Home About RSS

SLS News

Supreme Court Litigation Clinic Files Cert Petition in Pleau v. United States

Pleau v. United States, Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

Pleau v. United States, Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

STANFORD, Calif., August 21, 2012—The Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, within the Mills Legal Clinic at Stanford Law School, today filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of petitioner Jason W. Pleau, in the case Jason W. Pleau v. United States of America.

Mr. Pleau is currently in federal custody, following a contested transfer between the State of Rhode Island and federal authorities in 2010 and 2011. Pleau had been facing charges in State court but before those proceedings could commence, the United States invoked the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IAD) to secure the petitioner’s presence for trial on federal charges. He is accused of killing a gas station attendant during a robbery in 2010 in Rhode Island. Federal prosecutors are seeking the death penalty; the State of Rhode Island does not practice capital punishment and Governor Lincoln D. Chafee, who is ethically opposed to the death penalty, sought to block the transfer of Mr. Pleau, invoking Article IV(a) of the IAD. The federal government then sought a habeas writ through the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island and won; petitioner appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit; although initially prevailing in a panel decision in October 2011, the decision was overturned by an en banc panel in May 2012.

The question presented in this case:

The Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IAD Act), Pub. L. No. 91-538, 84 Stat. 1397 (1970) (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. app. 2), establishes rules and procedures to govern the situation in which one “State” brings criminal charges against a person imprisoned in another “State.” The Federal Government is a party to the Act; accordingly, the IAD provides that “[a]s used in this agreement[,] ‘State’ shall mean a State of the United States [or] the United States of America.” Art. II(a). As is relevant here, the IAD provides that when “the appropriate authority in the State where [the] indictment, information, or complaint” is pending requests temporary custody of a prisoner in order to try him, “the Governor of the sending State” – that is, the state in which the prisoner is incarcerated – “may disapprove the request for temporary custody or availability, either upon his own motion or upon motion of the prisoner.” Arts. IV(a) & V(a). Once the United States has invoked the IAD, an attempt to obtain a prisoner pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum constitutes a “written request for temporary custody” under the IAD. United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340, 361-62 (1978).

The question presented is the following: when the United States has invoked the IAD and seeks temporary custody of a state prisoner by means of a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, may the Governor of the sending State – pursuant to the plain language of the Agreement – disapprove that request?

Click to access a PDF copy of the cert. petition in Pleau v. United States.

Earlier today, Governor Lincoln D. Chafee also filed a cert. petition in the matter: Chafee v. United States.

Stanford Law School Makes Course and Career Guide for Law Students Available to the Public: SLSNavigator

SLSNavigator logoSTANFORD, Calif., August 16, 2012—Stanford Law School today unveiled to the public SLSNavigator—an online “career and curriculum guide” that enables law students to learn about different careers in law and choose their courses accordingly.  Among its many innovative features, the guide incorporates more than 1500 courses from across the university, reflecting recognition of the broad range of problem-solving and other skills today’s lawyers need to understand and help their clients.  Meticulously designed over a three-year period, the content of SLSNavigator is based on extensive interviews with faculty, alumni, practicing attorneys, and other legal professionals about the substantive knowledge and skills they use.  The Law School is making the guide available to the public with the hope it will be useful to students at other law schools as well.

SLSNavigator was built in-house as part of a broad effort to help students decide what kind of legal career suits them and make the most out of their three years of law school.  It is meant to function in connection with other forms of career guidance, which at Stanford includes the Law School’s Office of Career Services and facilitated opportunities to meet, talk to, and network with alumni.  Students can use SLSNavigator to learn what different legal practices entail, to develop questions about career possibilities, and to choose among the wide range of courses identified and pre-approved by the Law School as relevant for different kinds of law.

The guide is flexible enough to work for students at any stage in their thinking.  Students can choose a general kind of practice—litigation, transactional, regulatory and policy, or academic—together with a specific practice area, such civil rights/liberties, education, health law, intellectual property.  Choices in this regard can be very broad (e.g., litigation/business) or very specific (e.g., transactional, health care—providers), with more than 50 career paths available. Students can then learn about the area and career options within their chosen parameters, but then also use the “map it” feature to home in on specific courses (broken out into foundational courses, key requirements, and other relevant or recommended courses). SLSNavigator includes not only all courses offered at the law school, but also relevant courses throughout the university—each containing information about the course and an explanation as to why it is relevant to a chosen practice.  Students can also drill deeper for recommendations of journals to read, blogs to follow, and other resources that are most useful for the career in question.

