About Seton Hall Law

Professor Barbara Moses

Visiting Clinical Professor Barbara Moses in The Times of Trenton on Proposal to Amend NJ Constitution to Deny Bail to Repeat Violent Offenders

February 19, 2012

Visiting Clinical Professor Barbara Moses appeared in The Times of Trenton regarding a recent proposal by Governor Chris Christie to amend the New Jersey Constitution in order to deny bail to repeat violent offenders who are accused of a new crime. The proposal would allow New Jersey judges to impose what amounts to preventative detention and mirrors the power presently held by federal judges.

The Times reports:

The current system is already so effective at holding people by setting high, cash-restricted bail amounts that, in some cases, defendants have done more jail time awaiting trial than they would likely be sentenced to after trial, according to Barbara Moses, visiting clinical professor at Seton Hall University School of Law.

Noting the egregious effects which can come through what are known as the “collateral consequences” of arrest and imprisonment, The Times notes

“Denial of bail tends to be a devastating blow to any criminal defendant,” Moses said. “Not only does it make it exponentially more difficult for him to mount an effective defense at trial; it has enormous collateral consequences — loss of employment, loss of custody over minor children, etc. — that often cannot be undone even if the charges are later dropped or the defendant is acquitted.”

The Times also considered the effect denial of bail can have on those consequently subjected to pretrial detention:

“Moses said other states that have adopted reforms similar to those floated by Christie have encountered unintended consequences for the fair administration of justice.

‘In states that permit pretrial detention without bail — or that allow judges to set bail so high that impoverished defendants cannot possibly post it — defendants are often presented with plea bargains which require them to plead guilty to charges that they believe are unwarranted in return for relatively short sentences, perhaps equivalent to the time they have already served while awaiting trial,’ she said.

‘Many defendants take those plea bargains in order to get out of jail, notwithstanding the sometimes draconian long-term consequences of having that criminal conviction on their record,’ Moses said.”

 Read the full Times of Trenton article, Controlling crime: Christie proposes changes on how judges set bail, here

Professor Mark Alexander

Professor Mark Alexander, featured in Huffington Post

February 17, 2012

Professor Mark Alexander, a former Senior Advisor to Barack Obama and Policy Director for the successful Obama Presidential Campaign, was featured in the Huffington Post, publishing an Op-ed on the politics of obstructionism entitled “Politics Getting in the Way of Policy”

Professor Alexander writes:

We are living in a time where Congress is getting less and less done, and gridlock has a firm headlock on Washington. At the same time people have lost their homes, their savings, their jobs, and often, their hope. Bottom line: our politics is getting in the way of policy. Our elected leaders don't seem to recognize the moment we're living in. And the consequences are real, and serious.

Read the full article in the Huffington Post, Politics Getting In the Way of Policy, here

Professor Marina Lao

Professor Marina Lao Testified Before Congress on Antitrust and the First Amendment

February 17, 2012

Professor Marina Lao testified before the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet, regarding litigation as an anticompetitive predatory strategy and the means by which a narrow reading of Noer-Pennington antitrust immunity doctrine fails to effectively enforce antitrust concerns.

Professor Lao is a member of the Advisory Board of the American Antitrust Institute (AAI), a former chair of the Section of Antitrust and Economic Regulation of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS), and a former attorney at the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.

Professor Lao’s congressional testimony (full video and transcript below) noted that

The essence of a representative democracy, protected by the First Amendment right to petition, is the citizen’s right to communicate their desires, anticompetitively motivated or otherwise, to government officials. However, when efforts to persuade the government produce anticompetitive effects (harm to competition), they necessarily impinge upon federal antitrust law, creating tension between that law and the First Amendment and related values. The Noerr-Pennington antitrust immunity doctrine was developed in an effort to resolve that tension.

As originally conceived, the Noerr-Pennington doctrine stood for the principle that genuine efforts to persuade the government to adopt a particular course of action are not subject to antitrust scrutiny, no matter how anticompetitive the petitioner’s motive and the action sought. It originated from two U.S. Supreme Court cases that gave the doctrine its name: Eastern Railroad President Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, which immunized petitioning the legislature; and United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington, which immunized petitioning the executive branch of the government. About a decade later, in California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, the doctrine was further extended to petitions to courts (and administrative agencies acting in an adjudicatory capacity). There is a “sham” exception to Noerr if the petitioning is considered sham, Noerr immunity would have no application.

