January 17, 2017

The Law Professor Who Coached the Marquette Football Team

Posted by:
Category: Marquette Law School, Marquette Law School History, Public, Sports & Law
Leave a Comment »

The Marquette University Law School has long been associated with the world of sports.  Although the National Sports Law Institute has represented the connection in recent years, the school’s relationship to the sports industry goes back much further than the 1989 founding of the Institute. Federal Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, later the first Commissioner of Baseball, was a lecturer at the law school shortly after it opened; Carl Zollmann, the first major sports law scholar, was on the Marquette Law faculty from 1922 to 194; and a number of outstanding athletes, including Green Bay Packer end and future U. S. Congressman Lavvy Dilweg and Olympic Gold Medalist (and future congressman) Ralph Metcalf studied at the law school in its early years.

However, no one has ever combined the two fields more perfectly than Prof. Ralph I. Heikkenin who, during the 1947-48 academic year, both taught full-time at the law school and coached the Marquette varsity football team, at a time when the team played at the highest level of collegiate competition.

Heikkinen was already well known to sports fans in the upper Midwest when it was announced that he would be joining the Marquette faculty and staff in the spring of 1947.  A native of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Heikkinen had grown up in the community of Ramsey.  He had enrolled in the University of Michigan in the fall of 1935 where he excelled academically. Not only was he an outstanding student, but he was a published poet and the president of the student government.  On top of that, he was an under-sized lineman who made the powerful Michigan football team as a walk on.

Although he began his career as an unheralded newcomer, by the time he was a junior, Heikkinen had developed into one of the best two-way linemen in the country. Although just 6’ tall and weighing only 183 pounds, he was voted as his school’s MVP during both his junior and senior years and was chosen unanimously as a guard on the 1938 All-American team.  During Heikkinen’s senior year, the Wolverines, under new coach Fritz Chrisler, narrowly missed a perfect season thanks to a narrow 7-6 defeat at the hands of Minnesota, in which Michigan botched an extra point kick, and a 0-0 tie with Northwestern, which featured a Michigan missed field goal from the 6 yard line.  Even so, the team finished the season 6-1-1, ranked #16 in the country in the final Associated Press poll. Read more »

Print Friendly



January 16, 2017

Water: 2016 Retrospective (and Issues to Watch in 2017)

Posted by:
Category: Environmental Law, Public, Water Law
Leave a Comment »

At this time of year it seems appropriate to both examine the year just ended and look forward to the one to come.[1] 2016 brought numerous developments in the water law and policy sector at the national and state levels, and also here at Marquette University Law School’s Water Law and Policy Initiative. 2017 promises more of the same.

Nationally, the Flint drinking water crisis continued to dominate headlines. While the quality of Flint’s drinking water is slowly improving, it’s certainly too early to declare the crisis over. As a stark reminder of that, an ongoing investigation led to a series of criminal charges against those at the heart of the disaster.  Here at Marquette, drinking water issues also took center stage. The Water Law & Policy Initiative’s September Public Policy and American Drinking Water conference, organized in combination with the Law School’s larger Public Policy Initiative, drew widespread attention and brought together national experts in a variety of water-related fields. It was at this event that Mayor Barrett spoke of the pressing risks of lead in Milwaukee because of the 70,000 lead laterals serving City of Milwaukee residences. The mayor’s comments at and after the conference provoked intense media coverage and quickly resulted in the City making numerous policy changes. For example, Mayor Barrett agreed to provide free water filters to affected citizens, and ultimately budgeted to pay a substantial part of the cost to replace (privately owned) lead service lines.

Many other stories also captured headlines in 2016.

Read more »

Print Friendly



January 12, 2017

U.S. Prison Population Continues Slow Decline; Wisconsin’s Inches Up

Posted by:
Category: Criminal Law & Process, Federal Criminal Law & Process, Federal Sentencing, Public, Wisconsin Criminal Law & Process
Leave a Comment »

Ringing in the new year, the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics recently released its data on prisoners in the United States in 2015. After rising consistently for about four decades, the U.S. prison population (state and federal combined) peaked at a little over 1.6 million in 2009. Since then, the population has declined steadily, but very slowly. For 2015, the total was a little over 1.5 million, or about 35,000 less than 2014. The continued reductions are encouraging, but must be kept in perspective: the population remains many times above its historic norms. The current rate of 458 prisoners per 100,000 U.S. residents is over four times greater than the long-term rate of about 100 per 100,000 from before the imprisonment boom. We are still very much in the era of mass incarceration.

