Location
Zoom Events
NAGovernmentAcademiaLawPolicy Virtual October 28, October 28, Saturdayodyssey
law
croatti
Embark on a legal journey to discover the surprising foundations of modern United States case law. Join us for a day-long virtual seminar focusing on four controversial case studies involving three of the most influential and widely discussed court decisions in American history and an international case study! Who were the parties and what was at stake? What were the major points of the cases and why did the courts rule the way they did? How have these decisions affected similar disputes since those rulings? Would a jury today reach the same conclusion? Open to all, this program is designed for lawyers and non-lawyers alike and is an excellent lifelong learning opportunity. Register for a single session, multiple sessions or the full day! Johns Hopkins graduates are offered an all-inclusive full-day ticket at reduced cost. Please select the correct ticket pricing during registration. VIRTUAL SCHEDULE 9:00am – 10:30am: Citizens United v. FEC (2010) Robert Rubinson, J.D., New York University, Gilbert A. Holmes Professor of Clinical Theory and Practice at the University of Baltimore School of Law 10:45am – 12:15pm: Katz v. United States (1967) Mark Duke, Associate Professor of Cyber Security at the National Defense University 12:15pm – 1:00pm: Virtual Lunch Break 1:00pm – 2:30pm: Terry v. Ohio (1968) Steven P. Grossman, J.D. Brooklyn Law School, LL.M. New York University and Dean Julius Isaacson Professor Emeritus at the University of Baltimore School of Law 2:45pm – 4:15pm: Israel’s Efforts at Judicial Overhaul—Why All the Fuss? (2023) Steven R. David, Ph.D., Harvard University and Professor of Political Science and International Relations at Johns Hopkins University2023-10-28 -- 9 -- 00 -- AM -- 2023-10-28 -- 4 -- 15 -- PM -- Virtual -- -- Zoom -- NA -- -- USA -- 0 -- Attendees may choose one session or more, with reduced per-session rates for those who sign up for multiple. As an alumni benefit, Johns Hopkins graduates are offered an all-inclusive full-day ticket at reduced cost.
Please select the number of sessions you wish to attend, and then select the specific session(s) you'd like to join. We will send Zoom links to each selected session prior to the event. -- 5000 -- Registration Options -- 0 -- 0 Registration Options 2023-10-28 -- 9 -- 00 -- AM -- 2023-10-28 -- 10 -- 30 -- AM -- Virtual -- -- Zoom -- NA -- -- USA -- 0 -- As we gear up for the next presidential election, it is worth re-examining the Citizens United case, one of the Supreme Court’s most controversial decisions because it invalidated as “unconstitutional” campaign finance restrictions on corporations and other outside groups, who can now provide unlimited contributions towards elections. This decision opened the door for “dark money” to support candidates through “super PACS” that can now spend whatever they want to influence the political process without the public knowing the source or the amount of the funding. Although the impact of Citizens United remains unabated, with more money being spent by Super PACs in each succeeding election, there are recent efforts among states and in Congress to amend the Constitution in order to overturn this verdict. This session will examine the Citizens United decision and discuss subsequent cases interpreting it, and then explore the continuing and intensifying impact the case has had on efforts to pass campaign finance reform.
Robert Rubinson, J.D., New York University, is the Gilbert A. Holmes Professor of Clinical Theory and Practice at the University of Baltimore School of Law. He has served as Associate Dean for Experiential Education and is currently the Director of the Mediation Clinic for Families. He teaches and has written widely on legal ethics, alternative dispute resolution, and critical legal theory, and is the co-author of two books: Ethical Problems in the Practice of Law (now in its 6th edition) and Family Mediation: Theory and Practice (now in its second edition). He is the recipient of the President’s Faculty Award and the Award for Outstanding Teaching. He earned his BA from Columbia University. -- 500 -- Citizens United v FEC -- 0 -- 0 Session 1: Citizens United v FEC (2010) 2023-10-28 -- 10 -- 45 -- AM -- 2023-10-28 -- 12 -- 15 -- PM -- Virtual -- -- Zoom -- NA -- -- USA -- 0 -- As people increase their use of the Internet and other advanced technologies, courts must analyze both the limits of an individual’s privacy and the government’s ability to prosecute computer crimes. The Katz decision set a precedent for treating cybercrimes according to the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures” by the government and protects legitimate expectations of privacy. In 1967—long before the Internet—the Supreme Court established a general test to determine if the government’s online activity is a “search”; the government’s conduct must offend the person’s subjective expectation of privacy, an expectation that must “be one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable’.” Eventually, courts had to apply that definition to cybercrimes cases. Two major decisions, both in 2014, reflect that application; the Supreme Court ruled that warrantless searches of cell phones—likened to minicomputers with large storage capacities that contain private details like photographs, emails, and other content—are illegal, and a lower court held that a defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding emails and online chat sessions, even though his Internet provider’s usage policies expressed warnings about monitoring online activity. We’ll examine police procedures that must be followed before, during, and after a search and seizure and what impact such law enforcement limitations have on using cyber technologies for surveillance and wiretapping.
