Welcome to Our October Guest Blogger!

Posted on Categories Public, Student ContributorLeave a comment» on Welcome to Our October Guest Blogger!

Our Student Contributor for October is 3L Emilie Smith. Emilie is from Green Bay, Wisconsin, and has a strong interest in Business Law and Intellectual Property Law. She currently has a comment pending publication in the Marquette Law Review on the digital recreation of copyrighted tattoos for use on video game avatars. Welcome Emilie!

Participation in Pro Bono Work and Law Student Well-Being—Any Correlation?

Posted on Categories Pro Bono, PublicLeave a comment» on Participation in Pro Bono Work and Law Student Well-Being—Any Correlation?
Assistant Dean Angela Schultz
Assistant Dean Angela Schultz

Last week I posted about Marquette Law School’s list—one faculty member, one staff colleague, and one student—for the honor roll of the Pro Bono and Access to Justice Section of the Association of American Law Schools. I explained that I relied on the expertise of Angela F. Schultz, assistant dean for public service at the Law School.

As we begin this week—the sixth of the semester, remarkable to say—I want again to draw on Dean Schultz’s work, perhaps every more directly. In particular, permit me to highlight for you—and direct you to—a post that she recently made on the University of St. Thomas School of Law’s Holloran Center Professional Identity Implementation Blog. Here is a taste of it, as we say in the blogosphere:

I have been at Marquette Law School for eleven years. Over the years, I have witnessed students become more willing and able to identify and discuss mental health challenges they have faced in their own lives—challenges the students themselves have described as stress, anxiety, depression, and sometimes as trauma. I remember one recent student who lost both parents during their first year of law school. Another student took a leave of absence and was hospitalized for severe anxiety. If you work with law students, you also know some of the challenges facing students’ well-being.

I can think of three recent conversations where students identified their involvement in pro bono service as being among the factors that ultimately aided them on a path towards wellness. These three students’ experiences are not unique. Each year, we evaluate student experience in pro bono clinics. Comments from a recent survey included: “This work reminds me why I came to law school in the first place.” “I was afraid of working one-on-one with a client because I didn’t realize I already had skills that could be helpful.” “I feel connected to the people served in the clinic. These are my people.”

Dean Schultz’s post is thoughtful and engaging. I invite you to read the whole thing here—and to gain an insight or two. I was glad to do so.

Can Common Carrier Principles Control Dominance by Twitter and Google?

Posted on Categories Marquette Lawyer Magazine, PublicLeave a comment» on Can Common Carrier Principles Control Dominance by Twitter and Google?
Prof. Jim Speta
Prof. Jim Speta

The Robert F. Boden Lecture is an annual highlight at Marquette University Law School, public health permitting. After a COVID-19 hiatus in 2020 and 2021—true community events require being in person—the Boden Lecture resumed yesterday. It did so most impressively, with Jim Speta, the Elizabeth Froehling Horner Professor at Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law, as Marquette Law School’s distinguished visitor.

For his lecture, Professor Speta took up “The Past’s Lessons for Today: Can Common Carrier Principles Make for a Better Internet?” The topic is especially timely in light of the Fifth Circuit’s decision last Friday upholding a Texas state law regulating internet platforms. Here is a taste of it:

In this lecture, I will address both the dominance of the internet platforms and the calls to regulate them as common carriers. To begin to define our terms, this reference to the platforms means the dominance by Google and Facebook, by Amazon and Apple (and to a lesser extent by Twitter and Microsoft), of the ways we receive information, exchange it, even understand it. The main concern is that these platforms are biased, that they discriminate, that they foreclose speech. That is why, today, platform critics—including governments—are reaching for the traditional law of railroads and of telephone companies: the law of common carriage. That once-dominant law forbade discrimination. In addition to the Texas and Florida statutes . . . , one Supreme Court Justice has written in favor of platform-focused common carrier regulation, as have numerous federal and state lawmakers, some academics, and numerous commentators. Bills have been offered or are pending in Congress and in many states, including Wisconsin.

