Tag: Law

  • Students learn the basics of AI as they weigh its use in their future careers

    Students learn the basics of AI as they weigh its use in their future careers

    This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.

    On a recent Thursday morning, Michael Taubman asked his class of seniors at North Star Academy’s Washington Park High School: “What do you think AI’s role should be in your future career?”

    “In school, like how we use AI as a tool and we don’t use it to cheat on our work … that’s how it should be, like an assistant,” said Amirah Falana, a 17-year-old interested in a career in real estate law.

    Fernando Infante, an aspiring software developer, agreed that AI should be a tool to “provide suggestions” and inform the work.

    “It’s like having AI as a partner rather than it doing the work,” said Infante during class.

    Falana and Infante are students in Taubman’s class called The Summit, a yearlong program offered to 93 seniors this year and expanding to juniors next year that also includes a 10-week AI course developed by Taubman and Stanford University.

    As part of the course, students use artificial intelligence tools – often viewed in a negative light due to privacy and other technical concerns – to explore their career interests and better understand how technology could shape the workforce. The class is also timely, as 92% of companies plan to invest in more AI over the next three years, according to a report by global consulting firm McKinsey and Company.

    The lessons provide students with hands-on exercises to better understand how AI works and how they can use it in their daily lives. They are also designed so teachers across subject areas can include them as part of their courses and help high school students earn a Google Career Certificate for AI Essentials, which introduces AI and teaches the basics of using AI tools.

    Students like Infante have used the AI and coding skills they learned in class to create their own apps while others have used them to create school surveys and spark new thoughts about their future careers. Taubman says the goal is to also give students agency over AI so they can embrace technological changes and remain competitive in the workfield.

    “One of the key things for young people right now is to make sure they understand that this technology is not inevitable,” Taubman told Chalkbeat last month. “People made this, people are making decisions about it, and there are pros and cons like with everything people make and we should be talking about this.”

    Students need to know the basics of AI, experts say

    As Generation Z, those born between 1997 and 2012, graduate high school and enter a workforce where AI is new, many are wondering how the technology will be used and to what extent.

    Nearly half of Gen Z students polled by The Walton Family Foundation and Gallup said they use AI weekly, according to the newly released survey exploring how youth view AI. (The Walton Family Foundation is a supporter of Chalkbeat. See our funders list here.) The same poll found that over 4 in 10 Gen Z students believe they will need to know AI in their future careers, and over half believe schools should be required to teach them how to use it.

    This school year, Newark Public Schools students began using Khan Academy’s AI chatbot tutor called Khanmigo, which the district launched as a pilot program last year. Some Newark teachers reported that the tutoring tool was helpful in the classroom, but the district has not released data on whether it helped raise student performance and test scores. The district in 2024 also launched its multimillion project to install AI cameras across school buildings in an attempt to keep students safe.

    But more than just using AI in school, students want to feel prepared to use it after graduating high school. Nearly 3 in 4 college students said their colleges or universities should be preparing them for AI in the workplace, according to a survey from Inside Higher Ed and College Pulse’s Student Voice series.

    Many of the challenges of using AI in education center on the type of learning approach used, accuracy, and building trust with the technology, said Nhon Ma, CEO of Numerade – an online learning assistant that uses AI and educators to help students learn STEM concepts. But that’s why it’s important to immerse students in AI to help them understand the ways it could be used and when to spot issues, Ma added.

    “We want to prepare our youth for this competitive world stage, especially on the technological front so they can build their own competence and confidence in their future paths. That could potentially lead towards higher earnings for them too,” Ma said.

    For Infante, the senior in Taubman’s class, AI has helped spark a love for computer science and deepened his understanding of coding. He used it to create an app that tracks personal milestones and goals and awards users with badges once they reach them. As an aspiring software developer, he feels he has an advantage over other students because he’s learning about AI in high school.

    Taubman also says it’s especially important for students to understand how quickly the technology is advancing, especially for students like Infante looking towards a career in technology.

    “I think it’s really important to help young people grapple with how this is new, but unlike other big new things, the pace is very fast, and the implications for career are almost immediate in a lot of cases,” Taubman added.

    Students learn that human emotions are important as AI grows

    It’s also important to remember the limitations of AI, Taubman said, noting that students need the basic understanding of how AI works in order to question it, identify any mistakes, and use it accordingly in their careers.

    “I don’t want students to lose out on an internship or job because someone else knows how to use AI better than they do, but what I really want is for students to get the internship or the job because they’re skillful with AI,” Taubman said.

    Through Taubman’s class, students are also identifying how AI increases the demand for skills that require human emotion, such as empathy and ethics.

    Daniel Akinyele, a 17-year-old senior, said he was interested in a career in industrial and organizational psychology, which focuses on human behavior in the workplace.

    During Taubman’s class, he used a custom AI tool on his laptop to explore different scenarios where he could use AI in his career. Many involved talking to someone about their feelings or listening to vocal cues that might indicate a person is sad or angry. Ultimately, psychology is a career about human connection and “that’s where I come into play,” Akinyele said.

    “I’m human, so I would understand how people are feeling, like the emotion that AI doesn’t see in people’s faces, I would see it and understand it,” Akinyele added.

    Falana, the aspiring real estate attorney, also used the custom AI tool to consider how much she should rely on AI when writing legal documents. Similar to writing essays in schools, Falana said professionals should use their original writing in their work but AI could serve as a launching pad.

    “I feel like the legal field should definitely put regulations on AI use, like we shouldn’t be able to, draw up our entire case using AI,” Falana said.

    During Taubman’s class, students also discussed fake images and videos created by AI. Infante, who wants to be a software developer, added that he plans to use AI regularly on the job but believes it should also be regulated to limit disinformation online.

    Taubman says it’s important for students to have a healthy level of skepticism when it comes to new technologies. He encourages students to think about how AI generates images, the larger questions around copyright infringement, and their training processes.

    “We really want them to feel like they have agency in this world, both their capacity to use these systems,” Taubman said, “but also to ask these broader questions about how they were designed.”

    Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

    For more on AI in education, visit eSN’s Digital Learning hub.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Oklahoma Governor Signs Mandatory One-Year School Cellphone Ban Into Law – The 74

    Oklahoma Governor Signs Mandatory One-Year School Cellphone Ban Into Law – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    OKLAHOMA CITY — Gov. Kevin Stitt has signed into law a yearlong ban on student cellphone use in all Oklahoma public schools.

    Oklahoma will join 11 other states that have implemented similar statewide restrictions. Some school districts in the state enforce a similar policy already.

    Stitt signed Senate Bill 139 on Monday to implement the “bell to bell” ban for the 2025-26 school year. The restriction becomes optional for districts in the 2026-27 school year and thereafter.

    While the yearlong ban is in place, each district’s school board must adopt a policy restricting students from using cellphones, laptops, tablets, smart watches, smart headphones and smart glasses from the first bell ringing in the instructional day until final dismissal. The policy must outline disciplinary procedures for enforcing the rule.

