I made a commitment to read on the air the first five-star review left after you subscribe to The Law Review Podcast on iTunes (reserving the right to make editorial edits as I deem necessary). Ed Walters joins me today and gives us a preview of the upcoming LegalTech and ReInvent Law conferences.
1. Will you have the chicken or the steak? It’s a question that could have saved a lot of money as the Indiana Supreme Court begins to consider whether it was proper for the Indiana Court of Appeals to fine a religious home-schooling support group for failing to provide an alternative dinner to a child with a severe allergy to chicken. When she filed a complaint with the Indiana Civil Rights Commission, the child was expelled from the nonprofit group. Is this a case of administrative overreaching in the context of an organization not acting like a school (framing via Petitioners) or is it disability discrimination and retaliatory treatment (framing via Respondent)?
2. Via Aaron Kirschenfeld (@kirschsubjudice): Aaron points us to a NYTimes article discussing the recent Supreme Court of New Jersey argument regarding whether it was proper for a prosecutor to introduce evidence of the defendant’s rap lyrics at trial.
3. The Ninth Circuit recently held that bloggers have the same First Amendment defamation protections as real, honest-to-goodness journalists, finding fault with the district judge’s requirement that the defendant produce “evidence of her status as a journalist.” We talk a bit about this opinion during the literature review.
Please also take note of our subreddit at reddit.com/r/thelawreview. Feel free to submit stories there or vote on the stories you’d like to hear us discuss that day. You can also email us at podcast /at fastcase /dot com.
Thanks for listening!