I think the proposals for common carrier regulation of platforms are very right—and very wrong. I think they are right to worry about the dominance of internet platforms, and they are right that common carrier law, even though it smells musty and over the past few decades has largely been discarded in the United States, can be part of the solution. I think they are very wrong to target common carrier solutions at the platforms’ core operations themselves—to change the ways in which users are permitted access, content is moderated, and search results are provided. Such platform regulation does not fit the common carrier model. Platforms are not merely conduits of user behavior, although they are partly that. Platforms also seek to create a particular kind of speech experience that holds the attention of their users. If we are required to have an analogy to an old form of media, platforms are more like newspapers and broadcasters than telephone companies, though I think the best single analogy is to bookstores. Newspapers, broadcasters, and bookstores curate the content they offer their customers, and common carrier rules have never applied to them. Even more concerning, laws directly controlling platforms simply give the government unprecedented power over the content experiences these private companies seek to create. I think it almost certainly violates the First Amendment and that the Fifth Circuit’s decision to the contrary is quite wrong.

Instead, here’s what we can do: we can and should at least try to address concerns about the currently dominant platforms by using law to make it easier to have more platforms. This is, truly, the essential argument that I will make: Common carrier solutions should be targeted at the infrastructure that enables platforms to be built and to reach consumers. When we think about platforms, we usually think about the ways that users interact directly with Google or Twitter or the other services. But, in fact, myriad companies provide infrastructure and services that both enable user access and platform operation—companies that transmit data, such as the cable companies and other internet services providers that carry data, companies that host websites and platforms, and services such as website defense or payment processing that support both new and established platforms. In the past, these providers have denied services to some new platforms that sought to establish alternative services. Applying a lighter-touch (and differently placed) version of common carrier regulation to the internet’s support providers, I will seek to convince you, can increase the possibility of alternative platforms. This is our best hope to enrich our speech choices and ecosystem without government censorship.

One may read the entire lecture here, even in advance of its publication next year in the Marquette Law Review and Marquette Lawyer.

I am well familiar with the common carrier regime that Professor Speta invokes, as he explains, for inspiration (see, for example, here and here for some of my own relevant past). This Boden Lecture strikes me as a deeply important and unusually judicious contribution to the current debate, well, raging, it is not too much to say, about appropriate public policy in this internet age.

That Professor Speta deftly interweaves references to past Boden lecturers, such as Columbia’s Professor Thomas W. Merrill (2010) and UCLA’s Professor Eugene Volokh (2006), is a fine local touch. Yet his lecture merits engagement nationally.

The Healing Impact of Restorative Justice

Posted on Categories Mediation, Public, Restorative JusticeLeave a comment» on The Healing Impact of Restorative Justice

As a former Milwaukee County Circuit judge and Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, I have watched people try to resolve highly emotional and upsetting conflict through the legal process or by use of (social) media. For the last 25 years I have become convinced that we need to offer hurting people restorative approaches—a forum in which each person can be truly heard, and their concerns addressed while managed by experienced and sensitive facilitators/mediators to help the parties work toward healing. As a result, our Marquette Law Andrew Center for Restorative Justice provides people, neighborhoods and institutions support for transformational restorative processes.

The recent death of Queen Elizabeth has brought the Royal Family together, albeit for a somber occasion. Nevertheless, this reunion has re-surfaced conflicts that appeared dormant (at least within the American news cycle) – specifically, those related to Meghan Markle and Prince Harry. As we watch how the royal conflicts unfold, it seems that the Royal Family may benefit from restorative justice processes to begin mending their relational rifts now on public display. So, I posed a thought experiment to the students in my restorative justice class this fall: what should restorative justice within the Royal Family look like?

Students recognized location – a neutral one – as foundational to the success of any royal restorative justice endeavor. Several suggested Switzerland, because of its distance from the United Kingdom, its many secluded towns, and the country’s commitment to neutrality, peace, and refusal to involve itself in violent or pollical conflicts with other countries. Students also correctly recognized the importance of confidentiality and privacy to a restorative justice gathering of the Royal Family, especially considering the Family’s historic distaste for and disinclination towards any public airing of intra-family grievances is well known.