    School-issued or school-approved devices used for classroom instruction are still allowed under the law. Districts could permit cellphone use for emergencies and for students who need it to monitor a health issue.

    Stitt previously urged public schools to find cost-neutral ways to make classrooms cellphone free to reverse a “worrying trend” of distraction, bullying and learning difficulties.

    “We’re seeing classrooms across the country struggle with the influx of cellphone use by students,” Stitt said in a statement Tuesday. “That’s why I issued my cellphone free school challenge in the fall. We want kids to be focused and present while they’re with their teachers, and this legislation helps promote an environment conducive to learning.”

    Before the 2025 legislative session began, state lawmakers met with mental health researchers who warned about the negative effect and addictive impact of digital media on youth. They also spoke with Oklahoma educators who said their schools saw better student behavior after banning cellphones.

    Meanwhile, Stitt visited schools that already have these restrictions in place, where students and educators spoke favorably about their school rules.

    Among the nation’s largest teachers union, 90% of members said they support cellphone restrictions during class time, and 83% favored prohibiting cellphone and personal device usage for the entire school day, according to a National Education Association survey.

    U.S. adults reported broad support for classroom cellphone restrictions in middle and high schools, but only a third of American adults said they support extending these bans for the whole school day, the Pew Research Center found.

    Support for SB 139 wasn’t overwhelming among Oklahoma lawmakers, either. The state Senate passed the bill with a 30-15 vote, and the House approved it 51-39.

    The House also passed a similar school cellphone ban, House Bill 1276, that would allow districts to opt out of the policy. SB 139 allows no such option until after a year.

    “This will allow teachers to focus entirely on educating our kids while students can concentrate on learning as much as possible,” an author of both bills, Sen. Ally Seifried, R-Claremore, said. “After two years of hard work on this issue, I’m thrilled to see this legislation become law, and I’m confident students, parents and teachers will see immediate benefits once the new school year begins.”

    HB 1276 is unlikely to advance in the Senate now that SB 139 has the governor’s signature, Seifried said.

    The bill’s House author, Rep. Chad Caldwell, R-Enid, called the measure a “try it before you buy it type of policy.”

    “I appreciate Gov. Stitt signing SB 139 to remove the distractions of cellphones from our schools and give our kids their childhood back,” Caldwell said Tuesday.

    The governor on Monday also signed into law a restriction on virtual school days. Senate Bill 758 will limit districts to using a maximum of two online instruction days per school year.

    “Kids learn best in the classroom,” said Sen. Kristen Thompson, R-Edmond, who wrote the bill. “Virtual days have their place in emergencies, but we’ve seen them become a go-to solution in some districts — and that’s not fair to students or families. This bill strikes the right balance by preserving flexibility without compromising the quality of education.”

    Oklahoma Voice is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Oklahoma Voice maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Janelle Stecklein for questions: info@oklahomavoice.com.


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • Harvard Law Review Accused of Race-Based Discrimination

    Harvard Law Review Accused of Race-Based Discrimination

    In the latest salvo in the war between the Trump administration and Harvard University, the U.S. Departments of Education and Health and Human Services launched Title VI investigations into Harvard and the Harvard Law Review for alleged race-based discrimination at the 138-year-old student-run publication.

    “Harvard Law Review’s article selection process appears to pick winners and losers on the basis of race, employing a spoils system in which the race of the legal scholar is as, if not more, important than the merit of the submission,” said Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor in a statement. “Title VI’s demands are clear: recipients of federal financial assistance may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin … The Trump Administration will not allow Harvard, or any other recipients of federal funds, to trample on anyone’s civil rights.”

    The statement alleged that the editor of the Harvard Law Review wrote that it was “concerning” that the vast majority of people seeking to respond to an article about police reform “are white men.” It also accused another editor of suggesting that a submission receive “expedited review because the author was a minority.”

    Education Secretary Linda McMahon reposted a tweet from the Free Beacon that purports to show additional evidence of race-based decision-making at the Law Review.

    “We will not allow recipients of federal funding to discriminate on the basis of race,” McMahon wrote.

    Members of the Harvard Law Review have not publicly commented on the allegations. But an HLS spokesperson told Axios, “Harvard Law School is committed to ensuring that the programs and activities it oversees are in compliance with all applicable laws and to investigating any credibly alleged violations.” 

    Source link

  • Will Trump Follow the Law in Punishing Harvard?

    Will Trump Follow the Law in Punishing Harvard?

    In the days since Harvard University rejected the Trump administration’s demands, with billions in funding at risk, the U.S. president has weaponized multiple federal agencies to exert additional pressure on the university.

    On April 11, the Trump administration sent the university a letter demanding changes to Harvard’s governance, admissions, hiring processes and more, signed by officials at the General Services Administration and the Departments of Health and Human Services and Education. Government officials argued in the letter that such changes were necessary because of alleged antisemitism and harassment on campus stemming from pro-Palestinian protests last spring.

    After Harvard rejected those demands last week, the government retaliated within hours by freezing $2.2 billion in grants and another $60 million in contracts. The Trump administration is now reportedly planning to pull another $1 billion in funding. (On Monday, Harvard sued to put a stop to the funding freeze, which President Alan Garber argued was “unlawful and beyond the government’s authority.”)

    Other federal agencies have also piled on.

    On Thursday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced DHS had canceled $2.7 million in grants to Harvard, declaring the university “unfit to be entrusted with taxpayer dollars.” Noem also threatened to terminate Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, which would render it unable to host international students, unless the university provided by April 30 “detailed records on Harvard’s foreign student visa holders’ illegal and violent activities,” according to a Thursday news release from the department.

    DHS did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    Reports also emerged last week that the Internal Revenue Service was preparing to cancel Harvard’s tax-exempt status, a move President Donald Trump has endorsed on social media.

    “Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness?’ Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!” Trump wrote on Truth Social last week.

    With Harvard standing firm, the president appears willing to wield the full power of the federal government to bring the university to heel. But what would that actually look like in practice?

    Stripping Tax-Exempt Status

    If the Trump administration follows required legal processes, removing Harvard’s tax-exempt status would be a lengthy endeavor that experts say would likely take at least several months.

    The process would begin with an audit, which itself could take a few months, explained Samuel Brunson, a professor at the Loyola University Chicago School of Law specializing in tax law.

    “The IRS would have to do an audit of Harvard and determine that there were one or more reasons why Harvard did not meet the requirements for tax-exempt status,” Brunson said.

    Once the IRS notified Harvard of its intent to revoke its exemption, the university would be able to appeal the decision directly to agency officials. If the IRS insisted on stripping Harvard of its tax-exempt status, the university could go to the courts seeking a reprieve. And if the courts sided with the federal government, Harvard could continue to fight by appealing the decision.

    While stripping universities of tax-exempt status is rare, it has happened before.

    In 1970, the IRS informed Bob Jones University, a private religious institution in South Carolina, that the agency planned to strip its tax-exempt status over racially discriminatory policies. At the time, the university, founded by its namesake evangelist, did not accept Black applicants—a policy it maintained until 1975, when it opened its doors only to married Black applicants, to avoid the possibility of challenging the institution’s strict opposition to interracial relationships. (Policies barring interracial relationships remained in place until 2000.)

