Kara Carnley, editor of the Journal of Law and Public Policy, introduces panelists at the March 14 JLPP Media Law Symposium in the Martin H. Levin Advocacy Center courtroom. (Photo by Elise Giordano)

By Lindsey Tercilla
Student writer

The protection of false factual statements under the First Amendment in the case of United Sates v. Alvarez was the topic of a panel discussion at the Journal of Law and Public Policy’s Media Law Symposium on March 14 in the Martin H. Levin Advocacy Center.

In 2012, the United States Supreme Court overturned the Stolen Valor Act, which attempted to criminalize lying about receiving a military medal.

A new version of the act was passed in September that created penalties for individuals who lied about receiving military medals and profited from their deception.

Panelists included UF Law Professor Lyrissa Lidsky; First Amendment and media law attorney Craig D. Feiser, attorney Kristen Rasmussen, who authored the amicus brief presented to the U.S. Supreme Court for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press; and Col. Michael L. Smidt, staff judge advocate of U.S. Special Operations Command.

Professor Lidsky lead the discussion by posing the question: “Does the Alvarez case protect lies?”

When making the decision, the Justices asked themselves two questions, Lidsky said. The first was if the speech was valuable, and the second was did the speech cause harm? Six of the justices said they started with the harm question, she said.

“How you come out on this case depends on which one you ask first,” Lidsky said. “These lies muddy the message of military medals, and that pollutes public disclosure.”

While these lies dilute the value of the Congressional Medal of Honor, the majority decided that the Stolen Valor Act violated the First Amendment by prohibiting people from making false statements.

Craig D. Feiser spoke about the history of false factual statements with regards to media law.

Kristen Rasmussen expressed the important not-so-obvious interests of the news media in the Alvarez case. This included a discussion of what animated the Reporters Committee’s decision to get involved in the case via an amicus effort.

This symposium was sponsored by the Florida Free Speech Forum and the American Bar Association Law Student Division at UF Law.

The UF Journal of Law and Public Policy will examine this topic more closely at its annual Media Law Symposium on Thursday in the Martin H. Levin Advocacy Center at the UF Levin College of Law. The event will include a reception at 11:30 a.m., followed by a panel discussion at noon. The discussion, which will include a question and answer period, will conclude at 2 p.m. The event is free and open to students, professors, practitioners and the public.

Panelists include UF Law Professor Lyrissa Lidsky; First Amendment and media law attorney Craig D. Feiser; attorney Kristen Rasmussen, who authored the amicus brief presented to the U.S. Supreme Court for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press; and Col. Michael L. Smidt, staff judge advocate of U.S. Special Operations Command.

This symposium is sponsored by the Florida Free Speech Forum and the American Bar Association Law Student Division at UF Law.

CLE credit will be offered for this event.

“‘Stand Your Ground’ Under Microscope” (March 21, 2012, WCJB TV-20),

Dekle, along with several UF Law students, contributed to this segment from TV-20 News. Dekle said Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law would be better described as the “get away with murder law,” and that it adds unnecessary layers of litigation and hoops to jump through in order to prosecute somebody.

“Legal experts weigh in on soundness of Lindsey defense strategy” (March 22, 2012, Tampa Bay Times)

The lawyer representing a teenager who shot a St. Petersburg police officer is saying the teenager, Nicholas Lindsey, did in fact kill the office – he just didn’t mean to do it. The defense is focusing on the issue of intent to possibly reduce the teenager’s sentence from life to several decades. Dekle weighed in on the strategy.

From the article:
“It ain’t the only possible strategy,” said University of Florida law professor Bob Dekle. “But it sounds like the only viable strategy.”

“Appeal court ruling in Collier case frees man accused of operating a grow house” (March 25, 2012, Naples Daily News)

Dekle reinforced an appeals court decision, which ruled that although a man who was accused of operating a grow house allowed police into his backyard to speak with him, he didn’t consent for them to further search his yard, which eventually led to the discovery of a grow house.

From the article:
George R. Dekle Jr., professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law, agreed search and seizure issues are “heavily driven” by the facts of each case.

“The officers had consent to come onto the property to speak with the defendant,” Dekle said. “When they left his presence and started roaming around the property, they obviously weren’t talking to the defendant and had no right to be where they were when they smelled the marijuana.”