Finally, there comes the process, and most importantly, what to address and how to address it. Obviously there would be extensive preparation (including deep listening by the facilitators) before any gathering of family members. Practically all the students suggested dialogue as the procedural format, and that it be led by one or more experienced facilitators/mediators. After listening and talking to everyone individually or as a couple, the facilitator must work out an agenda for the first meeting. That agenda might include a discussion to the traditions of royalty and a need to maintain them as well as how those rules might govern Meghan and Harry as well as their children.  Students differed regarding which topics to address first, as well as which participants should hold the primary focal point. Some proposed that the entire family begin discussion centered on racism as its manifestation in the Royal’s Family’s treatment of Meghan Markle. Others urged a family-wide discussion focused on the treatment of in-laws in the Royal Family, while others thought that the topic should involve a discussion on addressing mental health issues. There also rose the proposal that a dialogue should begin attentive to the unique trauma of growing up in the Royal Family, and that perhaps the initial sessions be limited to King Charles III and his sons, Harry and William. Ultimately the agenda needs to be driven by the desires of the respective parties to a dialogue, with a commitment by all of confidentiality.

While any one of these procedures and topics could work for the Royal Family, what is most important is that the family members show up and open to truly hearing one another and to grappling with many of the sore truths that have historically and continually effected members of the Royal Family.  And here, the current family, led by King Charles III, may have an opportunity to shape their legacy and demonstrate profiles in leadership through dialogue and healing.

If you’re not registered, you may want to attend our October 11 ProgramThe Healing Impact of Restorative Justice: A victim mother shares her story.  And see first-hand the impact that restorative justice can have.

National Voter Registration Day: Get Ready to Make Your Voice Heard

Posted on Categories Election Law, Marquette Law School, Milwaukee, PublicLeave a comment» on National Voter Registration Day: Get Ready to Make Your Voice Heard

white sign with a picture of an American flag and the words "vote here."Today has National Voter Registration Day—a good time to remind everyone register to vote so that all eligible voters can make their voices heard on Election Day (which, by the way, is Tuesday, November 8). While Wisconsin allows same-day voter registration, save yourself the time and the hassle of doing it all on Election Day and register now.

You can register to vote online at MyVote up to 20 days before Election Day (para MiVoto en español, haga clic aquí), by mail up to 20 days before Election Day. This year, that means the deadline for online or mail registration is October 19, 2022.

You can also register in person at your municipal clerk’s office until the Friday before Election Day, and you can register at your polling place on Election Day.

I’ll explain how to register online at MyVote, but first let me explain who is eligible to register to vote in Wisconsin.

Eligibility to Vote
You are eligible to vote in Wisconsin if:
* you are a United States citizen, and
* you are 18 years old by or on Election Day, and
* you have lived for at least 28 consecutive days before Election Day in the election district or ward in which you want to vote, and
* you are not in prison on a felony conviction or on parole, probation, or extended supervision at the time of the election (also called “on paper).

If you are a student at one of Wisconsin’s colleges or universities and are originally from another state, you can still vote in Wisconsin (but you cannot, of course, vote in both your home state and Wisconsin). And if you’re a Wisconsin resident but at a Wisconsin college or university away from your hometown, you can vote where your college or university is.

Getting Ready to Register Online
Once you have determined you are eligible to vote in Wisconsin, you will need to register. If you have moved since the last time you voted, you will want to make sure you update your registration.

You can register online at MyVote if: (1) you are already 18 years old; (2) you have an unexpired Wisconsin driver’s license or Wisconsin state identification card; and (3) your name, address, and date of birth on file at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) match the name, address, and date of birth you are using to register to vote. Let’s talk about each of these in turn.

First, to register online, you need to already be 18 years old. Those who will be 18 years old on or by Election Day can vote, but they will have to register through the hard copy paper process or in person on Election Day. Continue reading “National Voter Registration Day: Get Ready to Make Your Voice Heard”

AALS Pro Bono Honor Roll for Marquette University Law School

Posted on Categories Pro Bono, PublicLeave a comment» on AALS Pro Bono Honor Roll for Marquette University Law School

Marquette Law SchoolThe Pro Bono and Access to Justice Section of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) this year is inaugurating a new initiative—the Pro Bono Honor Roll—and has invited each law school dean this year to name one faculty member, one staff member, and one student. For a definition that those familiar with Marquette Law School’s Office of Public Service may especially recognize, the section defines pro bono as “work that is primarily legal in nature, supervised by a licensed attorney (for law students), not for pay or academic credit, and of service to underserved individuals, groups, or those with barriers to access to justice.”