The development of SLSNavigator was part of a set of comprehensive reforms to Stanford Law School’s legal curriculum that were initiated by Larry Kramer, Richard E. Lang Professor of Law and Dean, beginning in November 2006 to better prepare students for the changing practice of law.

“Law students need more today than the traditional second- and third-year law school curriculum offers them. It is important for 2Ls and 3Ls to learn more legal doctrine, but it is equally important for them to learn how to think like their clients during the upper years,” said Dean Kramer, who spearheaded the development of SLSNavigator. “To enable students to do that, we made significant changes to the curriculum and we then created this tool to help them navigate the curriculum according to their personal career goals.”

“We encourage our students to think about their career goals much more broadly,” Kramer said. “SLSNavigator helps students do that, while also giving them good advice on how best to take advantage of Stanford’s wide-ranging curriculum options.”

The first phase of curriculum reforms were completed in February 2012 and include successfully transforming the traditional law degree into a multi-dimensional JD, which combines the study of other disciplines with team-oriented, problem-solving techniques together with expanded clinical training that enables students to represent clients and litigate cases while in law school.

“We’ve utilized the whole university to create a multi-dimensional legal education, because we think lawyers have a valuable role to play in helping to solve the world’s problems and that calls for more than knowing how to analyze case law,” said Kramer. “And we think we are uniquely positioned among law schools to produce lawyers who do that.”

To view SLSNavigator, click here: http://slsnavigator.law.stanford.edu/

About Stanford Law School

Stanford Law School (www.law.stanford.edu) is one of the nation’s leading institutions for legal scholarship and education. Its alumni are among the most influential decision makers in law, politics, business, and high technology. Faculty members argue before the Supreme Court, testify before Congress, produce outstanding legal scholarship and empirical analysis, and contribute regularly to the nation’s press as legal and policy experts. Stanford Law School has established a new model for legal education that provides rigorous interdisciplinary training, hands-on experience, global perspective and focus on public service, spearheading a movement for change.

About Stanford Law School Dean Larry Kramer

Larry Kramer joined Stanford Law School in 2004 as Richard E. Lang Professor of Law and Dean. He is also professor (by courtesy) of history and professor (by courtesy) of political economy at the Graduate School of Business. As the school’s 12th dean, he has spearheaded significant educational reforms, including dramatically expanding joint degree programs as part of a multidisciplinary approach to legal studies, enlarging the clinical education program to promote reflective lawyering, revamping programs to foster a public service ethos, and building the international law program to support a growing emphasis on globalization in legal practice.

Stanford Law School’s Allen Weiner Files Petition with the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on Behalf of Seventeen Vietnamese Social and Political Activists

United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) Petition

United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) Petition

STANFORD, Calif., July 25, 2012—Allen Weiner, director of the Stanford Program in International and Comparative Law at Stanford Law School, today filed a petition with the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) in Geneva contesting the illegal arrest and on-going detention of seventeen Vietnamese social and political activists. The petition requests the UNWGAD to call upon the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV) to release all of the detainees immediately to remedy the human rights violations stemming from their arbitrary arrest and detention.

According to Weiner, over the course of the past year, all seventeen of the activists were arrested and detained by the SRV for violating several Vietnamese criminal laws that outlaw “activities aimed at overthrowing the people’s administration,” the “undermining of national unity,” and participating in “propaganda against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.” The petitioners are affiliated with the Roman Catholic Redemptorist Church in Vietnam. Eleven of the petitioners have been charged as being members of Viet Tan, a Vietnamese pro-democracy party. The detainees have suffered a range of human rights violations, including violations of their fundamental rights of expression, assembly, and association. This petition before the UNGWAD, which is responsible for examining cases of arbitrary detention, emphasizes that the petitioners’ arrest and detention violated international due process and fair trial rights guaranteed under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and other international legal instruments. These international law violations include, among others things, warrantless arrests, lengthy pre-trial detention without the filing of charges and in violation of domestic time limits on detention, and little to no access to legal counsel and family members throughout their detention.

“In keeping with a growing pattern of such human rights abuses by the SRV, these seventeen petitioners were arrested arbitrarily without the slightest legitimate justification. They are alleged to have violated Vietnamese laws that the government uses to prohibit basic freedom of speech, assembly, and association,” said Allen Weiner, senior lecturer at Stanford Law School and counsel for the petitioners. “Making matters worse, after their arrest, the petitioners were each held incommunicado for months and some were even convicted without the help of a lawyer. As we speak, most of these petitioners are languishing in jail without outside contact and without basic knowledge as to why they were arrested and detained.”