My Statement will focus on the current expansive scope of Noerr, and the correspondingly narrow sham exception, as it is applied to judicial petitions. Litigation can be a particularly effective method of predation. Even if it is unsuccessful, it may inflict substantial costs on a competitor and otherwise cause significant competitive harm. I will also address whether such an expansive interpretation of the Noerr doctrine, as applied to judicial petitioning, is required under either the First Amendment right of petition or a statutory construction of the Sherman Act, and conclude that it is not.

Read the written testimony here

Watch Professor Marina Lao’s testimony here (Professor Lao’s testimony and extended colloquy may be found at 47:01, 1:00:33, 1:11:20, and 1:23)

Kevin Marino

Kevin Marino ‘84 in the New York Times for Big Win Before Second Circuit

February 17, 2012

Founding partner of Marino, Tortorella and Boyle, P.C., Kevin Marino ’84, was featured in the New York Times alongside his client, an ex-Goldman Sachs programmer released from prison as a result of Marino’s appeal in a case thought by legal experts to have wide ranging implications for corporate espionage law.

The New York Times reports regarding the court’s decision:

The reversal deals a major blow to the Justice Department, which has made the prosecution of high-tech crime and intellectual property theft a main concern. It is also a loss for Goldman Sachs, which reported Mr. Aleynikov to federal authorities after it accused him of stealing computer code. The bank had portrayed itself as the victim of a brazen crime.

The unusual decision from a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit came just hours after hearing his lawyer, Kevin Marino, argue his appeal.

Marino, a member of Seton Hall Law’s Board of Visitors and named Distinguished Graduate in 2010, is quoted by the Times:

“We are pleased and gratified that the court of appeals has roundly rejected the government’s attempt to rewrite the federal criminal laws,” said Kevin Marino, Mr. Aleynikov’s lawyer. “Mr. Aleynikov spent a year in prison and suffered many other losses as a result of these unjust charges, but he never lost faith in his ability to win an acquittal. This is a wonderful day in his life.”

 Read the full NY Times article, Government Dealt Setback in Case Against Ex-Goldman Programmer, here

 Read the full NY Times article, Court Overturns Conviction of Ex-Goldman Programmer, here

 See a Seton Hall Law video profile of Kevin Marino here

Professor Paula Franzese

Professor Paula Franzese in the Connecticut Post on the Propriety of Lobbyist Money to Connecticut House Speaker Chris Donovan, Seeking Federal Office

February 07, 2012

Professor Paula Franzese appeared in the Connecticut Post regarding the propriety of an influx of money from lobbyists to Connecticut House Speaker Chris Donovan (D-Meriden). As the article notes, Connecticut’s campaign finance laws usually disallow lobbyist contributions to powerful state office holders such as Speaker Donovan, but because Donovan is seeking a federal office as candidate for a 5th Congressional District seat, the state laws precluding such lobbyist contributions are inapplicable to his federal campaign.

To date, the Post reports that at least $25,000, and perhaps as much as $40,000, has flowed into Donovan’s congressional campaign fundraising coffers, and that the candidate/representative will now “voluntarily halt the flow of lobbyist cash to his congressional campaign while the [Connecticut] Legislature is in session for the next three months.”

Professor Paula Franzese has spearheaded ethics reform initiatives on behalf of three governors, serving as Special Ethics Counsel to Governor Richard Codey, Chair of the State Ethics Commission, Vice-Chair of the Election Law Enforcement Commission and as ethics advisor to state and local governments across the country.

The Post notes,

Professor Paula Franzese of Seton Hall Law School, who focuses on government ethics, said Donovan should have avoided lobbyist funds completely, considering Connecticut's rules, as a show of good faith and high-mindedness.

"In the political arena, the public trust is most essential, and to uphold and honor that trust, I think it is always best for any elected official to do more than is required and less than would be allowed," Franzese said.

 Read the full ctpost article, For Donovan, lobbyist bucks seep through 'loophole', here

Professor Kip Cornwell

Professor Kip Cornwell in the Star Ledger on State Attorney General’s Decision to Try Police Officer a Third Time. Learn more>>

February 07, 2012

Professor Kip Cornwell appeared in The Star Ledger, commenting on the state Attorney General’s decision to try a police officer a third time on corruption charges after the second trial, like the first, ended as a mistrial with a hung jury.

The suspended police officer is alleged to have planted drugs and weapons on suspected drug dealers for the purpose of extortion; he is charged with conspiracy, official misconduct and theft.

To retry a third time is highly unusual.