    The university filed suit in 1971, prompting a legal fight that lasted until 1983, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 in favor of stripping BJU’s tax-exempt status. Justices found that the government’s interest in eradicating racism superseded the tax burden placed on Bob Jones. The university eventually regained its tax-exempt status in 2017, during Trump’s first term.

    Brunson expects the government to make a similar argument about Harvard.

    “My assumption is that the Trump administration is going to argue that Harvard violated a fundamental public policy, either by not reining in pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel protesters enough, or something related to [diversity, equity and inclusion],” Brunson explained.

    Still, he said “the chances of Harvard actually losing its exemption are at best minuscule.” Brunson believes that Harvard has a strong case, while the Trump administration’s argument is weak, “unless they have something up their sleeve that literally everyone is not aware of.”

    The IRS did not respond to requests for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    Targeting SEVP Certification

    The government is also seeking to inflict pain on Harvard by cutting off its international student population, which would be a significant financial blow to the university. Harvard enrolled 6,793 international students in the 2024–25 academic year, according to the university website, which comprised more than 27 percent of its head count.

    If the Trump administration follows legal avenues to strip Harvard’s SEVP certification—which would prevent it from hosting international students— the process would take some time. First the federal government would be required to provide notice of its intent to eliminate that certification, and Harvard would have 30 days to respond and take any necessary remedial action. If Harvard’s SEVP certification was stripped following its response, the university could challenge the decision in court, likely triggering a protracted legal battle before the issue was finally settled.

    William A. Stock, managing partner at Klasko Immigration Law Partners, wrote by email that while colleges are subject to an SEVP recertification process every two years, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has the authority to conduct off-cycle reviews at any time. Such enforcement action is typically taken only when the federal government “comes into possession of information that may indicate possible noncompliance, or when major changes in a school’s operations require the school to update their registration with SEVP,” Stock explained.

    In other words, the Trump administration would need a reason to strip Harvard’s SEVP certification.

    “Essentially, if the government determines that there is an abuse of the SEVP and F-1 and J-1 [visa] designation by Harvard, they can move to take away their ability to issue those visas, which would ostensibly hamper their ability to run an international student program,” said Jonathan Grode, managing partner for Green and Spiegel, a firm that practices immigration law.

    Experts noted that losing SEVP certification would cause a substantial loss of international students and hit research projects hard—even as such endeavors are already in flux from the Trump administration’s freezes on federal funding—given the high share of Ph.D. students who come from other countries. And even if Harvard doesn’t lose its SEVP certification, the mere threat of it could harm international recruitment.

    In any case, the federal government has rarely revoked SEVP certification.

    “The few cases of withdrawal of SEVP certification have involved schools who took serious shortcuts in compliance due to financial troubles, and a handful of cases where school administrators were charged criminally for abusing the student visa system,” Stock wrote.

    For example, Herguan University, a private institution in California, lost its SEVP certification in 2016 after officials there were accused of a scheme to commit visa fraud. That case culminated in a prison sentence for the university’s chief executive officer. Herguan later lost accreditation and closed.

    By threatening to limit Harvard’s ability to host international students, Grode believes the government is merely making a power play to get the university to yield to its demands.

    “In a normal universe, there’s no way Harvard’s status as a provider of student visas would ever be challenged,” he said. “But as the federal government is trying to push and cajole Harvard to acquiesce on a number of different points, you’re seeing them leverage these ancillary types of activities.”

    Source link

  • Greek TNE applications surge under new law

    Greek TNE applications surge under new law

    The applications from 11 British, one French and one Cypriot institution were submitted to the Greek Ministry of Education on March 31, after regulatory reform allowing international universities to establish fully accredited branch campuses in Greece.  

    Greek education minister Sophia Zacharaki welcomed the “historic reform”, which aims to meet the growing demand from Greek students for internationally recognised and accredited university degrees.  

    “[The reform] provides new choices to Greek college students, establishes Greece as an educational destination for thousands of foreign students,” said Zacharaki.

    She added that the reform would provide the opportunity for Greek scientists working abroad to return to Greece, transforming the country into “a hub of knowledge and innovation for the greater region of southeastern Europe”.  

    As well as attracting international students, the legislation aims to meet the “ever-increasing domestic demand” for higher education, halt the emigration of Greek young people and encourage the return of Greek academics and scientists.

    In 2024, more than 40,000 Greeks studied abroad, according to the government.

    And yet, the bill was met with fierce opposition during its parliamentary debate, sparking weeks of protests from domestic students and faculty who argued the legislation would undermine Greek state universities and devalue domestic degrees.  

    It’s advocates, however, maintain that healthy competition will uplift Greece’s higher education system, attract international investment and create new jobs.  

    “The government wants to modernise the Greek higher education landscape and create two systems, one state and one non-state that will interact creatively with each other,” said Study in Greece director, Theodoros Papaioannou, when the bill was passed.  

    Pending government approval, the majority of applicants plan to launch branch campus operations in October 2025, with nine institutions already partnered with Greek private colleges that operate as affiliates of European institutions.  

    For instance, York University’s existing partner, CITY College in Thessaloniki, will transition into the University of York Europe Campus, CITY U.L.E, operating as a non-state, non-for-profit university.

    Among the other UK applicants are the University of East London, the University of Greater Manchester, the University of Derby, London Metropolitan University, the University of West London and the University of Essex.

    [The branch campus] promises to elevate the educational landscape in Greece and offer students even more pathways for success

    Constantine Arcoumanis, Metropolitan College, Greece

    UEL’s institutional partner, Metropolitan College, Greece (MC), welcomed the collaboration, highlighting the benefit of Greek students obtaining accredited degrees from leading European universities.  

    “[The branch campus] promises to elevate the educational landscape in Greece and offer students even more pathways for success,” said MC academic board chairman Constantine Arcoumanis, adding he was “excited” about the proposals.  

    To ensure accessibility for domestic students, UEL said that many of its programs would be delivered in Greek, and that students would have access to UEL’s careers services and soft skills support, as well as study abroad, cultural exchange and learning resources.  

    The University of York’s campus, with locations in Thessaloniki and Athens, plans to establish a “leading hub for computer science studies”, initially offering undergraduate and postgraduate degrees across the schools of business studies, sciences, and law and humanities.  

    In a video message, York’s vice-chancellor welcomed the Greek government’s decision and said that his branch campus aimed to “contribute to the advancement of higher education and to establish Greece as an international education hub”.

    Last month, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis spotlighted York University’s interest in expanding operations to Greece: “Ranked 146th globally in 2025, York has been recognised for its excellence in research and teaching by official British institutions,” he told Greek media.

    Since Mitsotakis came to power in 2019, Greece has pursued the internationalisation of higher education, with the Prime Minister highlighting the need to combat Greece’s “brain drain”.

    In July 2022, the government changed the constitution to allow universities to offer bachelor programs taught in English.