The Petitioners: Seventeen Vietnamese Social and Political Activists Who Have Been Detained

The Petitioners: Seventeen Vietnamese Social and Political Activists Who Have Been Detained

According to Weiner, it appears that the trigger for the petitioners’ arrest and detention was their participation in online and in-person activities that advocate for governmental action on a broad range of human rights and social justice issues, including environmental, health, legal, political, land, and corruption based concerns. In a growing trend around the world, governments like the SRV are using their legal systems to stifle dissent and challenges to illegal governmental restrictions and human rights abuses. This petition before the UNWGAD is one step in exposing this alarming tactic.

The petitioners are as follows: Mr. DANG Xuan Dieu, Mr. HO Duc Hoa, Mr. NGUYEN Van Oai, Mr. CHU Manh Son, Mr. DAU Van Duong, Mr. TRAN Huu Duc, Mr. LE Van Son, Mr. NONG Hung Anh, Mr. NGUYEN Van Duyet, Mr. NGUYEN Xuan Anh, Mr. HO Van Oanh, Mr. THAI Van Dung, Mr. TRAN Minh Nhat, Ms. TA Phong Tan, Mr. TRAN Vu Anh Binh, Mr. NGUYEN Dinh Cuong, and Mr. HOANG Phong. Pursuant to UNWGAD rules, if the petition is deemed admissible by the Working Group, the SRV will be given an opportunity to respond before the UNWGAD issues a decision on the matter, which may include recommendation to SRV on the petitioners’ cases.

“I am very thankful for the invaluable assistance provided by the human rights and rule of law NGO Destination Justice in preparing this petition, which we all hope will persuade the SRV to release the petitioners immediately,” said Weiner.

The full petition is available here: UNWGAD Vietnam Petition (25 JUL 12)

About Allen S. Weiner

Allen S. Weiner is senior lecturer in law, director of the Stanford Program in International and Comparative Law, and co-director of the Stanford Center on International Conflict and Negotiation at Stanford University. He is an international legal scholar with expertise in such wide-ranging fields as international and national security law, the law of war, international conflict resolution, and international criminal law (including transitional justice). His scholarship focuses on international law and the response to the contemporary security threats of international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. He also explores the relationship between international law and the invocation of domestic “war powers” in connection with the U.S. response to terrorism. In the realm of international conflict resolution, his highly multidisciplinary work analyzes the barriers to resolving violent political conflicts. Weiner’s scholarship is deeply informed by experience; he practiced international law in the U.S. Department of State for more than a decade advising government policymakers, negotiating international agreements, and representing the United States in litigation before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Court of Justice, and the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal. Before joining the Stanford Law School faculty in 2003, Weiner served as legal counselor to the U.S. Embassy in The Hague and attorney adviser in the Office of the Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department of State. He was a law clerk to Judge John Steadman of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Mary Elizabeth Magill Named 13th Dean of Stanford Law School

Mary Elizabeth Magill 13th Dean of Stanford Law School

Mary Elizabeth Magill will assume her position as dean of the Stanford Law School on Sept. 1. (Photo: Courtesy of the University of Virginia)

STANFORD, Calif., July 24, 2012—Mary Elizabeth Magill, vice dean of the University of Virginia School of Law and a scholar of administrative and constitutional law, has been named dean of the Stanford University Law School, Provost John Etchemendy announced today.

“Everyone who knows Liz Magill is impressed by her creative and insightful approach to problems and her skill at engaging a community in their solution,” Etchemendy said. “At a time when law schools must adapt to fundamental changes in the legal profession, it is hard to imagine finding a more capable dean to lead the school and the legal academy into the future.”

Magill, who is the Joseph Weintraub-Bank of America Distinguished Professor of Law and the Elizabeth D. and Richard A. Merrill Professor at Virginia, will assume her new position Sept. 1. She will succeed Larry Kramer, who has served as dean since 2004. Kramer will depart Stanford on Aug. 31 to head the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

“Liz will bring to her deanship an enthusiasm that inspires students and colleagues and a capacity to help everyone around her realize their academic and professional ambitions, whatever those may be,” Kramer said.  “On top of that, she perfectly fits Stanford Law School’s unique commitment to interdisciplinary work and its embrace of innovative change in legal education.”