The Ledger reports,

While acknowledging yet another trial is out of the ordinary, state Attorney General spokesman Paul Loriquet said “because of the nature of the serious allegations…we believe a jury should ultimately make a decision on the crimes charged in the indictment.” Seton Hall Law School professor John Kip Cornwell said something else may be inferred from the decision, other than the desire for a conviction.

“Part of the calculus is the message it's sending, that we take police corruption seriously,” Cornwell said of the state's intentions. “It is so unusual to retry someone for a third time that undoubtedly they're saying: we’re going to ferret out corruption and prosecute vigorously. That's the value right there.”

 Read the full The Star Ledger article, Newark police officer accused of corruption to be tried a third time, here

Center for Social Justice

Center for Social Justice Reaches Historic Settlement in Newark Public Schools Special Education Case, featured in Star Ledger

January 31, 2012

The Center for Social Justice, along with co-counsel, the Education Law Center and the Gibbons Fellowship in Public Interest and Constitutional Litigation, settled a historic class-action lawsuit against Newark Public Schools and the State of New Jersey, resolving claims that the District and State had failed in its obligations to appropriately locate, evaluate, and educate children with disabilities.

The settlement, protecting the interests of several thousand Newark children, will result in major improvements in special education services in Newark Public Schools. Students will be able to access special education services on a timely basis and will be provided with compensatory education for services they missed in the past. Highlights of the order include implementation of a comprehensive special education database; mandatory staff training; extensive reporting of compliance activities; guidelines for corrective action; independent monitoring of special education services; and communication with Newark residents about the order and progress made under it.

Professor Shavar Jeffries and the Center’s Urban Revitalization Project represented the parents and children in this matter for almost a decade. In addition to Professor Jeffries, Practitioner-in-Residence Avidan Cover, Clinical Teaching Fellows Jessica Yager and Scott Michelman, and a series of Center for Social Justice clinical students also worked on this case and helped to achieve this result.

Professor Jeffries represented the plaintiff class in this case from 2001-2008, when he recused himself from further involvement upon assuming the role of Assistant Attorney General for the State of New Jersey. His recusal continued thereafter, when he was elected in April 2010 to the Newark Public Schools Advisory Board.

 Read the full Star Ledger article, N.J. education department settles special-education lawsuit, here

Professor John Coverdale

Prof. John Coverdale in Catholic Media Across the U.S.

January 30, 2012

Professor John Coverdale, known widely for his critically acclaimed history of Opus Dei and his work with Saint Josemaría Escrivá, appeared in Catholic media sources throughout the United States in reference to the re-release of the movie There be Dragons and his work as chair of the historical commission in the recently opened cause of canonization for Fr. Joseph Muzquiz, a priest of Opus Dei.

Professor Coverdale, who clerked for United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia when he sat on the DC Circuit, has been an almost ubiquitous presence in Catholic media, especially radio, over the last months.

Having written what many consider to be the definitive history of the early years of Opus Dei, “Uncommon Faith,” and a biography of one the first three priests ordained by Opus Dei, Fr. Joseph Muzquiz, “Putting Down Roots,” Professor Coverdale is much in demand for commentary regarding the movie There be Dragons and the recently opened cause for Sainthood for Fr. Muzquiz—the first for the Boston Archdiocese.

For The Catholic Connection on the nationally broadcast Ave Maria Radio, and Son Rise Morning Show of Sacred Heart Radio, broadcast nationally and internationally through the EWTN Global Catholic Radio Network, Professor Coverdale discussed the movie, There be Dragons, which was written and directed by Roland Joffe of Captivity, The Mission, and The Killing Fields fame. Set during the Spanish Civil War, it features the early life of the recently (2002) canonized founder of Opus Dei, Saint Josemaría Escrivá. Joffe has said that he made the film because he was "ultimately intrigued by the chance to dramatize the life of a modern-day saint, particularly considering Escrivá's 'liberating' view that a path to God could be found in an ordinary life."

Professor Coverdale lived and worked with Saint Josemaría Escrivá in Rome in the 1960s and later worked with Fr. Joseph Muzquiz, whose cause for sainthood was recently opened by the Church in Boston.

Speaking of Saint Josemaría Escrivá, Professor Coverdale discusses what it’s like to have actually lived and worked with a Saint.