Mark Duke, an Associate Professor of Cyber Security at the National Defense University who holds many professional certifications, is currently pursuing his Ph.D. in Engineering Management and Systems Engineering at the George Washington University, where he also teaches in the School of Engineering and Applied Science. He served over 28 years in the U.S. Army’s Signal Corps Communication and Electronics division and was a Joint Duty Officer with the National Security Agency as an Information Systems Security Engineer while supporting the Defense Information Systems Agency, National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense (DoD) Joint Staff, and many other organizations within both the U.S. Intelligence Community and non-DoD agencies. -- 500 -- Katz v United States -- 0 -- 0 Session 2: Katz v United States (1967) 2023-10-28 -- 1 -- 00 -- PM -- 2023-10-28 -- 2 -- 30 -- PM -- Virtual -- -- Zoom -- NA -- -- USA -- 0 -- Decided 55 years ago, Terry v. Ohio and the cases based upon and interpreting the Supreme Court’s opinion in Terry remain the seminal judicial approach to the investigation of street crime based on the stop and frisk model of policing. The controversy that has raged about the various forms of stop and frisk policing existed before Terry and is brought home to us frequently today in the interactions between police officers investigating criminal activity and the public they serve. This class will examine what the police must know before they engage in a Terry type seizure and what they are permitted to do once that seizure takes place. It will also explore the overall impact of stop and frisk policing on crime.
Steven P. Grossman, J.D. Brooklyn Law School, LL.M. New York University, is the Dean Julius Isaacson Professor Emeritus at the University of Baltimore School of Law. He has also been a prosecutor in New York City and a criminal defense lawyer. Grossman has written on such topics as eyewitness identification, confessions, search and seizure, sentencing and the use of hearsay evidence. He is co-author of Becoming a Trial Lawyer (Carolina Academic Press). He has been a member of the Board of Governors of the Judicial Institute of Maryland and the Board of Directors of the Maryland Institute for the Continuing Professional Education of Lawyers. -- 500 -- Terry v Ohio (1968) -- 0 -- 0 Session 3: Terry v Ohio (1968) 2023-10-28 -- 2 -- 45 -- PM -- 2023-10-28 -- 4 -- 15 -- PM -- Virtual -- -- Zoom -- NA -- -- USA -- 0 -- The present government in Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu, widely seen as the most right-wing and extreme in Israel’s history, is attempting to weaken the power of the Supreme Court. Its efforts include making it more difficult for the Court to overturn Knesset (the Israeli Parliament) rulings and increasing the power of the ruling coalition to determine who gets appointed to the Court. These initiatives have produced huge demonstrations, the refusal of thousands to continue their reserve duty in the Israeli military, and the threatened flight of the best and brightest members of Israeli society. At the root of the opposition is the belief that these moves threaten to undermine Israeli democracy by undermining the Court, arguably the most important guardian of individual rights in a country without a constitution or many of the other checks and balances seen in Western states. In response, the Netanyahu coalition asserts it is only trying to express the will of the majority in attempting to reign in a Court that has exceeded its mandate. This session will consider why these efforts to reform the Court are being carried out, whether they will succeed, and the subsequent implications for Israel and, by extension, the United States if these decisions are permanent.
Steven R. David, Ph.D., Harvard University, is a Professor of Political Science and International Relations at the Johns Hopkins University. He has written several books and numerous articles focusing on international security issues, including politics in the Middle East. At JHU, he teaches a course, “Does Israel Have A Future?” which examines threats to Israel’s existence from Biblical times to the present. He is the author of Catastrophic Consequences (the Johns Hopkins University Press) and is currently working on a book examining existential threats to modern Israel using the history of ancient Israel specifically and the record of state death in general to provide insights into the dangers that modern Israel faces today. -- 500 -- Israeli Efforts at Judicial Overhaul -- 0 -- 0 Session 4: Israel’s Efforts at Judicial Overhaul—Why All the Fuss? (2023) mini-law-school-fall-2023
Oct 28, 2023
09:00 AM EDT
Mini Law School: Whether or Not to Regulate the Public and Private Sectors