At Stanford, Magill will oversee 650 students and 55 faculty at one of the nation’s leading institutions for legal scholarship and education. Its alumni are among the most influential decision-makers in law, politics, business and high technology. Faculty members argue before the Supreme Court, testify before Congress, produce outstanding legal scholarship and empirical analysis, and contribute regularly to the nation’s press as legal and policy experts. The school has also established a new model for legal education that provides rigorous interdisciplinary training, hands-on experience, global perspective and focus on public service.

Read the full Stanford University announcement here.

Open Letter to Federal Judges About Clerkships from Dean Larry Kramer

On June 29, 2012 Dean Larry Kramer sent the following letter explaining his concerns and Stanford Law School’s policy regarding the Federal Law Clerk Hiring Plan to members of the Judicial Conference of the United States and to the chairman of its executive committee; to judges of the federal district and appellate courts including chief judges; and to the chair of the Online System for Clerkship Application and Review (OSCAR). The letter is intended to provide transparency about Stanford Law School’s practices in supporting students who seek judicial clerkships, and to be candid about the effects of the Plan’s erosion on students and the integrity of the clerkship hiring process.

Here is the entire text of Dean Kramer’s letter:

Dear Judge [   ]

As you may or may not know, Stanford, joined by several other law schools, wrote to the Judicial Conference in February to see whether anything could be done to bring early moving judges back into compliance with the Federal Law Clerk Hiring Plan.  On behalf of the Conference, Judge David Sentelle responded that “the hiring plan is voluntary” and that “[t]he Judicial Conference has no authority to require judges to participate or to comply with its rules.”  (A copy of his letter is attached.)  We also contacted the Chair of the Online System for Clerkship Application and Review (OSCAR) and received the same reply.  So far as the judiciary’s own regulatory organizations are concerned, in other words, the Plan is wholly voluntary and they cannot do anything to help secure adherence to its terms.

Since then, rumors have begun to circulate about how Stanford Law School is handling clerkship applications, including some assertions that we are breaking a plan other law schools are following.  For the sake of clarity, and to avoid misunderstanding, we believe it helpful to explain what we are doing and why.

As you know, the Law Clerk Hiring Plan establishes dates in September before which federal judges are not supposed to interview or make offers to rising third-year law students.  Law schools, for their part, are supposed to “discourage” students from applying before those dates and to “discourage” faculty members from supporting students who nonetheless do so.  When the Plan was created, and for many years after, the vast majority of judges abided by its terms, providing order and equal access to federal judicial clerkships.

In recent years, that order and access has eroded.  Increasing numbers of judges—the entire membership of some courts, some or many of the judges in most others—have begun interviewing and hiring law clerks well before the Plan

dates.  Law schools, understandably anxious not to disadvantage their students, have accommodated these early moving judges.  Without making explicit or formal institutional announcements, schools have looked the other way while permitting or even tacitly encouraging faculty members to contact and correspond with early moving judges on behalf of their students.

Put in other words, the Plan is not actually being followed, resulting in a process that is inequitable and unfair.  Students who are “in the know”—because they are members of the right student organization or on the right journal or have the right faculty mentor—learn which judges are accepting early applications and get support.  Those lucky enough to have connections to judges and/or faculty members are able to apply and secure clerkships, while others, less fortunate, are not.

The responses from Judge Sentelle on behalf of the Judicial Conference and the Chair of the Online System for Clerkship Application and Review (OSCAR) left Stanford with two options: (1) continue to participate in what has become a charade of professing allegiance to the Plan while actually breaking it by leaving individual faculty to reach out to early moving judges on behalf of a subset of lucky students; or (2) advise our student body openly and transparently, as best as we can, concerning which judges hire early and support equally the applications of all students who want to apply.

We have opted for the latter course.  Thus, for judges who indicate that they are considering applications in the spring and summer, we are releasing letters of recommendation upon request.  For judges following the Plan, we are not releasing recommendations until September.

We recognize that many of our peer schools have decided to continue to profess allegiance to the Plan while allowing their faculty to place students on a discretionary basis.  We concluded, however, that the resulting inequities are too unfair.  We want all students to have an equal opportunity to apply for clerkships, not just the lucky connected ones.  By providing students with institutional support if they apply to early moving judges, we eliminate the inequities and “old boy network”-effect created by leaving that support to individual faculty discretion.