    Source link

  • Columbia University, Mahmoud Khalil, DEI, law firms, and more

    Columbia University, Mahmoud Khalil, DEI, law firms, and more

    We explore how censorship is impacting institutions —
    from universities to law firms to the Maine House of
    Representatives.

    Timestamps:

    00:00 Intro

    01:40 Federal government cuts Columbia’s funding

    16:57 Updates on the Mahmoud Khalil case

    27:01 Ed Martin’s Georgetown letter

    34:59 Trump targeting law firms

    55:01 Maine House censure of Rep. Laurel Libby

    01:03:37 Outro

    Guests:

    – Will
    Creeley    , FIRE’s legal director

    – Conor
    Fitzpatrick    , FIRE’s supervising senior attorney

    – Lindsie
    Rank    , FIRE’s director of campus rights advocacy

    Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and
    get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and
    more. If you became a FIRE Member
    through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to
    Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email
    sotospeak@thefire.org.

    Show notes:

    – “DOJ,
    HHS, ED, and GSA announce initial cancelation of grants and
    contracts to Columbia University worth $400 million    ” U.S.
    Department of Justice (2025)

    –
    HHS, ED, and GSA follow up letter to Columbia    . U.S.
    Department of Health & Human Services, U.S. Department of
    Education, U.S. Government Services Administration (2025)

    – “Columbia
    yields to Trump in battle over federal funding    ” The Wall
    Street Journal (2025)

    – “Advancing
    our work to combat discrimination, harassment, and antisemitism at
    Columbia    ” Columbia University (2025)

    – “Columbia
    caves to feds — and sets a dangerous precedent    ” FIRE
    (2025)

    – “ED,
    HHS, and GSA Respond to Columbia University’s Actions to Comply
    with Joint Task Force Pre-Conditions    ” U.S. Department of
    Education (2025)

    – “FIRE
    demands answers from Trump admin officials on arrest of Mahmoud
    Khalil    ” FIRE (2025)

    – “Brief
    of Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner’s Motion for Preliminary
    Injunction – Khalil v. Joyce    ” FIRE (2025)

    – “We will be
    revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in
    America so they can be deported.    ” Secretary of State Marco
    Rubio via X (2025)

    – “‘ICE proudly
    apprehended and detained Mahmoud Khalil, a radical foreign
    Pro-Hamas student on the campus of @Columbia University. This is
    the first arrest of many to come.    ‘ President Donald J.
    Trump” The White House via X (2025)

    – “WATCH: White
    House downplays stock market declines as ‘a snapshot’    ” PBS
    NewsHour (2025)

    – “Secretary
    Rubio’s remarks to the press    ” U.S. Department of State
    (2025)

    – “Mahmoud
    Khalil. Notice to appear.    ” Habeeb Habeeb via X (2025)

    – “Alien
    and Sedition Acts    ” National Archives (1798)

    –
    Ed Martin’s letter to Georgetown Law Dean William Treanor    .
    (2025)

    –
    Dean Treanor’s response to Ed Martin.     (2025)

    – “Trump,
    Perkins Coie and John Adams    ” The Wall Street Journal
    (2025)

    – “Suspension
    of Security Clearances and Evaluation of Government
    Contracts    ” The White House (2025)

    – “Addressing
    Risks from Perkins Coie LLP    ” The White House (2025)

    – “Addressing
    risks from Paul Weiss    ” The White House (2025)

    – “Lawyers
    who anger the Feds face new penalties by decree    ” The CATO
    Institute (2025)

    – “Today,
    President Donald J. Trump agreed to withdraw his March 14, 2025
    Executive Order regarding the Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
    Garrison LLP law firm (‘Paul, Weiss’), which has entered into the
    following agreement with the President…    ” President Trump
    via TruthSocial (2025)

    – “Head
    of Paul, Weiss says firm would not have survived without deal with
    Trump    ” The New York Times (2025)

    – “House
    resolution relating to the censure of Representative Laurel D.
    Libby of Auburn by the Maine House of Representatives    ”
    Maine House of Representatives (2025)

    – “Maine’s
    censure of lawmaker for post about trans student-athlete is an
    attack on free speech    ” FIRE (2025)

    – “Maine
    State Rep. Laurel Libby disagreed with biological males competing
    in women’s sports, and now, the Maine State House is censuring
    her.    ” Sen. Kennedy via X (2025)

    – “The
    open society and its enemies    ” Karl Popper (1945)

    – “Cyber
    rights: Defending free speech in the digital age    ” Mike
    Godwin (1995)

    Source link

  • ‘We simply could not practice law . . . if we were still subject to the executive order’ – First Amendment News 463

    ‘We simply could not practice law . . . if we were still subject to the executive order’ – First Amendment News 463

    “Global law firms have for years played an outsized role in undermining the judicial process and in the destruction of bedrock American principles.” — Executive Order (3-14-25)

    “Law firms refuse to represent Trump opponents in the wake of his attacks” — The Washington Post (3-25-25)

    The wolf is at the door. 

    Those who do not yet realize this may be forgiven for perhaps two reasons: They do not know the wolf is ravenous, and they do not know the door is ajar. 

    To get but a whiff of this, just read Brad Karp’s March 23 memo to his colleagues at the Paul Weiss firm, from which the title of this edition of FAN gets its title.

    Also this, from MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin:

    [The attacks on law firms] began with Trump issuing executive actions punishing three firms — Covington & Burling, which did not react; Perkins Coie, which fought back and won a partial temporary restraining order; and Paul Weiss, which ultimately capitulated to a deal announced last Thursday, the terms of which are still a matter of some debate. But the president has now directed Attorney General Pam Bondi, in a memo issued Friday night, to seek sanctions “against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States.”

    Now back to the Paul, Weiss controversy.

    A little background at the outset to help set the retributive stage: According to Wikipedia, Karp “is a bundler for Democratic Party presidential candidates . . . having raised sums for the presidential campaigns of Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar, and others.” 

    In other words, if Trump was out for political retribution, Karp was a perfect target. And then consider this: One of Karp’s former partners was Mark Pomerantz, author of “People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account,” which details the attempt to prosecute former president Donald Trump, written by one of the lawyers who worked on the case and who resigned in protest when Manhattan’s district attorney refused to act.

    And now on to the Executive Order from March 14, “Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss.” Excerpts below:

    In 2022, Paul Weiss hired unethical attorney Mark Pomerantz, who had previously left Paul Weiss to join the Manhattan District Attorney’s office solely to manufacture a prosecution against me and who, according to his co-workers, unethically led witnesses in ways designed to implicate me.  After being unable to convince even Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg that a fraud case was feasible, Pomerantz engaged in a media campaign to gin up support for this unwarranted prosecution.

    Additionally, Paul Weiss discriminates against its own employees on the basis of race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws.  Paul Weiss, along with nearly every other large, influential, or industry leading law firm, makes decisions around ‘targets’ based on race and sex.

    My Administration is committed to ending such unlawful discrimination perpetrated in the name of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” policies and ensuring that Federal benefits support the laws and policies of the United States, including those laws and policies promoting our national security and respecting the democratic process.

