and the nature of its continuous use. Russell Gold addressed the impact of fiscally constraining law-making with a focus on trying to get legislatures to recognize the costs when making changes to statutes. Eric Hintz talked about problems regarding habeas petitions focusing on the procedural requirements insofar as they fail to serve the goals of criminal justice and correcting errors. Brittany Deitch presented about Pay To Stay

Centering People, Producing Narratives, and Exposing Myths in Criminal Law and Procedure The workshop addressed fundamental questions about how lawyers construct narratives around people experiencing criminal legal harm and injustice. Key inquiries included: How have narratives supported racial inequality, hypercriminalization, overpolicing, and mass incarceration? How can narratives promote awareness of systemic wrongs and create momentum for legal change? How do simplified popular narratives obscure complex truths? The session employed a unique paired presentation format where scholars presented each other’s papers, fostering collaborative dialogue. Eleven papers were presented across six pairs, with Professor Michael Vitiello, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, serving as a commentator. Topics ranged from prosecutorial minimalism and restorative justice to pardons, labor defense organizations, and