In terms of compliance with the Plan, we believe there is no material or meaningful difference between what we are now doing and knowingly turning a blind eye to faculty calls and letters to judges: no difference, that is, except our approach levels the playing field for all students in terms of access and opportunity to secure a federal judicial clerkship.

Furthermore, we hope our new policy restores a modicum of integrity to the clerkship hiring system.  Law schools ought to model respect for procedural rules.  Yet the current hiring system teaches students the opposite: learn the rules and then figure out ways secretly to work around them for your own personal advantage.  Worse yet, the current system sets up a regime under which law students’ first interactions with the federal judiciary come in the context of ignoring highly publicized rules that purport to ensure fair play.

The process for hiring law clerks has evolved into something as bad or worse than the system that existed prior to the Plan’s adoption.  It presents a sham appearance of imposing deadlines, while in effect advantaging favored students or student groups.  We tried to change it, without success, this past year.  We hope you will work with us to enable all students to compete for clerkships on equal footing.  We stand ready and eager to work with you and other schools to find a better way to manage the clerkship hiring process.  Until then, we believe we are doing the best we can under the circumstances.

Sincerely yours,

Larry Kramer


Law School graduating class urged to strike a balance with career and personal life – and to make a difference in the world

This news story was originally published in Stanford Report.

“I leave it to you to decide whether someone can be truly happy if they reform prisons and right a string of wrong precedent, but make a mess of their relationships with friends and family; if they argue brilliantly and frequently in court, but too often with their loved ones; if politicians and reporters return their calls, but their children won’t talk to them,” Robert Daines, the Pritzker Professor of Law and Business, told graduates at the Law School’s graduation on Saturday, June 16.

By Sharon Driscoll

Stanford Law Professor Rob Daines

Professor Robert Daines delivering his speech to students after accepting the 2012 John Bingham Hurlbut Award for Excellence in Teaching.

The sun shone brightly on this year’s Stanford Law School graduation, with temperatures in the 90s not enough to dampen the enthusiasm of the newest crop of JDs.

Larry Kramer, the Richard E. Lang Professor of Law and Dean, welcomed the 1,500 or so parents, grandparents, husbands, wives, children and friends of the Class of 2012 to the ceremony in Canfield Courtyard on June 16 and introduced Maggie Ellen Filler, who had been chosen by her classmates to deliver the student remarks.

“Like doctors, we too hold the keys to a mysterious kingdom. Ours is a kingdom of ancient Latin terminology, of writs, ceremony and tailored suits. I know of no kingdom more forbidding nor more powerful. Our job is to act as bridges and to communicate across fortified walls. To do this, we need to understand the languages both of power and of the disempowered,” Filler said as she recounted her experience losing her first case, one taken with enthusiasm as a lawyer in training in the clinical program.

“When I found out we lost our case, I had to rethink everything I thought I knew about my worth as a lawyer,” Filler said. She described several days of mourning over the loss – and the turnaround.

“By the fourth day I was working on my appeal. I felt a renewed sense of purpose, and a healthy indignation at the court,” she said. “And I began to realize that I needed another measure of professional success, one that doesn’t depend on winning and losing. … Even when we lose, we can appeal. We can make it known that we don’t agree with the result. We can assure our clients that we still believe in them and that we’re willing to fight for them – even when the legal victory eludes us.”

Christy Ann Ferioli, Katherine Cain Hudson and Meryn Christine Novinger Grant, co-presidents of the graduating class, presented the awards for 2012. Ferioli presented the Dean’s Award for Excellence in Service to classmate Elizabeth Anne Kolbe. Hudson presented the Staff Appreciation Award to Faye Deal, associate dean for admissions and financial aid. And Grant presented the John Bingham Hurlbut Award for Excellence in Teaching to Robert Daines, the Pritzker Professor of Law and Business, saying that it was no surprise that the students had chosen him for the honor.

“He had become completely invested in teaching corporate law to his 70 students, making the study of a supposedly dry subject enjoyable,” Grant said. “In one memorable class he stood on a desk and shouted out an opinion for emphasis. His passion for teaching and dedication to his students made his class a memorable experience.”

Stanford Law School Graduation 2012

The start of the graduation procession for the Class of 2012 at Stanford Law School.

Daines addressed the crowd, which included 182 candidates for the Doctor of Jurisprudence degree, 11 for the degree of Master of the Science of the Law, 3 for the degree of Doctor of the Science of the Law and 47 for the Master of Laws degree in the areas of corporate governance and practice, and law, science and technology. He recalled their admissions essays from three years earlier, and one in particular in which a student admitted to “that big fear: the fear of being inconsequential.” Daines spoke to that fear, one he thought all success-driven people likely shared. He also warned of risks inherent in that drive, particularly at the cost of personal relationships and aspirations.