The invitation from the AALS was most welcome, and I turned to my colleague, Angela F. Schultz, assistant dean for public service, for “nominees.” It seemed to us that there might be value in our publicly explaining—and celebrating—the work of the three exemplars whom I thereupon named to the inaugural AALS Pro Bono Honor Roll.

Faculty: Rebecca K. Blemberg. Rebecca Blemberg, professor of legal writing, started volunteering with the Marquette Volunteer Legal Clinics (MVLC) before the pandemic and has continued as part of the volunteer crew in every subsequent semester (including summers). In recent years, she has spent more than 90 hours providing “brief legal advice” (the relevant term of art) on family law matters. It is not uncommon for Professor Blemberg to check in with Dean Schultz after a clinic about something she thinks she could have done differently or better or to offer an idea about adding to clinic resources to strengthen another volunteer’s experience.

Staff: Katie Mertz. Katie Mertz, director of pro bono and public service at the Law School, does a great amount to expand and support the Law School’s pro bono clinics and the involvement of Marquette law students and others. Just this past summer, she developed all the infrastructure necessary to host a new remote clinic intended to serve people in rural communities of Wisconsin (that clinic just launched earlier this month). She does a remarkable job keeping the Marquette Volunteer Legal Clinics’ substantive resources—the tools available for our volunteers to use as they navigate client questions—up to date and user-friendly. And Director Mertz draws on—pulls in—external experts on various topics to ensure accuracy and quality.

Student: Jeremy Fernando. Jeremy Fernando is a third-year law student who consistently shows up—even when he has already completed his own pro bono schedule and has already exceeded 120 hours of pro bono service, the level “required” for admission to our Pro Bono Society “with distinction” (he has performed almost 170 hours to date). Last year, when the expungement/pardon clinic was seeking consistent law student volunteers, Mr. Fernando answered the call and made a weekly commitment. This year, given class schedules, it has been a challenge to staff our Thursday-morning MVLC operation at the Milwaukee Justice Center with law students. Mr. Fernando noticed the call for student support and offered to pitch in until his own class begins. (The clinic runs from 9-11 a.m.)

Much more could be said about these honorees or others. In fact, the AALS submission does not require any explanation, but it is a privilege for me publicly to provide it here. Marquette Law School has sought to develop a “culture of pro bono” in recent decades. Lawyers in our community—some alumni, others not—are deeply involved. This particular post has been a welcome opportunity to celebrate the work of those who call Eckstein Hall their professional home.

Congratulations to AWL Scholarship Winners Bondar, Filali, and Gross

Posted on Categories Legal Education, Legal Practice, Legal Profession, Marquette Law School, PublicLeave a comment» on Congratulations to AWL Scholarship Winners Bondar, Filali, and Gross

On Wednesday, September 7, the Milwaukee Association for Women Lawyers (AWL) Foundation honored three Marquette University Law School students with scholarships.

Head shot of a woman with long blonde hair; her name is Sarah Bondar
Sarah Bondar, 2L

Sarah Bondar, 2L, received the AWL Foundation scholarship. The AWL Foundation Scholarship is awarded to a woman who has exhibited service to others, diversity, compelling financial need, academic achievement, unique life experiences (such as overcoming obstacles to attend or continue law school), and advancement of women in the profession.

Bondar is a Wisconsin native and former law enforcement officer and 911 dispatcher. She wanted to attend law school to pursue her original dream of becoming a lawyer and helping victims of domestic violence. In addition to attending classes, working as a law clerk, and owning her own life coaching and event planning business, Bondar is actively involved in several student organizations. She’s the president of the Children and Family Law Association, president of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Society, director of communications for the Federal Practice Society, and Student Liaison for the State Bar of Wisconsin ADR Section. Bondar also volunteers with the Marquette Volunteer Legal Clinic as a Student Board Advisor. After she graduates, Bondar plans to practice for a few years, then open her own firm, focused primarily on family law.

head shot of a young woman with long dark brown hair; her name is Noelle-Nadia Filali
Noelle-Nadia Filali, 3L