The Wisconsin numbers continue to be lower than the national norms, but are moving in the opposite direction. At yearend 2015, Wisconsin’s prison population numbered 22,975, up 1.7 percent from 2014. This amounts to 377 prisoners per 100,000. By comparison, Minnesota’s rate was just 196 per 100,000.

Here are a few additional observations:   Read more »

Print Friendly



January 11, 2017

Pathways to Future Environmental Legislation

Posted by:
Category: Environmental Law, Public, Water Law
Leave a Comment »

Over the past quarter century, repeated congressional failures to enact any significant piece of environmental legislation led observers to describe such efforts as “gridlocked,” “deadlock[ed],” “dysfunction[al],” “broken,” the subject of “considerable, self-imposed inertia,” and the surrounding atmosphere as “highly inhospitable to the enactment of major environmental legislation.”[1] Things weren’t always this way, as I discuss in more detail below; in the 1970s, a remarkable burst of legislative activity largely shaped the field we know today as federal environmental law.

In a paper soon forthcoming in the Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law, I argue that a perhaps minor and certainly uncontroversial piece of environmental legislation known as the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 (“the Act”) reveals potential pathways through or around this modern gridlock. The Act prohibits the manufacture or introduction into interstate commerce of useful – but environmentally harmful – microscopic plastic particles known as “microbeads” that are commonly used in cosmetic products. Its provisions are direct and uncomplicated.

Yet the strategic building blocks underlying the Act—including an emphasis on public health issues and broad stakeholder support driven by industry concerns about unfair competition and opposition to local legislation—may provide innovative and useful foundations for future efforts to pass environmental legislation.

Read more »

Print Friendly



January 10, 2017

Gender and Negotiation–Prof. Schneider Takes the TED Stage

Posted by:
Category: Feminism, Marquette Law School, Negotiation, Public
Leave a Comment »

TED talks can be a wonderful vehicle for academics to present their research in an accessible, neatly distilled way for a large audience. Our own Andrea Schneider has a new talk in the best TED tradition, explaining her fascinating work on gender and negotiation. Delivered at a recent TEDx event in Oshkosh, Andrea’s talk is entitled, “Women Don’t Negotiate and Other Similar Nonsense.” Congratulations, Andrea!

Print Friendly



Congratulations to the 2017 Jenkins Honors Moot Court Competitors

Posted by:
Category: Legal Writing, Marquette Law School, Public
Leave a Comment »

The Jenkins Honors Moot Court Competition is the appellate moot court competition for Marquette law students and is the capstone event of the intramural moot court program.  Students are invited to participate based on their top performance in the fall Appellate Writing and Advocacy course at the Law School. 

Congratulations to the participants in the 2017 Jenkins Honors Moot Court Competition:

Ambrose (Mitch) Bailey
Bryn Baker
John Binder
Meredith Donaldson
Corinne Frutiger
Jacob Heuett
Hayley Kresnak
A.J. Lawton
Ben Lucareli
Nathan Oesch
Robert Ollman
Courtney Roelandts
Anjali Sharma
Ashley Smith
Elisabeth Thompson
Tsz King Tze

Print Friendly



January 2, 2017

New Bloggers Start Off the New Year

Posted by:
Category: Public
Leave a Comment »

We are happy to welcome our two guest bloggers for the month of January.

Our Alumni Blogger of the month is Rebeca Lopez.  Rebeca is an associate at Godfrey & Kahn in Milwaukee, where she is a member of the Labor, Employment & Immigration Law Practice Group.  Her work involves a wide variety of labor and employment matters, including wage and hour claims, employment discrimination, and conducting internal investigations involving employees. Rebeca also assists clients with drafting and enforcing employment policies and agreements.

Rebeca graduated magna cum laude from Marquette University Law School. While in law school, Rebeca served as Business Editor of the Marquette Law Review and interned in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin for Judge Lynn S. Adelman. Prior to law school, Rebeca was a Regional Coordinator and an Office Manager for a United States Senator.