“Obviously this desire to matter and make a difference is laudable and noble,” he said. “But … you may find along the way that your desire to contribute and be consequential can lead you to neglect valuable, though less immediately urgent, goals – relationships, partners, family and friends – and this will leave you and your loved ones unhappy in the long run.”

Daines recalled the time just after he began teaching when he was focused on securing tenure and working very hard. His wife, frustrated because he was constantly working or thinking about work, locked him in his office “so he could really focus.” He got the message.

“You will have a lot of interesting opportunities in life. Though you may harbor private doubts about it, in time you will be offered exciting clerkships, professorships, partnerships, judgeships – all manner of ships will be yours. The allure of these opportunities will make it more difficult to spend time with friends and family.” Acknowledging that this group of graduates represented the best of America, Daines cautioned them to find balance.

“Being true to the relationships and people in your life will not be easy, in part because you are all so driven to succeed, to do something important and to avoid seeming, if only to yourself, inconsequential,” Daines said. He urged the new lawyers to find the time and energy for what matters to them – without neglecting the people in their lives. “I leave it to you to decide whether someone can be truly happy if they reform prisons and right a string of wrong precedent, but make a mess of their relationships with friends and family; if they argue brilliantly and frequently in court, but too often with their loved ones; if politicians and reporters return their calls, but their children won’t talk to them.”

In the closing address to the class, Kramer noted the “deeply troubled” state of the world and the inability of governments to find solutions. “Whatever side of the political divide you’re on, challenges like energy, health care, the national debt, joblessness, international peace and stability and more are huge – and they require a seriousness of purpose and a willingness to take action that the world’s current feckless leadership is apparently unable to muster,” he said.

Kramer lamented today’s state of political partisanship, not simply because of the government paralysis it has produced but also because it threatens democracy. “These developments matter because they undercut a – no, the – fundamental precondition for democratic government in any complex society: that it be a community of individuals who, because they inevitably will disagree on important matters, are willing to reconsider their stances and to compromise based on respectful discussion with people who believe differently.”

Kramer praised a key value that he thought all lawyers should embrace. “Compromise is not at odds with values in a democratic society. On the contrary, it is one of such a society’s paramount values,” he said.

Kramer charged the Class of 2012 to do better: “Fortunately, if history teaches us anything, it’s that great challenges bring great opportunities. Which means you leave here with opportunities to make a difference that are rare. So we say to you, rise to the challenge. Be ambitious, take chances, do something that makes the world a better, safer place.”

Sharon Driscoll is the editor of Stanford Lawyer magazine and associate director of communications at Stanford Law School.

Additional resources:

Videos:

Center for Internet and Society Director Barbara van Schewick Provides Roadmap for Enforcing Net Neutrality Rules

New white paper by leading net neutrality scholar discusses the Federal Communications Commission’s Open Internet rules and the relationship between network neutrality and Quality of Service

Network Neutrality and Quality of Service, white paper by Professor Barbara van Schewick

STANFORD, Calif., June 11, 2012 –Barbara van Schewick, faculty director of the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School and a professor of law and electrical engineering at Stanford University, today published a white paper titled, “Network Neutrality and Quality of Service: What a Non-Discrimination Rule Should Look Like.”

Currently, the relationship between network neutrality and Quality of Service is uncertain and contentious. Often, it is not immediately apparent how a specific non-discrimination rule affects network providers’ ability to offer Quality of Service. At the same time, it is unclear which forms of Quality of Service, if any, a network neutrality regime should allow. The paper explains how eight different non-discrimination rules affect network providers’ ability to offer Quality of Service and which forms of Quality of Service, if any, a non-discrimination rule should allow.

The paper:

* Provides the first detailed analysis of the FCC’s non-discrimination rule and of its implications for network providers’ ability to manage their networks and offer Quality of Service;

* Offers the first in-depth analysis of the relationship between network neutrality and Quality of Service; and

* Proposes a non-discrimination rule that policy makers should adopt around the world – a rule that the FCC adopted at least in part.

The paper is particularly timely. This month, the FCC announced the members of its Open Internet Advisory Committee, and, whether the FCC wins or loses the legal appeal of the Open Internet order, the question of which, if any, network-discriminations require legal action will remain relevant for years to come in the United States. In addition, across the Atlantic, the group of European Regulators for Electronic Communication Networks and Services (BEREC) started a consultation in June focused on various aspects of the relationship between network neutrality and Quality of Service–the very topics rigorously addressed in this White Paper.