Noelle-Nadia Filali, 3L, was awarded the Virginia A. Pomeroy scholarship. This scholarship honors the late Virginia A. Pomeroy, a former deputy state public defender and a past president of AWL. In addition to meeting the same criteria as for the AWL Foundation scholarship, the winner of this scholarship must also exhibit what the AWL Foundation calls “a special emphasis, through experience, employment, class work or clinical programs” in one of several particular areas: appellate practice, civil rights law, public interest law, public policy, public service, or service to the vulnerable or disadvantaged. Continue reading “Congratulations to AWL Scholarship Winners Bondar, Filali, and Gross”

Feingold on a Possible US Constitutional Convention: “You’d Better Worry About It”

Posted on Categories Constitutional Law, Public, Speakers at MarquetteLeave a comment» on Feingold on a Possible US Constitutional Convention: “You’d Better Worry About It”

A national constitutional convention? An overhaul of American government that would bar the federal government from involvement in many issues, such as civil rights and environment? Might seem far-fetched.

“It’s not far-fetched,” Russ Feingold, a former Democratic US senator from Wisconsin, said Tuesday, August 30, 2022, during an “On the Issues with Mike Gousha” program in the Lubar Center at Eckstein Hall. There are groups working hard to make such a convention come to pass and to gut the federal government as we know it, Feingold said.

Feingold, now president of the American Constitution Society, and Peter Prindiville, a non-resident fellow at the Stanford Constitutional Law Center and an attorney in Washington, D.C., have co-authored a book, officially released the day of the program, titled, The Constitution in Jeopardy:  An Unprecedented Effort to Rewrite our Fundamental Law and What We Can Do About It.

“We’re here to say it’s happening and you’d better worry about it,” Feingold said. “This isn’t January 6. This is legal.” Continue reading “Feingold on a Possible US Constitutional Convention: “You’d Better Worry About It””

A Decade (Plus) for the Marquette Law School Poll

Posted on Categories Marquette Law School Poll, Public1 Comment on A Decade (Plus) for the Marquette Law School Poll

We communicate about the Marquette Law School Poll in any number of ways, including posts on this blog, Tweets from the official MULawPoll Twitter account and that of poll director Charles Franklin, and occasional articles in the Marquette Lawyer magazine (from 2012 to this past year). Marquette’s Office of University Relations (OUR) also issues releases. While these are ordinarily drawn from the poll’s homepage, OUR has issued its own announcement, noting the tenth anniversary of the poll. In light of the poll’s prominence and success, we post below for interested readers the University’s press release, which is also available here.


Marquette University Law Poll marking 10 years of polling in 2022

MILWAUKEE — The Marquette University Law School Poll is celebrating 10 years of polling, having released its first survey of Wisconsin voters on Jan. 25, 2012. Over the ensuing decade, the Marquette Law Poll has become recognized across the spectrum as “the gold standard in Wisconsin politics.”

The Marquette Law School Poll was established to be the most extensive polling project in Wisconsin history, with a full commitment to being an independent effort with no agenda except to reliably find out as much as is possible about public opinion in Wisconsin and to make that information publicly available. The poll is entirely funded by aggregated small donations to the Law School’s Annual Fund.

“The goal of the Marquette Law School Poll is to provide a balanced and detailed understanding of how voters on all sides view and respond to the issues of the 2012 campaigns,” wrote Joseph D. Kearney, dean of Marquette Law School, in announcing the polling project in November 2011. “With the national attention that Wisconsin will receive in 2012 and Marquette Law School’s growing reputation as a premier neutral site for debate and civil discourse on matters affecting the region and points beyond … there can be little doubt that the time, place, and people are right for the Marquette Law School Poll.”

The premise of Wisconsin’s important role in national politics was correct, and the decision to create the Marquette Law School Poll was even prescient, as the state has been a central battleground on the national level in each presidential election since. This has made the Marquette Law Poll a key instrument in measuring public opinion in the state come Election Day and a resource of national attention.