“I, of course, knew, being with him, that he was a man extraordinarily close to God. And a man who, by his presence and his conversation, brought those with him closer to God. And I guess that’s what it is to be a Saint. But still, he was such a warm, vital, vibrant human being that I don’t think I really thought of him with the word, ‘Saint.’ Somehow or other that word seems to suggest people who are very dead—long ago. And he was very much live and present and warm and caring. So to see the Church officially recognize him as a Saint was a marvelous experience.”

Of Father Muzquiz, whose cause for canonization was opened by the Boston Archdiocese in 2011, Catholic News Agency noted,

“The spirit he lived was precisely the spirit of Opus Dei,” said John Coverdale, who wrote a biography of Muzquiz entitled “Putting Down Roots: Fr. Joseph Muzquiz and the Growth of Opus Dei,” and is himself a member of Opus Dei. “That message which comes across very strongly in his life is one that's very important for our society.”

Professor Coverdale worked with Fr. Muzquiz and, in Catholic Online and the Boston Pilot observed that in addition to being "intelligent and hard working," Fr. Muzquiz “was a very cheerful person, an extraordinarily dedicated person who clearly grasped God was calling him to do something. That was the focal point of his life." In an interview on Kresta in the Afternoon, Professor Coverdale noted that he worked closely with Fr. Muzquiz, and like with Saint Josemaría Escrivá, he didn’t necessarily think in terms of the word “Saint,” because although he assuredly felt Fr. Muzquiz’ holiness, “Saint” recalls a piece of statuary. Professor Coverdale further noted that Fr. Muzquiz very much liked chocolate ice cream.

Other interviews include Bishop’s Radio Hour on Immaculate Heart Radio, Sacramento CA; The Drew Mariani Show , Relevant Radio, Green Bay WI; The Morning Show with Mark Amadeo, Norwalk, IA; Morning Air with Sean Herriott, Relevant Radio, Green Bay, WI; A Closer Look with Sheila Liaugminas, Relevant Radio, Wheaton IL; Seize the Day with Gus Lloyd, Sirius Radio, Catholic; Holy Family Radio with Michael Janocik, Louisville, KY; and Mornings with Dina Marie Hale, Portland OR.

 Listen to the Catholic Connection interview here (starts at about ¾ through)

 Listen to the Son Rise interview here (interview starts toward end, at 2:52)

 Listen to the Ave Maria, Kresta in the Afternoon with Al Kresta interview on the Fr. Muzquiz canonization cause here (starts at about ¾ through)

 Read the full Catholic News Agency article, Sainthood Cause Opened for Priest Who Brought Opus Dei to US, here

 Read the full Boston Pilot article, Cause of Canonization Opens for Opus Dei Priest, here

Professor Linda Fisher

Professor Linda Fisher in the Star Ledger on Potential Settlement with Nation’s Largest Mortgage Lenders

January 24, 2012

Professor Linda Fisher appeared in the print edition of the Star Ledger regarding a draft settlement between banks and individual states for allegedly deceptive foreclosure practices which drove homeowners out of their homes. As part of the agreement, The Ledger reports that five major banks, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citibank and Ally Financial, would agree to overhaul lending and foreclosure practices, making it “easier for those at risk of foreclosure to restructure their loans. And roughly one million homeowners could see the size of their mortgages reduced.”

However, the Ledger also reports that

“Those who lost their homes to foreclosure are unlikely to get their homes back or benefit much financially from the settlement, which could be as high as $25 billion. About 750,000 Americans—about half of the households who might be eligible for assistance under the deal—will likely receive checks for about $1,800.”

New Jersey has been particularly hard hit by the foreclosure crisis, and Professor Linda Fisher and the Center for Social Justice has steadfastly advocated on behalf of those subjected to deceptive practices and predatory lending in both the mortgage and foreclosure context. The Ledger reports,

“To those dealing directly with the foreclosure crisis in New Jersey, the settlement is an important precedent, even of its remedies are only ‘a drop in the bucket,’ said Linda Fisher, a Seton Hall Law School professor who works closely with foreclosure cases.

‘It’s not clear yet how broadly the participating banks will be released from future liability in return,’ Fisher said. ‘To broadly release the banks from liability without any serious investigation into the illegal foreclosure practices that occurred during the boom years would be a serious mistake.’”

 Read the Star Ledger article, Deal Forged to Help Protect Home, Sweet Home, here

Kate Greenwood

Research Fellow & Lecturer in Law Kate Greenwood in NJ Biz on New Medical Conflict of Interest Rules

January 18, 2012

Kate Greenwood, Research Fellow & Lecturer in Law, Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy, appeared in NJ Biz on recently instituted conflict of interest rules for research institutions that take funding from the National Institutes of Health.