According to Professor Barbara van Schewick:

“Many network neutrality proponents were disappointed by the FCC’s Open Internet rules. While they are not perfect, they provide the FCC with a powerful set of tools to protect users and innovators against discrimination by providers of Internet service. In addition, the FCC can rely on the network neutrality conditions governing the C-Block of the 700 MHz Band, purchased by Verizon Wireless, and those in the Comcast-NBC merger agreement – if the FCC were interested in using these tools.”

“The network neutrality debate is often framed as a debate for or against Quality of Service. The reality is much more nuanced. Many network neutrality proposals allow some, but not all forms of Quality of Service. Many forms of Quality of Service allow Internet service providers to distort competition among applications and interfere with user choice. These forms of Quality of Service should be banned. However, some forms of user-controlled Quality of Service do not similarly threaten application innovation, competition or user choice. They provide the social benefits of different types of service without the social costs. These forms of Quality of Service are the ones a network neutrality regime should allow. Thus, it is possible to protect users and innovators while allowing the network to evolve. Regulators can have their cake and eat it, too.”

The full paper and an executive summary can be downloaded here: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/publications/network-neutrality-and-quality-service-what-non-discrimination-rule-should-look

About Barbara van Schewick

Barbara van Schewick is an Associate Professor of Law and Helen L. Crocker Faculty Scholar at Stanford Law School, an Associate Professor (by courtesy) of Electrical Engineering in Stanford University’s Department of Electrical Engineering, Director of Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society, and a leading expert on network neutrality.

Her research on the economic, regulatory, and strategic implications of communication networks bridges law, networking and economics. Her book Internet Architecture and Innovation (MIT Press 2010) is considered to be the seminal work on the science, economics and policy of network neutrality. Her papers on network neutrality have influenced regulatory debates in the United States, Canada and Europe. Van Schewick has testified before the FCC in en banc hearings and official workshops. In October 2010, van Schewick received the Research Prize Technical Communication 2010 from the Alcatel-Lucent Stiftung for Communications Research.

A longer bio is available at: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/people/barbara-van-schewick.

About the Center for Internet and Society

The Center for Internet and Society (CIS) is a public interest technology law and policy program and a part of the Law, Science and Technology Program.

The Center’s homepage is at: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu.

Stanford Law School 3Ls Win BASES Business Plan Competition for Legal Search Platform

Stanford Law School students Daniel Lewis and Nik Reed

Stanford Law School Students Daniel Lewis and Nik Reed

Stanford Law School third year students Daniel Lewis and Nik Reed won second place and a $10,000 prize in the Business Association of Stanford Entrepreneurial Students (BASES) business plan competition out of more than 150 original submissions. Their online legal search product uses visualization technology to serve up results that reveal the most important cases, the connections between cases, and the evolution of legal principles over time–offering a new dimension in legal search and legal informatics. They are continuing to develop their business and hope to be launching soon.

The Business Association of Stanford Entrepreneurial Students (BASES) is at the heart of student entrepreneurship at Stanford and one of the largest and oldest student-run entrepreneurship organizations. Its mission is to promote entrepreneurship education at Stanford University and to empower the next generation of entrepreneurs.

Jennifer Granick to Direct New Civil Liberties Initiative at Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society

Jennifer Granick, Director of Civil Liberties at the Center for Internet and Society

Jennifer Granick, Director of Civil Liberties at the Center for Internet and Society

STANFORD, Calif., May 30, 2012 — Stanford Law School today announced the appointment of Jennifer Stisa Granick as Director of Civil Liberties at the Center for Internet and Society (CIS). Granick will lead the Center’s work at the intersection of online technologies and civil liberties, with a particular focus on cybersecurity, national security, government surveillance and free speech.

Granick is a renowned expert in computer crime and security, electronic surveillance, privacy, data protection, copyright and technology regulation under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. From 2007 to 2010, she was the Civil Liberties Director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. From 2001 to 2007, Granick served as founding executive director of the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School where she taught Cyberlaw and Computer Crime Law as lecturer in law. She also directed the Cyberlaw Clinic, which represented clients challenged for exercising free expression online, for modifying their mobile phones and game consoles, and for demonstrating computer and airport security flaws, among other rights. Before teaching at Stanford, Granick spent nearly a decade practicing criminal defense law in California. She represented several high profile computer hackers and cybersecurity researchers. In 2003, she was selected by Information Security magazine as one of 20 “Women of Vision” in the computer security field. She will return to Stanford Law School in June 2012, after having served as an attorney with the internet boutique firm of ZwillGen PLLC.