    Now, the Weiss law firm’s memo in response, from Brad Karp:

    Brad Karp

    Only several days ago, our firm faced an existential crisis. The executive order could easily have destroyed our firm. It brought the full weight of the government down on our firm, our people, and our clients. In particular, it threatened our clients with the loss of their government contracts, and the loss of access to the government, if they continued to use the firm as their lawyers. And in an obvious effort to target all of you as well as the firm, it raised the specter that the government would not hire our employees.

    We were hopeful that the legal industry would rally to our side, even though it had not done so in response to executive orders targeting other firms. We had tried to persuade other firms to come out in public support of Covington and Perkins Coie. And we waited for firms to support us in the wake of the President’s executive order targeting Paul, Weiss. Disappointingly, far from support, we learned that certain other firms were seeking to exploit our vulnerabilities by aggressively soliciting our clients and recruiting our attorneys.

    We initially prepared to challenge the executive order in court, and a team of Paul, Weiss attorneys prepared a lawsuit in the finest traditions of the firm. But it became clear that, even if we were successful in initially enjoining the executive order in litigation, it would not solve the fundamental problem, which was that clients perceived our firm as being persona non grata with the Administration. We could prevent the executive order from taking effect, but we couldn’t erase it. Clients had told us that they were not going to be able to stay with us, even though they wanted to. It was very likely that our firm would not be able to survive a protracted dispute with the Administration.

    Commentary:

    President Donald Trump’s crackdown on lawyers is having a chilling effect on his opponents’ ability to defend themselves or challenge his actions in court, according to people who say they are struggling to find legal representation as a result of his challenges.

    [Such executive orders and pressured settlements set] an ominous precedent for future presidents to exploit. . . . [H]ow can a lawyer who is considering representing a politically controversial client know that she will not be targeted the next time control of the White House changes hands? The safest course of action will be to avoid representing clients of any political salience, right or left, even if their cause is just.

    Related

    Constitutional scholars on the Trump Administration’s threats against Columbia University

    We write as constitutional scholars — some liberal and some conservative — who seek to defend academic freedom and the First Amendment in the wake of the federal government’s recent treatment of Columbia University.

    The First Amendment protects speech many of us find wrongheaded or deeply offensive, including anti-Israel advocacy and even antisemitic advocacy. The government may not threaten funding cuts as a tool to pressure recipients into suppressing such viewpoints. This is especially so for universities, which should be committed to respecting free speech.

    At the same time, the First Amendment of course doesn’t protect antisemitic violence, true threats of violence, or certain kinds of speech that may properly be labeled ‘harassment.’ Title VI rightly requires universities to protect their students and other community members from such behavior. But the lines between legally unprotected harassment on the one hand and protected speech on the other are notoriously difficult to draw and are often fact-specific. In part because of that, any sanctions imposed on universities for Title VI violations must follow that statute’s well-established procedural rules, which help make clear what speech is sanctionable and what speech is constitutionally protected.

    Yet the administration’s March 7 cancellation of $400 million in federal funding to Columbia University did not adhere to such procedural safeguards. Neither did its March 13 ultimatum stipulating that Columbia make numerous changes to its academic policies — including the demand that, within one week, it “provide a full plan” to place an entire “department under academic receivership for a minimum of five years” — as “a precondition for formal negotiations regarding Columbia University’s continued financial relationship with the United States government.”

    Signatories

    • Steven G. Calabresi
      Clayton J. and Henry R. Barber Professor of Law, Northwestern Law School
    • Erwin Chemerinsky
      Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, Berkeley Law School
    • David Cole
      Hon. George J. Mitchell Professor in Law and Public Policy, Georgetown University Law Center
    • Michael C. Dorf
      Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law, Cornell Law School
    • Richard Epstein
      Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, NYU School of Law
    • Owen Fiss
      Sterling Professor Emeritus of Law, Yale Law School
    • Aziz Huq
      Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School
    • Pamela Karlan
      Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law, Stanford Law School
    • Randall Kennedy
      Michael R. Klein Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
    • Genevieve Lakier
      Professor of Law, Herbert and Marjorie Fried Teaching Scholar, University of Chicago Law School
    • Michael McConnell
      Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
    • Michael Paulsen
      Distinguished University Chair and Professor, St. Thomas Law School
    • Robert Post
      Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law School
    • David Rabban
      Dahr Jamail, Randall Hage Jamail, and Robert Lee Jamail Regents Chair in Law, University of Texas Law School
    • Geoffrey R. Stone
      Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School
    • Nadine Strossen
      John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law Emerita, New York Law School
    • Eugene Volokh
      Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
    • Keith Whittington
      David Boies Professor of Law, Yale Law School

    SCOTUS denies review in case urging that Sullivan be overruled

    • Wynn v. Associated Press (issue: Whether this Court should overturn Sullivan’s actual-malice standard or, at a minimum, overrule Curtis Publishing Co.’s expansion of it to public figures)

    On the Trump administration targeting campuses

    The United States is home to the best collection of research universities in the world. Those universities have contributed tremendously to America’s prosperity, health, and security. They are magnets for outstanding talent from throughout the country and around the world. The Trump administration’s recent attack on Columbia University puts all of that at risk, presenting the greatest threat to American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s. Every American should be concerned.

    Until recently, it was a little-known program to help Black and Latino students pursue business degrees.

    But in January, conservative strategist Christopher Rufo flagged the program known as The PhD Project in social media posts that caught the attention of Republican politicians. The program is now at the center of a Trump administration campaign to root out diversity, equity and inclusion programs in higher education.

    The U.S. Education Department last week said it was investigating dozens of universities for alleged racial discrimination, citing ties to the nonprofit organization. That followed a warning a month earlier that schools could lose federal money over “race-based preferences” in admissions, scholarships or any aspect of student life.

    The investigations left some school leaders startled and confused, wondering what prompted the inquiries. Many scrambled to distance themselves from The PhD Project, which has aimed to help diversify the business world and higher education faculty.

    Zoom webinar on strategies to combat attacks on free speech in academia

    “Upholding the First Amendment Webinar: Strategies to Combat the Attack on Free Speech in Academia”

    Thursday, March 27, 2025, 1:00 – 2:00 PM ET

    As efforts to silence dissent grow more aggressive, the immediate and long-term threats to our constitutional freedoms — especially in educational institutions — cannot be ignored.

     This virtual panel will bring together top legal minds and policy experts to examine how these actions affect student activists, journalists, and marginalized communities. Together, we’ll explore the legal strategies needed to safeguard First Amendment rights and resist the erosion of civil liberties.

    Featured Panelists:  Maria Kari, Human Rights Attorney  Rep. Delia Ramirez (IL-03)  Jenna Leventoff, Senior Policy Counsel, ACLU  Stephen F. Rohde, MPAC Special Advisor on Free Speech and the First Amendment  Whether you’re a student, educator, advocate, or supporter of civil rights, this is a conversation you won’t want to miss.

       ➡️ Register today and join us in defending the values that define our democracy.