NJ Biz notes that:

The rules revise previous conflict-of-interest regulations implemented in 1995, and in doing so highlight a range of complicated issues, such as the relationship between industry and the academy, the potential for bias in science, and the public's trust in medical research.

In announcing the new rules, NIH Director Dr. Francis S. Collins said the rules ensure research is conducted with the highest scientific and ethical standards.

"Strengthening key provisions of the regulations with added transparency will send a clear message that NIH is committed to promoting objectivity in the research it funds," Collins said.

The new rules lower the monetary threshold at which researchers must report a financial interest, from $10,000 to $5,000. They also require institutions to track such disclosures, and make them available to the public upon request. The rules also shift the onus to deal with potential conflicts to institutions, rather than the scientists themselves. All NIH-funded institutions must comply by August 2012.

NJ Biz also noted that

Kate Greenwood, a researcher and lecturer in law at Seton Hall Law School, said the issue is one of trust and human nature.

"A conflict of interest just creates a risk that your judgment will be affected by a secondary financial interest," Greenwood said. "Your primary interest is supposed to be research integrity, and protecting research participants' safety and welfare."

 Read the full NJ Biz article, New Rules Spark Key Research Questions, here. (Subscription Required)

Nick Stratton ’12 and Lauren Winchester ‘12 featured in the Jurist on GTMO Detainee Habeas

January 14, 2012

Center for Policy & Research Fellows Nick Stratton ‘12 and Lauren Winchester ’12 were featured in the Jurist along with Professor Mark Denbeaux on the impact of Latif v. Obama from an evidentiary perspective. Their Op-ed, “Latif v. Obama: redaction Riddle Resolved,” observes that the recent split decision in the case renders “the right to a meaningful habeas corpus proceeding established in Boumedienne v. Bush, now a nullity.”

 Read the feature Op-ed, Latif v. Obama: Redaction Riddle Resolved, here

Professor Rachel Godsil

Professor Rachel Godsil In The Record on the 10th Anniversary of ‘No Child Left Behind’

January 13, 2012

Professor Rachel Godsil wrote a featured Op-ed for The Record, New Jersey’s most awarded newspaper, on the No Child Left Behind Act. The controversial education initiative recently marked its 10th anniversary as law. Professor Godsil writes

IF THE No Child Left Behind Act were a student, no one would come to its 10th birthday party this month.

NCLB is the know-it-all kid other kids mock: harsh and judgmental rather than generous and supportive, only wants to talk about test scores and totally ignores the challenges other students face.

United about little else, the vast majority of governors, teachers and parents revile the act.

A new organization, United Opt Out, is urging parents to Occupy the DOE to demand an end to high-stakes testing that “punish students or influence teacher pay or job security.” Should NCLB and its demand for accountability be expelled?

 Read the full NorthJersey article, Opinion: No Child Left Behind at 10: Lessons Learned, here

Professor Jonathan Hafetz

Professor Jonathan Hafetz in AsiaOne News, L’Alsace, Cuba Si, DiarioCoLatino and the South China Morning Post on the Ten Year Anniversary of Guantanamo

January 08, 2012

Professor Jonathan Hafetz appeared in numerous papers throughout the world, including AsiaOne News, L’Alsace, Cuba Si, DiarioCoLatino and the South China Morning Post, through an article run by Agence France-Press (AFP), the third largest newswire service in the world. The article dealt with the ten year anniversary of Guantanamo and Professor Hafetz has served as counsel in leading national security habeas corpus cases, including Al-Marri v. Spagone, which involved the military detention of a legal U.S. resident, and Munaf v. Geren, which involved the detention of two American citizens in Iraq, provided Agence France-Presse with background analysis and commentary. AFP notes

"Although President Obama remains committed to the goal of closing Guantanamo, the US Congress has taken action to prevent steps that would assist in the realization of this goal," Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Todd Breasseale told AFP.

But Obama's room for maneuver has been severely curtailed. A controversial law, which the president himself signed at the end of December after bitter partisan infighting, de facto prevents the prison from closing.

It bans the use of public funds to transfer detainees to the United States and decrees that terror suspects must be tried before special military commissions.

"Hope is fading. Closing Guantanamo is harder politically and legally because of this legislation detainees are in legal limbo," said Jonathan Hafetz, a law professor from Seton Hall Law School, who represents one inmate.