“We are thrilled to have Jennifer Granick back at Stanford and the Center for Internet and Society,” said Stanford Law School Dean Larry Kramer. “The Center is a pioneer in exploring issues at the intersection of law and new technology, examining how their interaction can either promote or harm public goods like free speech, innovation, privacy, public commons, diversity, and scientific inquiry. Jennifer is a talented scholar and lawyer, who anticipated many of today’s vexing challenges and helped chart the Center’s course during its genesis. We are thrilled to have her back as the Center enters a new stage of growth in this constantly evolving arena.”

Led by faculty director Barbara van Schewick, the Center for Internet and Society is a public interest technology law and policy program that studies the interaction of new technologies and the law and is a part of the Law, Science and Technology Program at Stanford Law School. CIS strives to improve both technology and law, encouraging decision makers to design both as a means to further democratic values. Along with conducting research and policy analysis, the Center sponsors legal fellowships, organizes events to foster discussion of critical policy issues, and provides educational opportunities for law students to conduct applicable research and policy analysis in this field.

“Civil liberties online are increasingly coming under pressure,” said Barbara van Schewick, associate professor of law, Helen L. Crocker Faculty Scholar, and associate professor of Electrical Engineering (by courtesy). “Whether it’s copyright enforcement, cybersecurity or government surveillance – governments’ efforts to tackle these issues often threaten privacy, security or free speech. We believe these problems can be solved in ways that preserve civil liberties. I’m excited that Jennifer Granick has agreed to lead our efforts in this area. There is no better person to help us figure out what the role of technology in an open and free society should be.”

During her time as founding executive director of the Center for Internet and Society, Granick launched a number of programs that have made Stanford Law School a national center for activities and programs related to digital innovation, free speech online, and computer security. She maintained strong ties to CIS throughout her tenure at other organizations, returning periodically to Stanford Law School to teach Internet Business Law and Policy, Internet Intermediary Liability, and Cybercrime.

“It’s an exciting opportunity to return to Stanford Law School in this new capacity as Director of Civil Liberties at this time of Big Data, cloud computing, and increasing government surveillance of individuals’ activities on- and off-line,” said Jennifer Granick. “I can think of no better way to utilize my experience and skills to help answer these important challenges than by working at Stanford with our amazing students and faculty.”

Granick earned her law degree from University of California, Hastings College of the Law and her undergraduate degree from the New College of Florida. She has been a contributor for numerous publications, including as a columnist for Wired Magazine, and has published several law review articles.

About Stanford Law School

Stanford Law School (www.law.stanford.edu) is one of the nation’s leading institutions for legal scholarship and education. Its alumni are among the most influential decision makers in law, politics, business, and high technology. Faculty members argue before the Supreme Court, testify before Congress, produce outstanding legal scholarship and empirical analysis, and contribute regularly to the nation’s press as legal and policy experts. Stanford Law School has established a new model for legal education that provides rigorous interdisciplinary training, hands-on experience, global perspective and focus on public service, spearheading a movement for change.

Dan Reicher Receives Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters Degree from SUNY

The State University of New York and SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry (ESF) conferred an Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters degree (LHD) upon Dan Reicher, executive director of the Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance. The honor was conferred in light of Professor Reicher’s “substantial contributions in developing and advancing tools and enterprises that reduce energy use and carbon emissions thereby significantly furthering mankind’s march toward sustainability” according to SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry President Cornelius B. Murphy Jr.

Reicher delivered the honoree speech during ESF’s convocation May 13,2012 and explained how the ESF degree was especially meaningful since his interest in environmental science began in Syracuse, where, as a child, he rode his bike regularly from Nottingham High School to ESF, slipped quietly into the classrooms and lecture halls, and took it all in.

Reicher has more than 25 years of experience in energy technology, policy, and finance, including serving in the Clinton administration at the Department of Energy as Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and recently as a member of President Obama’s Transition Team. Reicher came to Stanford in 2011 from Google, where he served since 2007 as Director of Climate Change and Energy Initiatives.

The Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance at Stanford University, a joint center of the Stanford Law School and Stanford Graduate School of Business.