Since January 2012, the Marquette Law School Poll has recorded:

  • Responses from over 60,000 Wisconsin voters
  • Polling involving over 1,200 unique questions
  • Favorability of 112 political figures, including 70 measures of favorability for Sen. Tammy Baldwin, 56 measures for Sen. Ron Johnson, and 50 for former Gov. Scott Walker. Favorability and approval were also recorded for President Joe Biden and Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump in each poll during their respective time in office.
  • The Marquette Law Poll is nearing 400 unique issue questions on marijuana legalization, gun control, public schools, COVID-19, deer hunting, farm ownership, climate change, healthcare, and a host of other policy topics.

Continue reading “A Decade (Plus) for the Marquette Law School Poll”

What Is Fascism?

Posted on Categories Political Processes & Rhetoric, PublicLeave a comment» on What Is Fascism?

In recent years lots of people have been calling lots of other people fascists.

During the Trump Presidency, for example, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich and others decided after careful reflection that Donald Trump qualified as a fascist.  Trump himself seemed not to notice, and if he did, he most likely dismissed the label as just another pejorative hurled by his enemies.

In contemporary Europe important political figures have been called fascists.  Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary and President Recep Tayyip Ergodan of Turkey sometimes wear the label.  In France critics suggest right-wing leader Marine Le Pen is a fascist, but she complicated the labeling by expelling her father Jean-Marie Le Pen from their political party because he was a fascist.

Fascist-labeling, to coin a term, has been rampant during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.  Vladimir Putin’s Russian government has long since ceased to be Communist, but in the opinion of some Putin is certainly a fascist.  For his part, Putin has stated that the Ukrainian government is dominated by fascists, an allegation Ukrainian President Vodymyr Zelinsky has ridiculed since, as a Jew, he could not possibly be a fascist.

Many of the allegations that somebody is a fascist amount to calling a person a bully or perhaps an autocrat.  But what is fascism?  Continue reading “What Is Fascism?”

With candor and humor, environmental regulators give commitments to tackle challenges

Posted on Categories Environmental Law, Lubar Center, PublicLeave a comment» on With candor and humor, environmental regulators give commitments to tackle challenges

In 15 years of public policy programs hosted by Marquette Law School, there may never have been as succinct, candid, and humorous answer to a question as one provided by Preston Cole, secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, during a program on June 15, 2022, in the Lubar Center of Eckstein Hall.

The session, “A Federal-State Conversation on Environmental Issues,” featured Cole and Debra Shore, administrator of Region 5 of the Environmental Protection Agency, which covers much of the Midwest, including Wisconsin. David Strifling, director of the Law School’s Water Law and Policy Initiative, was the moderator. The session was held before an in-person audience and livestreamed.

Strifling asked Cole what was one thing Wisconsin needed from the EPA. “Money, money, money, money!” Cole sang in response. “Money!” he added, for emphasis.

EPA funding translates into buying power to deal with major environmental issues such as the impact of large-scale agricultural operations, invasive species, and chemical contamination of water, Cole said.

Shore and Cole said their agencies have renewed and increased commitments to dealing with a host of issues including pollution from chemicals known as PFAS and global warming. Continue reading “With candor and humor, environmental regulators give commitments to tackle challenges”

New Marquette Lawyer Focuses on Efforts to Repair and Respond to Harm

Posted on Categories Marquette Lawyer Magazine, Public1 Comment on New Marquette Lawyer Focuses on Efforts to Repair and Respond to Harm

Summer 2022 Marquette Lawyer - Janine Geske, Louis Andrew, L’66, and his wife, Suzanne Bouquet AndrewIn important but differing ways, the four major stories in the summer 2022 edition of Marquette Lawyer magazine all focus on what can be done to improve things when harm occurs.

The cover story—featuring the biggest news this past year for Marquette University Law School itself—spotlights a $5 million gift from Marquette alumni, Louie Andrew (L’66) and his wife, Suzanne Bouquet Andrew (Sp’66). The gift has established an endowment enabling the university to create the Andrew Center for Restorative Justice at the Law School. The Andrews have been longtime generous supporters of the Law School, both generally since the tenure of the late Dean Howard B. Eisenberg and, particularly, of the work of Distinguished Professor of Law Janine P. Geske, L’75, an internationally known advocate of restorative justice.

