Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

Marsy’s Law in Wisconsin

Post author:K.C. Parker
Post published:January 23, 2018
Post category:Constitutional Law Criminal Law & Process Public Student Contributor

Have you ever heard something that, almost immediately after hearing it, bounced your thoughts from the possible benefits to the seriously questionable outcomes that might follow, and left you swinging back and forth between the two? This is exactly what happened to me just recently after hearing about Marsy’s Law coming to Wisconsin. As it stands, I can get behind the general idea of the law, but I do have some doubts—problems, even—with the way the law is being pushed forward.

“Marsy’s Law” is the idea that crime victims, and the families of crime victims (who become victims by association) should have equal rights to those who are accused of victimizing the family. According to the web site for Marsy’s Law for All, the law is named for Marsalee (Marsy) Nicholas, a “beautiful, vibrant University of California Santa Barbara student, who was stalked and killed by her ex-boyfriend in 1983.” (Quote from Marsy’s Law for All) One week after Marsy’s murder, some of her family members entered a grocery store and were confronted by the man who was accused of murdering Marsy. Marsy’s alleged murderer had been let out on bail and the family had not known about it.

Marsy’s Law for All argues that the United States Constitution and every state constitution have a detailed set of rights for people who are accused of crimes, but the United States Constitution and 15 state constitutions do not have a list of rights for victims of crime. As I am writing this, the web site for Marsy’s Law argues that the United States Constitution has 20 individual rights for those accused of a crime, but none for the victims of crime. States, on the other hand, have been making some progress. California, Illinois, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Ohio have passed Marsy’s Law, with efforts to adopt the law currently underway in Kentucky, Maine, North Carolina, Georgia, Nevada, Idaho, Oklahoma, and here in Wisconsin.

Lake Michigan and the Chicago Megacity in the 21st Century

Post author:David Strifling
Post published:January 18, 2018
Post category:Environmental Law Lubar Center Marquette Law School Milwaukee Public Speakers at Marquette Water Law

I have previously written in this space about the difficult water policy issues facing “megacities,” generally defined as cities with a population of over ten mill A photo of the cover of Marquette Lawyer ion people. Meanwhile, the Law School, working in partnership with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, has taken an increasing role and interest in studying various aspects of the “Chicago Megacity,” the region stretching from the Milwaukee area, across metropolitan Chicago, and into northwest Indiana. For example, see here, here, here, and here for discussion of a variety of issues such as economic development, transportation, and education.

We are excited to announce that on April 17, the Law School and the Journal Sentinel will continue those efforts, hosting a conference titled “Lake Michigan and the Chicago Megacity in the 21st Century.” The event is free and open to the public, but advanced registration is required; find out more and register at this link. More details about the conference follow.

Supreme Court Navigates Two Water Disputes, With More On The Way

Post author:David Strifling
Post published:January 10, 2018
Post category:Environmental Law Public U.S. Supreme Court Water Law

On Monday the Supreme Court heard arguments in two interstate water allocation disputes, Florida v. Georgia and Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado. The Court has also accepted a third such case, Mississippi v. Tennessee, and assigned it to a special master. The cases will force the Court to examine the balance between economic development and environmental protection, the federal role in state water disputes, and whether groundwater and surface water allocation should be governed by the same decisional rules.

The trio of pending cases belies the Court’s expressed preference for such disputes to be resolved by interstate compacts entered into pursuant to the Compact Clause (Article I, Section 10, Clause 3). It has previously commented that it approaches interstate water disputes with caution given the “complicated and delicate questions” involved, and has advised “expert administration [via a compact] rather than judicial imposition of a hard and fast rule.”[1] Nevertheless, in these cases at least, an old adage often attributed to Mark Twain trumped the Court’s advice: “whiskey is for drinking, and water is for fighting over.”