Michelle Jacobs
Professor of Law

“Students react to the death of Trayvon Martin” (March 22, 2012, The Alligator)

Jacobs weighed in on the Trayvon Martin shooting in this article that also addresses some student reactions to the 17-year-old’s death.

From the article:
UF law professor Michelle Jacobs said she’s not surprised Zimmerman hasn’t been charged.

“When a black person gets killed in questionable circumstances by a white person, no one should be surprised that law enforcement was slow to launch an investigation,” she said.

“Inside the Trayvon Martin Tragedy” (March 28, 2012, Legal Talk Network)

Jacobs, along with University of Missouri-Kansas City Criminal Justice Department Chair Kenneth Novak, participated in an in-depth discussion on this podcast about issues surrounding the Trayvon Martin shooting, including Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, neighborhood watches and racial profiling.

Lyrissa Lidsky
Stephen C. O’Connell Chair & Professor of Law

“Facebook advises users not to give out passwords to prying employers” (March 28, 2012, The Alligator)

Lidsky addressed the legality of potential employers asking job candidates for the their Facebook login information, following a warning from Facebook about the growing trend.

From the article:
It is legal to ask for Facebook login information, said Lyrissa Lidsky, professor at Levin College of Law.

She said giving the information isn’t the best idea, though.

“The consent is economic coercion, in a sense,” Lidsky said.

It is tough to say no to an interviewer, she said, especially in a tough economy.

“A lot of things we consent to we consent to because of social pressures,” she said.

Joseph Little
Professor Emeritus

“Collier commission aides amassed two months worth of overtime in 2011″ (March 25, 2012, Naples Daily News)

This article looks into Collier County employees who have worked over 40 hours a week and are opting to take comp time rather than the mandated time-and-a-half overtime pay.

From the article:
Joseph Little, a law professor at the University of Florida in Gainesville, said the state follows the federal Fair Labor Standards Act for county employees.

“Ordinarily, it requires time and one-half for overtime,” he wrote in an email. “It does permit compensatory time for employees of state public agencies.”

Jon Mills
Dean Emeritus; Director, Center for Governmental Responsibility

“Legal questions raised over new practice by employers seeking Facebook access of applicants” (March 23, 2012, WUFT 89.1 FM)

WUFT spoke with Mills in this radio interview about it is increasingly more common for employers to ask for potential employees’ Facebook login information so they can see the applicant’s personal Facebook account. Mills said it is important for individuals to be aware of how much personal information they put online, and said although it is legal in the U.S. it is not allowed in some other countries.

Kenneth Nunn 
Professor of Law

“Racism Is the Problem Here” (March 21, 2012, The New York Times)

Nunn contributed an editorial piece as part of New York Times’ “Room for Debate” column, which was comprised of arguments from experts in various disciplines exploring different angles of the Trayvon Martin shooting case.

From the article: Stand Your Ground statutes may be problematic for a number of reasons. But if we really want to save lives and prevent future miscarriages of justice, we will have to confront the reality of race.

Leonard Riskin
Chesterfield Smith Professor of Law

Riskin gave a presentation for students, faculty and alumni of at UCLA School of Law entitled “The ‘Negotiation’ Within: Connecting and Managing Inner and Outer Conflict” in March.

Last semester, he conducted a workshop on “Mindfulness and Conflict for the Chicago Center for Conflict Resolution.”

Katheryn Russell-Brown
Chesterfield Smith Professor of Law; Director, Center for the Study of Race and Race Relations

“Outrage unites people of all colors, but divide still exists” (March 24, 2012, Orlando Sentinel)

In this article that examines some of the racial issues tied into the Trayvon Martin case, Russell-Brown discussed how people relate to crime victims through race.

From the article:
Katheryn Russell-Brown, director of the University of Florida’s Center for the Study of Race and Race Relations, said it’s natural for people to view crime through the lens of their own race and identify with victims who look most like them.

Whites might not understand the depth of the black community’s outrage over Trayvon Martin’s death any more than blacks understood the national obsession with Natalee Holloway or the disappearance of Jennifer Kesse, or the time, money and attention devoted to the Casey Anthony case.

