July 26, 2026
Caprice Roberts
This discussion group explored hot topics related to remedies being increasingly front and center whether due to the Supreme Court’s emergency docket or pivotal constitutional rights cases hinging on remedies holdings. We welcomed newcomers interested in teaching and writing about remedies. We noted the recent passing of Remedies giant Doug Rendleman and the lovely commemoration by Washington and Lee School of Law as a tribute to his lasting scholarly and teaching legacy. The first speaker was Professor Cortney Lollar, Georgia State College of Law, who presented a work-in-progress, What is Criminal Restitution?:x 2.0. Professor Lollar’s draft explores the classification of criminal restitution and the consequences of various conceptualizations. Professor Lollar explained that criminal restitution has shifted far from the unjust enrichment roots from civil restitution cases. Criminal restitution began as a compensation tool but morphed quickly to punitive purposes given criminal law’s bent. Recent provocative research from an amicus brief and work on project with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) will be included in the article. The impact of classification includes the right to a jury trial, which Professor Lollar believes should be ensured given what she argues is the punitive nature of criminal restitution. The discussion also explored varying applications of restitution-based remedies by enforcement agencies, private citizens, and prosecutors. Then, Professor Layne Keele (Samford University Cumberland Law School) presented a current remedies project, Distinguishing Voluntary Services from Involuntary Servitude. Professor Keele is interrogating whether courts should assess voluntariness as static (fixed at the time of contract) or dynamic (fluctuating over the life of contract performance). The draft explores the conventional reasons to deny relief including invocations “slavery” and “involuntary servitude,” but questions whether those arguments are problematic given the imperfect analogy. Next, Dean Caprice Roberts, Louisiana State University Paul M. Hebert Law Center, presented a draft article, The Limits of Contempt Power, coauthored with Professor Russ Weaver of the University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law. The article examines recent skirmishes between the presidential administration and the federal courts. These incidents raise significant questions about the limits of equitable contempt power. Challenges and resistance place the federal courts in precarious positions over the potency and enforceability of contempt remedies.
Our discussion was generative with thoughtful commentary by attendees including Nick Davrados (LSU Law), Babafemi Fatade (Stetson Law), Marc Roark (Tulsa Law), Saurabh Vishnubhakat (Cardozo Law), and Vanessa Zboreak (Jacksonville Law). Thanks to all. We look forward to seeing these articles in print and to our next Remedies Discussion Group.