    Whittington on diversity statements and college hiring

    Keith Whittington

    Keith Whittington

    The University of California is the godfather of the use of so-called diversity statements in faculty hiring. I have a piece forthcoming at the Nebraska Law Review arguing that such diversity statement requirements for general faculty hiring at state universities violate the First Amendment and violate academic freedom principles everywhere. It seems quite likely that in practice such diversity statement requirements are also used to facilitate illegal racial discrimination in faculty hiring.

    The University of California system’s board of regents has now put an end to the use of such diversity statements at those schools. This is a truly remarkable development. Not unreasonably, this decision is being put in the context of the Trump administration’s extraordinary attack on Columbia University, a move that I think is both lawless and itself a threat to academic freedom. But there’s no question that it got the attention of university leaders across the country, and if it encourages some of them to rededicate themselves to their core institutional mission and its central values then at least some good will come of it. So silver linings and all that.

    Trump rails against portrait at the Colorado Capitol

    Portrait of President Donald Trump in Colorado State Capitol

    Institute for Free Speech files brief in campaign disclosure-fee case

    The case is Sullivan v. Texas Ethics Commission. The issue in the case is whether — and if so, under what circumstances — the First Amendment permits the government to require ordinary citizens to register and pay a fee to communicate with their government representatives.

    • Amicus brief here. Counsel of record: Alan Gura. The Institute’s brief argues that the 1954 precedent of United States v. Harriss no longer reflects modern First Amendment jurisprudence and fails to protect the right to speak anonymously about matters of public policy.

    Forthcoming book by Princeton’s president on campus free speech

    Cover of the book "Terms of Respect: How Colleges Get Free Speech Right" by Christopher Eisgruber

    The president of Princeton, a constitutional scholar, reveals how colleges are getting free speech on campuses right and how they can do better to nurture civil discourse and foster mutual respect

    Conversations about higher education teem with accusations that American colleges and universities are betraying free speech, indoctrinating students with left-wing dogma, and censoring civil discussions. But these complaints are badly misguided.

    In Terms of Respect, constitutional scholar and Princeton University president Christopher L. Eisgruber argues that colleges and universities are largely getting free speech right. Today’s students engage in vigorous discussions on sensitive topics and embrace both the opportunity to learn and the right to protest. Like past generations, they value free speech, but, like all of us, they sometimes misunderstand what it requires. Ultimately, the polarization and turmoil visible on many campuses reflect an American civic crisis that affects universities along with the rest of society. But colleges, Eisgruber argues, can help to promote civil discussion in this raucous, angry world — and they can show us how to embrace free speech without sacrificing ideals of equality, diversity, and respect.

    Urgent and original, Terms of Respect is an ardent defense of our universities, and a hopeful vision for navigating the challenges that free speech provokes for us all. 

    Forthcoming scholarly article on AI and the First Amendment

    This paper challenges the assumption that courts should grant outputs from large generative AI models, such as GPT-4 and Gemini, First Amendment protections. We argue that because these models lack intentionality, their outputs do not constitute speech as understood in the context of established legal precedent, so there can be no speech to protect. Furthermore, if the model outputs are not speech, users cannot claim a First Amendment right to receive the outputs. 

    We also argue that extending First Amendment rights to AI models would not serve the fundamental purposes of free speech, such as promoting a marketplace of ideas, facilitating self-governance, or fostering self-expression. In fact, granting First Amendment protections to AI models would be detrimental to society because it would hinder the government’s ability to regulate these powerful technologies effectively, potentially leading to the unchecked spread of misinformation and other harms.

    More in the news

    2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases

    Cases decided 

    • Villarreal v. Alaniz (Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
    • Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
    • TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland (The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.)

    Review granted

    Pending petitions

    Petitions denied

    Free speech related

    • Thompson v. United States (decided: 3-21-25/ 9-0 w special concurrences by Alito and Jackson) (interpretation of 18 U. S. C. §1014 re “false statements”)

    Last scheduled FAN

    FAN 462: “Executive Watch: Trump’s weaponization of civil lawsuits”

    This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or Mr. Collins.

    Source link

  • Essay on Immigration Law and Student Activism (Opinion)

    Essay on Immigration Law and Student Activism (Opinion)

    On Sept. 23, 1952, Mugo Gatheru had just finished English class when an American official approached him and flashed a United States Immigration Services badge. Gatheru, a young Kenyan student at Lincoln University, quickly realized that his education was not the officer’s concern. His politics were. The officer interrogated him about his role as an editor of the Kenya African Union’s newspaper, The African Voice, and about whether he had ever engaged in political agitation against government officials in Kenya, India, England or the United States.

    In the 1950s, the Cold War logic of American immigration enforcement sought to place Gatheru into a rigid political binary: communist or anticommunist, agitator or ally. But Gatheru challenged these political borders. When accused of being an agitator, the young Kenyan student reframed the terms of the interrogation. Agitation, he argued, was a matter of perspective. British colonial authorities may have seen him as disruptive, but what he was doing was simply a continuation of the democratic ideals he had learned in America. “After all,” he told the immigration officer, “even George Washington was an agitator here in your country.”

    Seventy-three years later, it’s old wine in a new bottle.

    The same Immigration and Nationality Act that was used to justify deportation proceedings against Mugo Gatheru in the 1950s is now being wielded against Mahmoud Khalil. In Gatheru’s time, the target was anticolonial activists suspected of communist ties; today, it’s Palestinian advocates accused of supporting terrorism. The global politics are different, but the playbook remains the same: Silence dissent, rebrand it as a security threat and use immigration law to make it disappear.

    These cases are not just about two individuals. They are part of a much longer history of using immigration enforcement as a tool of political suppression on college campuses. Gatheru was one of many African, Latin America, Asian and Caribbean students in the mid-20th century whose presence in U.S. universities became politically suspect. Fueled by Cold War anxieties, U.S. authorities from across the political spectrum saw anticolonial activism as inherently subversive to American geopolitical interests. In the late 1970s, the Carter administration, which professed a strong commitment to human rights, employed the same tools of immigration enforcement to investigate and silence Iranian students who denounced U.S. complicity in the shah’s regime. And in the mid-1980s, the Reagan administration also utilized those same tools to prosecute young Palestinian activists in Los Angeles.

    The history of immigration and student activism is thus also a history of global racial politics. White European students were welcomed into American universities while Black and brown international students from the Global South were scrutinized for their political beliefs. In effect, academic freedom was never truly universal for international students. It was selectively granted and shaped by a racialized global hierarchy that mirrored U.S. Cold War priorities. Ultimately, an uncomfortable truth might be this: American universities are deeply entangled in America’s geopolitical agenda, and their commitment to academic freedom rarely extended to those who challenged U.S. hegemony.

    Today, the U.S. government is deploying a similar logic. In addition to Khalil’s arrest, the government has trumpeted the arrest of another international student tied to the Columbia protests, Leqaa Kordia, and the visa revocation and “self-deportation” of Ranjani Srinivasan, who says she got mistakenly swept up in arrests of protesters during the occupation of Columbia’s Hamilton Hall last spring. A Georgetown University postdoctoral scholar from India, Badar Khan Suri, was also arrested last week, targeted, according to his lawyer, for his wife’s “identity as a Palestinian and her constitutionally protected speech.”