“It’s who you see as a family member, who you could step into their shoes and it could be you,” Russell-Brown said.

Michael Seigel
University of Florida Research Foundation Professor of Law; Director, Criminal Justice Center

“UF Professor Breaks Down ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law” (March 21, 2012, GTN News),

In this television interview, Seigel explains Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law and the ideas behind the law when it was established in 2005. Seigel said the logic behind the law was shaky from the beginning and people didn’t realize how powerful the law could be.

“‘Stand Your Ground Law’ at center of Fla. Shooting” (March 22, 2012, Associated Press)

Seigel commented on the Trayvon Martin shooting, saying that the Sanford police should have done more thorough investigation into the events before deciding not to bring charges to shooter George Zimmerman.

From the article:
“The law has definitely shifted and given a signal to law enforcement to be more careful,” he said. “But in a case where the self-defense claim is weak, you would think they would do their job.”

“Federal Prosecutors Won’t Retry Polk Bribery Case” (March 25, 2012, The Ledger)

A bribery case will not be pursued again by federal prosecutors after the case fell apart because of a wording error in the grand jury’s indictment. The indictment references “Polk County” but should have referenced the “Polk County School Board,” as employing a man accused of accepting bribes from a construction company.

From the article:
Seigel described the indictment’s wording as “a serious oversight” and a “major catastrophe” for federal prosecutors.

“There is no way to really sugarcoat it,” Seigel said. “It’s a major error on behalf of the prosecution. They did not do their homework.”

The indictment’s poor wording wasn’t a small error and touches on an important constitutional right, he said.

The Fifth Amendment includes the right that defendants know clearly and specifically what allegations they are facing, he said.

“Experts: Hazing case could be tough” (March 17, 2012, St. Augustine Record)

This article looks at challenges prosecutors are facing in the hazing death of Florida A&M student Robert Champion last November. Dekle discussed how some witnesses might be uncooperative and difficult to work with in a case like this.

From the article:
There could be potentially dozens of versions of what happened on the bus. Some witnesses will likely be reluctant to cooperate because they don’t want to be implicated or because they feel sympathy for, or an alliance with, the individuals who are considered most culpable, said professor Bob Dekle, who teaches legal skills at the University of Florida’s law school in Gainesville.

“Reluctant witnesses can sometimes be difficult to handle and difficult to get to court and difficult to answer questions on the witness stand,” said Dekle, a retired assistant state attorney. “Just because a crime has occurred, that doesn’t mean you can prove it — and being able to prove it depends in large measure on witnesses.”

Berta Hernandez-Truyol 
Levin Mabie & Levin Professor of Law

“Gainesville city officials take stand against Arizona illegal immigration law” (March 20, 2012, The Alligator)

This article reports hat Gainesville has joined a legal brief to oppose an Arizona immigration law that gives police officers the right to stop or arrest anyone who they suspect might be an illegal immigrant.

From the article:
The federal government, not individual states, has the right to pass immigration laws, said Berta Hernandez-Truyol, a UF law professor and expert in human rights law. However, states can pass laws that deal indirectly with immigration.

Briefs like this one are filed by parties that are not involved in the case but would like to express their support for one side, she said.

“This clearly signals that Gainesville believes we should treat people fairly and not single out a certain population,” Hernandez-Truyol said.

Lyrissa Lidsky
Stephen C. O’Connell Chair & Professor of Law

“Professor discusses potential impact of media coverage before Trayvon Martin trial” (March 20, 2012, WUFT, 89.1)

This radio segment points out that as news unfolds in the Trayvon Martin case, many news outlets have been issuing corrections to stories that included incorrect information. Lidsky discusses how prior knowledge of a case may or may not impact a jury’s decision in a case, and said the call for further investigation is warranted.

From the interview:
“There definitely are procedures in place to try to make sure that errors in pretrial publicity don’t prejudice the outcome of criminal trials.”

Joseph Little
Professor Emeritus

“Tuition rate setting debate goes to higher court” (March 16, 2012, WUFT, 89.1)

This radio segment looks at questions and background surrounding the ongoing debate about who should set tuition rates at state universities, a case which the Florida Supreme Court recently decided to hear. Little explained that the basis of the debate is whether the Board of Governors or Legislature should set tuition rates. After the Board was granted control, an appellate court then ruled that the Legislature should have that power. Little said this next decision should settle it once and for all.