Our Student Blogger for the month of January is Laura Mikeworth.   Laura is a 3L at Marquette Law School and a graduate of Marquette’s School of Arts and Sciences.  She currently serves as an Articles Editor on the Marquette Law Review, as well as a student leader for Marquette Law School’s Academic Success Program.  After graduation, Laura will be joining Foley & Larder LLP in their Milwaukee office.

Welcome!

Print Friendly



December 31, 2016

Big Dreams and Hidden Harms

Posted by:
Category: Federal Law & Legal System, Immigration Law, Political Processes & Rhetoric, Public
1 Comment »

One of the first choices that the Trump Administration will face after the upcoming inauguration is what to do about the “Dreamers.”  The name Dreamer has been used both to refer specifically to the young adults currently participating in the Deferred Action Childhood Arrival program (DACA) and, more generally, to any undocumented residents of the United States who were brought to this country by their parents when they were minors.

It is not difficult to be sympathetic to the plight of the Dreamers.  As undocumented residents of the United States, they were subject to immediate deportation under the law as it existed prior to 2012.  However, these longtime residents of the United States often had little memory of their birth country and may not have spoken any language other than English.  They grew up in the United States, and attended U.S. schools, and as a result they share the same hopes and dreams of any native born young adult.  Moreover, they were not morally complicit in their parents’ decision to enter the United States.  Prior to 2012, approximately 2 million people essentially found themselves trapped in a form of limbo – feeling American, unconnected to any foreign country, and yet unable to work lawfully in the United States or to plan for their future.

Legislation was first introduced in Congress in 2001 to resolve this situation and to permit these persons to obtain legal residence in the United States.  Titled the Development Relief and Education of Alien Minors Act (or DREAM Act), this first bill and similar versions introduced in subsequent years were designed to create a 6-year pathway to permanent legal residency.  To be eligible under the DREAM Act, a young adult had to have been brought to the United States at a young age, was required to be a college graduate or a military veteran (or be currently enrolled or enlisted), and could not have a criminal record.  The DREAM Act and its successor bills boasted bipartisan support but never passed both houses of Congress, either as a standalone bill or as a component part of a comprehensive immigration reform package.

Frustrated by congressional inaction, President Obama chose to extend relief to the Dreamers in the form of a Presidential Directive. Read more »

Print Friendly



Not Just Another Email

Posted by:
Category: Legal Education, Legal Practice, Legal Writing, Public
1 Comment »

My first legal writing assignment in law school was an e-mail memo. For the first few weeks or so of my introductory legal writing course, our professor guided my classmates and me through thorough examination and crafting of effective e-mail memos.  At the time, I found the exercise mundane—lacking the excitement and wonder of a full memo or brief.  It seemed more like diet legal writing that was focused on beginners. Boy was I wrong.

As a new associate, I spend much of my time researching developments in the law.  One effective way to communicate and document my research and conclusions is to submit an answer by e-mail. Looking back now, I wish that I had had the principles we learned in that legal writing class in mind when submitting my first such e-mail memo to a more senior associate at our firm.

My first version of an e-mail memo in practice was a disaster.  The question was simple: Whether there had been any new case or other law on a narrow issue. The answer, as I saw it based on my research, was just two sentences of text. So, I wrote down my answer in a colloquial e-mail, fired it off, and moved on to another matter. Oops.

Shortly thereafter, the senior associate that I sent that e-mail to walked into my office and politely asked me whether I had a copy of The Bluebook.  Then it all came back: Identify the question; give an answer; justify and support the answer by stating what the law is and how it would likely apply to these facts; consider counter answers where applicable; offer further discussion; check your cites. Needless to say, my first e-mail memo in practice did not follow this blueprint.

Now, my experience might not be everyone’s, but if I could add to the heap of advice law students receive, it would be to refresh that recollection of how to write a superb e-mail memo before pressing the send button as a new associate in practice. E-mail memos are not mere introductions to legal writing.

Print Friendly



December 30, 2016

Media Should Inform the Public on Why, Not Just What, of Criminal Legalities

Posted by:
Category: Criminal Law & Process, Media & Journalism, Milwaukee, Public
Leave a Comment »

As we discussed potential procedures following the aftermath of acts causing tension between citizens of the Milwaukee area and police officers, a small group I was part of presented an interesting point. That point was that many times citizens are unaware of the on-goings of the criminal legal system. When situations arise in which officers or citizens are not found guilty subsequent to what seems to be a criminal act, onlookers are furious and the city burns—literally.