    In other words, these are not isolated incidents but part of a deliberate policy effort to criminalize Palestinian advocacy and antiwar protest.

    In the past two years alone, we have seen student groups labeled as extremist, faculty members investigated for their political speech and foreign nationals facing heightened scrutiny for their views on the ongoing war in Israel-Palestine. The arrest of Khalil, even if dropped, has had its intended effect: It sends a chilling message that political dissent, particularly when voiced by students from politically fraught regions, comes at a cost.

    The echoes between these cases should prompt us to reflect on the historical legacies at play. Both Gatheru’s and Khalil’s experiences show how governments, fearing the power of certain ideas, attempt to control the discourse by criminalizing student activists. Both demonstrate how racialized and colonialist logics shape the policing of dissent, whether in the 1950s, under the specter of communism, or in 2025, under the guise of counterterrorism. And, most significantly for those in higher education, both reveal the ways in which universities serve as battlegrounds for global political struggles.

    Yet both cases also highlight the potential role of academic communities and activist networks in resisting such overt suppression of political activism. When Gatheru faced deportation, university allies and civil rights leaders and groups, including Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP, mobilized on his behalf. Faculty and students at Lincoln University established the Friends of Mugo Gatheru Fund. They reframed his case as a fight for both racial justice and academic freedom. Their efforts eventually led to the U.S. government dropping its case.

    Khalil’s arrest has likewise sparked widespread resistance. Student organizations and faculty at Columbia have mobilized swiftly, with Jewish faculty members holding a campus rally under the banner “Jews say no to deportations.” Meanwhile, an online petition demanding Khalil’s release has amassed more than three million signatures. These responses underscore the broader stakes of Khalil’s case: It is not just about one student but about the right to dissent in an era in which protest is again being reframed as a national security threat.

    Gatheru’s case, once seen as a national security risk, is now remembered as an example of state overreach. Will we look back on Khalil’s case the same way? If so, it will be because students, faculty and advocates refused to allow immigration enforcement to dictate the terms of political activism. As Gatheru reminded his interrogator, George Washington was an agitator, too. The question is whether we will continue to punish today’s agitators for following in that tradition.

    David S. Busch is the author of Disciplining Democracy: How the Modern American University Transformed Student Activism (Cornell University Press).

    Source link

  • Trump’s attack on law firms threatens the foundations of our justice system

    Trump’s attack on law firms threatens the foundations of our justice system

    Atticus Finch is remembered as one of literature’s greatest heroes for his willingness to defend an unpopular client despite great professional and personal cost. I was reminded of Atticus when the Trump administration recently retaliated against attorneys explicitly because they represented clients and causes the president dislikes.

    On March 6, President Trump issued an executive order targeting a law firm, Perkins Coie, for activities that are protected by the First Amendment. The order cites the firm for “representing failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton” and commissioning opposition research into the Trump campaign. Trump also critiqued Perkins Coie for bringing a lawsuit to challenge election laws Trump supports, “including those requiring voter identification.”

    This order came after the president revoked the security clearances of attorneys at another firm for representing a client the president dislikes: former Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith, who had led the government’s investigations into Trump’s role on January 6 and his handling of classified documents.

    In yet another order, Trump also singled out attorneys at a third firm, Paul Weiss, for bringing a lawsuit against individuals who protested at the Capitol on January 6, and for hiring an attorney who had investigated Trump while in government service. Trump’s orders against Perkins Coie and Paul Weiss not only barred federal agencies from engaging the firms’ services but also suspended the security clearances of its attorneys and restricted their access to federal buildings. These sanctions cripple the attorneys’ ability to represent clients in disputes with the federal government. The administration points to no evidence that these firms are a genuine security risk, and expressly targets these firms for their client selection and speech. 

    This is deeply troubling regardless of where one stands on the activities or firms affected. The process of defending constitutional rights relies heavily on the ability of private attorneys to bring lawsuits against the government. This requires lawyers to be free from official government pressure when choosing which clients and causes to represent. If lawyers are put in fear of federal government retaliation for representing clients who challenge the government or stand for unpopular causes, many injustices will never be challenged. 

    The administration’s actions represent a direct assault on this freedom. Punishing firms for their choice of clients or the nature of their legal work cannot help but intimidate the legal community, discouraging attorneys from taking on cases that may be politically unpopular or present a challenge to those in power. 

    History is repeating itself with Trump’s latest efforts. What is at stake here is nothing less than the legal profession’s capacity to fulfill its role in a democratic society.

    It also sets an ominous precedent for future presidents to exploit. If the Trump administration can target specific firms on this basis, what prevents future administrations from blacklisting firms that represent, say, gun-rights groups? This concern is hardly theoretical: just last year, the Supreme Court had to slap down a New York state official for trying to punish a third party for doing business with the NRA. Could religious organizations be next? Or animal-rights activists? Could the next Democratic president ban from federal buildings any attorneys that represented Republican candidates? What is the limiting principle?

    Furthermore, how can a lawyer who is considering representing a politically controversial client know that she will not be targeted the next time control of the White House changes hands? The safest course of action will be to avoid representing clients of any political salience, right or left, even if their cause is just. 

    Even before Trump’s latest actions on this front, a number of law firms have already shown their willingness to run from controversial causes, such as when Kirkland & Ellis withdrew from its representation of the NRA because the NRA advocates for gun rights. Supreme Court litigator Paul Clement, one of the firm’s most famous attorneys, had to leave the firm entirely simply so he could continue to represent his gun-related clients. Clement could afford to do this precisely because he was so well-known. But if the government can punish an entire law firm over the nature of the work of one of its attorneys, less influential attorneys will face enormous pressure from colleagues to avoid taking controversial cases and clients.

    These actions also directly violate the First Amendment. They explicitly target these firms for the clients they have represented and the legal positions they have taken on election law matters. The Supreme Court has recognized the First Amendment right of lawyers “to associate for the purpose of assisting persons who seek legal redress for infringements of their constitutionally guaranteed and other rights.” By officially punishing lawyers on the basis of these associations, the executive order therefore is unconstitutional viewpoint-based retaliation and violates the right of freedom of association. For this reason, a federal judge this week issued a temporary restraining order blocking the order against Perkins Coie.

    There is a long, troubling history of trying to silence advocacy through fear and intimidation of the advocates. Attorneys who fought for abolition and civil rights were frequently harassed, or even subjected to threats and violence such as when Thurgood Marshall barely escaped a lynch mob while arguing civil rights cases in the South before Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Many other civil rights attorneys, including those working for the NAACP, were investigated by the FBI, accused of communist sympathies, and faced professional blacklisting. More recently, government officials pressured the firms that represented Guantanamo Bay detainees in the 2000s to drop the cases.