Restorative justice work, broadly speaking, involves bringing together people who have been affected by harmful situations and, through discussions, often in moderated circle groups, seeking ways to reduce the harm. Geske, a former state supreme court justice and trial judge, first took part in restorative justice sessions at the Wisconsin correctional facility in Green Bay. The Andrews became supporters of Geske’s work through the Law School to bring restorative justice principles to bear on a range of major social issues and to hold a series of conferences at the Law School, beginning in 2004.

In recent years, the Law School’s Restorative Justice Initiative, as it was called beginning in 2004, reached a crossroads, on account of factors including the impact of the pandemic and Geske’s retirement. When Geske, the Andrews, and others then determined to renew the work in an enduring way, the Andrews stepped up with their historic donation this past December and Geske agreed to return to the Law School to get the permanent effort launched.

In the new magazine, an article, headlined “Starfish Enterprise,” describes the past path of restorative justice at the Law School—and its anticipated future through the new Andrew Center for Restorative Justice. Click here to read the piece. A companion article, “A Quiet Approach, Resounding Accomplishments,” profiles the Andrews and may be read by clicking here.

The next entry takes up the law’s more traditional (civil) approach to harm. In a new book rich in detail and perspective, Joseph A. Ranney, Marquette Law School’s Adrian P. Schoone Fellow in Legal History, examines legal approaches to civil wrongs and their aftermath—the harms that lead people to turn to courts. That is to say, Ranney writes about the law of torts. The magazine offers excerpts from his new book, The Burdens of All: A Social History of American Tort Law (Carolina Academic Press 2021), and from related pieces by Ranney.

From the early days of railroads to the rise of automobiles and the expansion of product liability law, Ranney describes trends and ideas that have shaped tort law. The magazine piece concludes with observations by Alexander B. Lemann, assistant professor of law at Marquette University, on Ranney’s book. Both Ranney’s collection, “Exploring the Fault Lines,” and Lemann’s comment, “Tort Law’s Past—and Future,” may be read by clicking here.

The third entry in this series takes up a particular, even unique, aspect of the past academic year’s pro bono work—which is, more generally, an important part of life for many Marquette Law School students. During the holiday break this past December and January, 49 law students, nearly 10 percent of the Law School’s enrollment, volunteered to spend time at the U.S. Army base, Fort McCoy, in rural west central Wisconsin. Thousands of people who had been evacuated from Afghanistan during the collapse of the government there in August 2021 had been temporarily settled at Fort McCoy, hoping for, awaiting, new homes in the United States.

The law students did not receive pay or academic credit for their work. But they found satisfaction in the assistance they were able to give the Afghans in getting started on the process of getting permission to stay in the United States permanently. An article in the magazine describes the students’ work and includes comments from five of them on this special way of helping others deal with the harm that had overturned their prior lives. The article, “Helped Today; Gone Forward Tomorrow,” may be read by clicking here.

Finally, dealing with environmental issues and the future of water—indeed, the rise of the administrative state more generally—can also be looked at as a way of responding to harm and potential harm in our society. Since 2014, the Law School’s Water Law and Policy Initiative, part of the broader emphasis on water issues at Marquette University, has addressed important water issues. Led by Professor David Strifling, the initiative has contributed to understanding of subjects ranging from high-tech ways of managing water use to the virtues of using kitchen garbage disposals. The work of the initiative is described in ”Even the Kitchen Sink,” which may be read by clicking here.

To be sure, there is more to the magazine. This includes an encomium of William C. Welburn, upon his retirement as Marquette University’s vice president for inclusive excellence this past academic year, and Dean Joseph D. Kearney’s reflections on the Andrew Center for Restorative Justice and some of the relationships that have moved Marquette Law School forward during the past 130 years. His column, “Let Us Tell You a Story—or Many Connecting Ones,” may be read by clicking here. And, scarcely least, the Class Notes pages succinctly describe recent accomplishments of more than 90 Marquette lawyers and may be read by clicking here.

The full magazine may be viewed by clicking here.

Marquette University Law School - Contact Us
Marquette University Law School, P.O. Box 1881, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201 (414) 288-7090
Street Address: Marquette University Law School, 1215 W. Michigan St., Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53233

About the Blog | Comments Policy

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of Marquette University or its Law School.