The media does little to help reduce the animosity, pointing fingers and creating distrust between residents and law enforcement by informing on the what, but failing to expand on the why. We as law school students are all legally educated, and most of us, at the least, have taken criminal law, even if we are not so knowledgeable as those who teach it. So, when an event takes place that seems unjust and nobody walks away in handcuffs, we understand why. The citizens of Milwaukee, however, don’t have that same knowledge and are understandably outraged. Read more »

Print Friendly



December 27, 2016

That Extra Incentive

Posted by:
Category: Business Regulation, Federal Civil Litigation, Health Care, Labor & Employment Law, Public
Leave a Comment »

Most of us are familiar with wellness programs—programs sponsored by our employer or health plan that try to incentivize us to eat healthier, sleep well, and get more exercise.  If you’re anything like me, it helps to have that extra push or incentive, especially around the holidays when sweets abound, to stay on track—or at least, to not stray too far from health goals. Most of these programs have the added advantage of lowering health care costs, both by providing financial incentives to reduce immediate costs to the individual employees and by boosting the overall health of the employees as a whole, which could reduce future health care costs.   However, extensive technical regulations and recent litigation by the AARP make implementing health and wellness programs increasingly tricky for employers.

Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (“GINA”) and the regulations promulgated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) thereunder, generally prohibit “an employer [from] request[ing], require[ing], or purchas[ing] genetic information [which includes an individual’s family medical history] with respect to an employee or a family member of the employee.”  42 U.S.C. § 2000ff–1(b). However, there is an exception for wellness programs, as long as employers jump through a set of hoops. 29 CFR § 1635.8(b)(2).  While not without its own problems and excesses, the exception in the EEOC regulations at least allows employers to provide incentives to those employees willing to participate in employer-sponsored wellness programs.

The AARP doesn’t like this whole “incentive” idea to begin with. It recently filed a lawsuit against the EEOC in an attempt to vacate the regulations entirely.  AARP v. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 1:16-cv-02113 (D. D.C. 2016) (hereafter the “AARP Complaint”).  This actually might not be a bad idea, except for the fact that the AARP thinks that the regulations do not have enough hoops.  In fact, the AARP would prefer that the regulations abolish any permission for any incentives or penalties to induce participation in employer-sponsored wellness programs. The AARP alleges in its complaint that all employer incentives or penalties to induce participation in employer-sponsored wellness programs violate Title I of the ADA and Title II of GINA.  AARP Complaint at 3Read more »

Print Friendly



Proposed Changes to the Model Business Corporation Act: Future Changes to Chapter 180?

Posted by:
Category: Business Regulation, Corporate Law, Public
Leave a Comment »

The Model Business Corporation Act, potentially following suit with the rest of ever-changing 2016, has acquired proposed notable changes through provisional amendments by its Official Committee. Some of these changes model company-friendly Delaware’s legal structure, which can only help to attract companies to incorporate within states that choose to adopt such changes. Although Wisconsin has modeled its own state corporation statutes based on the Act under Chapter 180 of the state legislature, the addition of these new amendments could help attract local companies to incorporate within the state.

First, the Committee has proposed adoption of the addition of subchapter E to chapter one of the Act, mirroring the Delaware General Corporations Law’s 2014 amendments. The subchapter permits the ratification of defective corporate actions, including actions in connection with the issuance of shares. It also provides for retroactive validity of subsequent actions taken in reliance on the validity of the defective action upon its ratification. If Wisconsin adopts this subchapter, actions taken by local corporations won’t be hindered and found void based on, for example, a greater issuance of shares than allowed by the articles of incorporation. This malleability gives companies assurance that certain vote-based corporate actions have a safety net from being deemed void instantly, ensuring a remedy for defective corporate actions.

Next the Committee has proposed changes to sections 2.02 and 8.70 of the Act, allowing corporations to include a provision within its articles limiting or eliminating the duty of a director or officer to become involved with a corporate opportunity without informing the corporation, which typically falls under a director’s or officer’s duty of loyalty. These provisions would give the corporation control over the liability imposed upon its directors and/or officers upon involvement in corporate opportunities, shielding them from said liability. It would also allow directors and officers to engage in such opportunities against the wishes of the company. These provisions have their strengths and weaknesses, but the advantage surrounds the control given to the corporation. Read more »

Print Friendly