    History is repeating itself with Trump’s latest efforts. What is at stake here is nothing less than the legal profession’s capacity to fulfill its role in a democratic society. As the judge in Perkins Coie’s lawsuit warned, the administration’s decision “threatens to significantly undermine our entire legal system and the ability of all people to access justice.”

    Public interest organizations like FIRE understand this principle well. Because we are committed to the nonpartisan defense of free speech, we are routinely accused of being “right-wing hacks” or “left-wing radicals,” often during the same week. But defending the rights of the unpopular is not about political allegiance — it’s about ensuring that fundamental freedoms apply to everyone. Civil rights groups must be able to defend speech and causes that challenge those in power, regardless of who holds office.

    Atticus Finch understood how crucial vigorous representation is. In his impassioned speech to the jury, he explained, “In this country our courts are great levelers, and in our courts all men are created equal.” If lawyers fear retaliation for simply doing their jobs, then the courts can no longer serve as the “great levelers” as unpopular or politically powerless individuals and causes are unable to get their day in court. We’re all better off when even “bad people” can get a good lawyer — whoever those in power have deemed “bad people” today.

    Source link

  • How AI is Changing the Way I Teach Business Law

    How AI is Changing the Way I Teach Business Law

    Reading Time: 5 minutes

    AI has taken the world by storm, and the education field is no exception. After over two decades teaching at The Paul Merage School of Business at the University of California, Irvine, I have seen lots of changes related to curriculum, teaching resources and students. However, I’ve seen nothing quite like the wave of AI tools popping up in classrooms. It’s exciting, a little daunting and definitely something we all need to talk about.

    So, here’s the deal: I’m not an AI expert. But I have spent a lot of time experimenting with AI, learning from my mistakes and figuring out what works and what doesn’t. I’d like to share some of these experiences with you.

    AI in education: What’s the big deal?

    AI is already here, whether we’re ready for it or not. According to Cengage research, use of AI has nearly doubled among instructors, from 24% in 2023, to 45% in 2024. Many of us are using AI to create lectures, craft assignments and even grade assessments. The challenge is not whether we adopt AI. Rather, it’s doing so in a way that enhances our students’ learning outcomes, while maintaining academic integrity in our courses.

    In my online undergraduate business law course, I have always required my students to take written assessments, where they analyze a set of facts to reach a legal conclusion. Not only am I trying to teach them the principles of law, but I want them to improve their writing skills.

    A shift in focus

    A few years ago, I noticed a subtle increase in the overall scores for these written assessments. I have taught this course for over 20 years, so I knew what the historical scores were. Looking into it further, I started hearing about how some students were using ChatGPT in their courses. This got me wondering whether some of my students had already been using it to take my written assessments. Quick answer: yes, they were. This now presented a problem: what do I do about it? In an online course, how can I prohibit the use of AI tools on a written assessment while effectively enforcing that ban?  I shifted my focus from policing and enforcing a ban on the use of AI in my courses to teaching my students how to use AI responsibly.

    Teaching students to use AI responsibly

    In my course, I developed assignments called “Written ApprAIsals.” These three-part writing assignments combine traditional learning with AI-assisted refinement. These teach students how to use AI responsibly while improving their critical thinking and writing skills. Here’s how it works:

    Step 1: Write a first draft without AI

    Students are given a law and related news article about a current legal issue. They must write a memo which analyzes the constitutionality of this law. I also provide them with guidance on utilizing the standard legal memo format, known as IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion), to help organize their thoughts and writing.

    Students are permitted to use whatever materials they have, including eBooks, my lecture videos and outlines, Cengage’s online learning platform, MindTap and its resources, and any other information they ethically obtain online. But, they’re not permitted to use AI.

    The purpose of this first draft is for them to demonstrate the foundational knowledge they should have already learned. Students must attest to completing this first draft without using AI, and it’s worth 30% of the total “Written ApprAIsal” grade.

    Step 3: Integrate AI to resolve deficiencies

    Once I have given them feedback on their first drafts, students are required to use AI to improve their first draft. Students must submit the URL to their AI queries and responses (“AI log”). Or less ideally, they can submit a PDF or screenshot of them. I can assess the effort they put in, evaluate their queries, and provide guidance on how to more effectively use AI. This part is worth 40% of the total “Written ApprAIsal” grade.

    Step 3: Use AI to help write a final draft

    Using what they’ve obtained from AI, along with my feedback, students must transform their first draft into an improved final draft. Students are permitted to continue using AI as well.  They must turn on track changes in their document so I can see what changes they’ve made to the first draft.

    Why has this approach worked in my course?

    1. It makes students aware of my familiarity with AI and how it’s used. Students now know I am on the lookout for improper usage of AI in our course.
    2. It encourages their acquisition of foundational knowledge. Students quickly figure out that they must know the basic legal principles. Without them, they will have no idea if AI is providing them with inaccurate information, which can happen sometimes, especially when it comes to legal cases
    3. This approach promotes academic integrity. Students recognize their first drafts must reflect their genuine understanding. There is no benefit to using AI for the first draft. Because the remaining parts are based on their use of AI to improve the first draft, there will not be much room for improvement if the first draft is too good. And because students must submit their AI logs, I can easily ascertain if they actually did the work.
    4. Students build necessary skills for their future careers. They can improve their writing and analysis skills in a low stakes’ way, while receiving useful feedback.
    5. It helps me focus my efforts on helping them understand the law, rather than having to enforce a ban on the use of AI.

    Issues related to this approach

    It takes a lot of effort to find the right law and related news article to use. Not only does the law have to be current, but it also must be interesting and relevant to the students. Legal issues must be presented in a way which are factually neutral to avoid bias. And, the news articles must be factual and not cluttered with distracting commentary or opinions.

    Additionally, rapid feedback is required. With up to 150 students in my course, I only have a little more than 24 hours to turn around written feedback and comments on their first drafts and AI logs. Frankly, it can be overwhelming.

    Tips on integrating AI into your course

    I have learned a few things along the way about integrating AI into my courses.

    Establish clear rules: Be upfront and clear about when, and how, AI can be used. Stick to those rules and enforce them.

    Consider accessibility: Not every student has easy or affordable access to AI tools. Make sure you have alternatives available for these students.

    Teach foundational knowledge first: Students need to know the core concepts so they can critically evaluate any AI-generated content.

    Require transparency: Students must show how they used AI. It is a great way to keep them honest.

    Be flexible and open to experimentation, most importantly: Mistakes are inevitable. There will be times where something you thought would work just doesn’t. That’s ok. Adjust and keep innovating.

    Final Thoughts

    AI is here to stay, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. AI is a tool that can help students learn. But, it’s up to us to show our students how to use AI responsibly. Whether it’s helping them improve their writing skills, gain foundational knowledge or develop critical thinking skills, AI has so much potential in our courses. Let’s embrace it and figure out how to make it work for each of us.

    Got ideas or experiences with AI in your courses? Let’s connect. I would love to hear how you are using it!

    Machiavelli (Max) Chao is a full-time Senior Continuing Lecturer at the Paul Merage School of Business at the University of California, Irvine and Cengage Faculty Partner. 

    Source link