2013-2014 Jorde Symposium: Regulatory Agencies and Public Policy

24 Sep 2013 01:19am  

On September 16, 2013, Professor Cass Sunstein, the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard Law School, presented a lecture for Berkeley Law's Annual Jorde Symposium about the ways that regulatory agencies analyze the costs and benefits of public policies when such values are difficult to quantify.  Joining Professor Sunstein as commentators were Professors Dan Farber of Berkeley Law, Lisa Heinzerling of Georgetown University Law Center, and Richard Revesz of NYU School of Law.  The URL address below links to a full-length video of the Jorde Symposium proceedings.


The annual Thomas M. Jorde Symposium was created in 1996 to promote top scholarly discourse and writing from a variety of perspectives on issues related to the legacy of former United States Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.  The Brennan Center at NYU School of Law named the symposium in honor of its major benefactor, Thomas M. Jorde, a former clerk to Justice Brennan and a professor at Berkeley Law.  The Jorde Symposium address and commentaries are published annually in the California Law Review.

Renee v. Duncan: The Perilous Pendulum of National Politics and a Pathway to Protecting Our Nation’s Most Vulnerable Youth

24 Sep 2013 01:07am Sean Darling-Hammond 

CLR Diversity Editor Sean Darling-Hammond analyzes the Ninth Circuit's decision in Renee v. Duncan-the latest in a series of cases challenging Department of Education regulations that  disproportionately affect low-income students by allowing teachers enrolled in alternative certification programs to engage in instruction.  Darling-Hammond ultimately advocates a novel solution to allow states to champion the rights of their most vulnerable citizens in light of restrictive standards of review of regulations in federal court.

This case note is one of seven written by California Law Review members for Circuit's first case note program.

Rehabilitating Juvenile Life Without Parole: An Analysis of Miller v. Alabama

18 Sep 2013 10:08pm Anna K. Christensen 

Current CLR member Anna K. Christensen argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama stopped short of providing juvenile offenders with complete justice.  By failing to categorically ban life sentences without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders, Christensen asserts that the Court neglected an opportunity to fashion a sentencing system that acknowledges that while youth offenders are more apt to engage in risky behavior, they are also more responsive to rehabilitative services.

This case note is one of seven written by California Law Review members for Circuit's first case note program. 

Is Twenty-Two Years Enough for the “Millennium Bomber”?: The Threat of Terrorism to Appellate Review of Sentences

03 Sep 2013 11:38pm Robin Kuntz 

Robin Kuntz, a current CLR member, analyzes the implications of the Ninth Circuit's decision in United States v. Ressam, the first case in the jurisdiction involving the criminal sentencing of a terrorist under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines. Kuntz concludes that although the Guidelines do not offer a clear standard by which a court must set a criminal defendant's punishment, this is advantageous, particularly in cases involving terrorists like the "Millennium Bomber," the defendant at the heart of Ressam.

This case note is one of seven written by California Law Review members for Circuit's first case note program. 

A Second Shot at Proving Murder: Sacrificing Double Jeopardy for Rigid Formalism in Blueford v. Arkansas

03 Sep 2013 11:37pm Jalem Peguero 

Third-year law student Jalem Peguero argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Blueford v. Arkansas  trades constitutional protection for rigid formalism.  The Blueford Court sanctioned the retrial of criminal defendants for offenses where a jury did not formally acquit the defendant; accordingly, Peguero claims, the Court prevented even clear statements by jury forepersons in open court about the finality of their decisions from operating to protect a defendant from "Double Jeopardy."

This case note is one of seven written by California Law Review members for Circuit's first case note program. 

The California Law Review is the preeminent legal publication at the UC Berkeley School of Law.
Founded in 1912, CLR publishes six times per year on a variety of engaging topics in legal scholarship.
The law review is edited and published entirely by students at Berkeley Law.