Only six detainees have been found guilty by military commissions, according to the Pentagon, and seven others - including the self-confessed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks - will appear before the tribunals in the coming months.

 Read the full AsiaOne aritcle (in English),Ten Years On, Guantanamo Still Casts Long Shadow, here

 Read the full L’Alsace aritcle (in French),Dix Ans Après, Guantanamo Reste Une Tache Dans le Paysage Américain, here

 Read the full DiarioCoLatino article (in Spanish),Diez Años Después la Sombra de Guantánamo Es Todavía Larga, here

Professor Paula Franzese

Professor Paula Franzese in the New York Times on the Conflict of Interests Inherent for Lobbyists Who Also Hold Office

January 07, 2012

Professor Paula Franzese appeared in the New York Times in two articles dealing with the propriety (or lack thereof) of registered Illinois lobbyists who also hold public office. In an article entitled “When Office Holders Also Represent Clients, Collisions Are Likely,” the Times notes that

Elected officials who lobby face conflicts of interest when matters coming before them as office holders also affect their paying clients.

In Cook County, the list of elected officials who have also lobbied includes three county commissioners, two Chicago aldermen, the Cook County Democratic Party chairman and even John J. Cullerton, the state senate president since 2009.

Those numbers alarm outside ethics experts.

Mr. Cullerton, a powerful Springfield figure, registers as a lobbyist in Cook County and Chicago, where, as a partner in the law firm Thompson Coburn, he occasionally represents clients before government officials. In 2008, the firm’s Web site highlighted Mr. Cullerton’s government-relations work.

The Times also notes that, despite assurances from such lobbyist/office holders that such forms of representation may be undertaken simultaneously,

Some ethics experts say the solution is to bar lobbying by public officials. “These kind of conflicts should not be permitted,” said Paula Franzese, a Seton Hall law professor and former chairwoman of the New Jersey ethics commission.

In the article published by the New York Times two days later, “Public Officials Found Helping Clients of Family,” the issue moved to familial office holder/lobbyist relationships in Illinois. The Times reports that

Denny Jacobs, a former state senator, had a special ally last year when the state’s largest electric utility company hired him to lobby for a controversial smart-grid energy bill that many say makes it easier for utilities to raise rates.

His son, State Senator Mike Jacobs, chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, sponsored the bill and actively promoted the campaign of the Commonwealth Edison Company, one of his father’s clients, to win its passage.

The downstate utility Ameren Corporation also backed it. “I’m with ComEd and I’m with Ameren on this bill,” Senator Jacobs, a Democrat from East Moline, said in a floor speech. He even took to the floor to invite his colleagues to a reception hosted by ComEd. He denies that his father influenced him.

The smart grid legislation is one of several bills pushed by Senator Jacobs that benefited clients of his lobbyist father, a review of legislation by Medill Watchdog, a journalism program at Northwestern University, found. And Mike Jacobs is hardly the only Illinois public official supporting measures backed by close relatives.

Medill Watchdog examined statements of economic interests of public officials, lobbying registrations filed with the City of Chicago, Cook County and the state, and records of state bills and local ordinances. The investigation found 14 elected officials from Cook County alone who, while not lobbyists themselves, are related to or in business with lobbyists.

The review found more than a dozen instances in which an official took action that benefited the lobbying client of a family member or business partner.

The Times also notes,

“Illinois law is really behind on this,” said Paula Franzese, a Seton Hall law professor and former chairwoman of New Jersey’s ethics commission.

Actual or potential conflicts are widespread, public records show.

 Read the full NY Times article, Public Officials Found Helping Clients of Family, here

 Read the full NY Times article, When Office Holders Also Represent Clients, Collisions Are Likely, here

Professor Frank Pasquale

Professor Frank Pasquale featured in The Record on “A Constitutional Right to Health Care”

January 04, 2012

Professor Frank Pasquale wrote a featured Op-ed in The Record, New Jersey’s most awarded newspaper, regarding a constitutional right to health care. Professor Pasquale, who is Associate Director of the Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy, writes:

SHOULD the Supreme Court weigh in on America’s great health care debate? Yes. It should declare a constitutional right to health care.

This right is already enjoyed by prisoners. Law-abiding citizens deserve it, too.

The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including... medical care.”

Many advanced countries have adopted — and lived up to — similar commitments.

Of course, that’s not on the Supreme Court’s agenda. Instead, it will decide whether to cripple last year’s health reform, known as the Affordable Care Act, by declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional.

 Read the full article, Opinion: A constitutional right to health care, here