Kenneth Nunn 
Professor of Law

“Trayvon Martin: Sanford officials, Rep. Corrine Brown, meet with Justice officials in Washington” (March 20, 2012, Orlando Sentinel),

In this article, which recounts the latest news in the Trayvon Martin case, Nunn addressed the likelihood of the Justice Department charging shooter George Zimmerman with any civil rights violations.

From the article:
Kenneth Nunn, a civil rights expert on the faculty at the University of Florida Levin College of Law, said Tuesday that the Department of Justice seldom charges people with civil rights violations and that those charges are unlikely in this case, unless investigators come up with compelling new evidence.

They will look for signs that Zimmerman intentionally set out to deprive Trayvon of his right to life, Nunn said.

“You have to show that it’s willful,” said Nunn. “You can’t show that it was negligence or stupidity. You have to show it was intentional.

Also appeared in: http://www.wsbt.com/news/os-trayvon-martin-doj-investigation-20120320,0,4710790,full.story

Michael Seigel
University of Florida Research Foundation Professor of Law; Director, Criminal Justice Center

On March 2, Seigel gave a lecture entitled “Criminal Evidence Update, State and Federal Courts” at the Topics in Evidence Seminar sponsored by The Florida Bar Continuing Legal Education Committee, Code & Rules of Evidence Committee, Criminal Law Section, and Trial Lawyers Section. The lecture took place in Tampa.

“Stand your ground” laws and the Trayvon Martin case” (March 20, 2012, 89.3 KPCC, NPR affiliate in Los Angeles)

Seigel was a guest panelist on this radio program that looked at the Trayvon Martin case and Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which allows a person to use deadly force if he or she feels physically threatened in a public space. Seigel offered some background on the law and how it replaced the previous “Duty to Retreat” law.

From the interview:
“If the judge believes you were defending yourself lawfully, he or she can dismiss the case and not even allow it to go to a jury.”

Michael Allan Wolf
Richard E. Nelson Chair in Local Government Law

On March 14, Wolf made a presentation on “How to Make Sea-Level-Rise Adaptation Strategies Takings-Proof” at the Environmental Law Distinguished Lecture 25th Anniversary Symposium at the FSU College of Law.

“Blood-alcohol tests under fire in DUI cases” (March 11, 2012, Orlando Sentinel)

An Orlando woman suffered mental and physical injuries after her vehicle was struck by a woman charged with drunk driving. Defense attorneys are attempting to have the driver’s blood alcohol test dismissed. Dekle commented on the issue.

From the article:
Emboldened by the success they’ve found in quashing breath-test results, defense attorneys may be looking to employ the challenges in more cases, said longtime prosecutor Bob Dekle of the University of Florida School of Law.

“A defense attorney is going to attack the evidence even if it came down from Mount Sinai on two tablets written by the hand of God,” Dekle said. “That is what they do.”

But if there is a trend of increasing success for defense attorneys, he said it’s likely because DUI prosecutors are among the least-experienced in the State Attorney’s Office.

“They quite frequently confront the big guns: the most experienced, highly prestigious defense attorneys,” he said.

Lea Johnston
Assistant Professor of Law

Johnston’s article “Theorizing Mental Health Courts” was published by the Washington University Law Review. Johnston also presented her current work in progress, titled “Vulnerability and Desert: A Theory of Sentencing the Mentally Ill” to faculty at the University of Georgia.

Shani King
Co-Director, Center on Children and Families; Associate Professor of Law

Professors Ruiz and King presented “Essential Ethics for Advocates: Avoiding the Unauthorized Practice of Law” at The Annual COPAA (Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates) in Miami on March 10.

Lyrissa Lidsky
Stephen C. O’Connell Chair & Professor of Law

“Cincinnati Engineer Sued for Tweet: Do You Fact Check your Tweets?” (March 8, 2012, The Take Away)

In this radio interview, Lidsky was part of a conversation about a Cincinnati man who was sued for making false statements via Twitter about taxpayer money being used for a new municipal project. The lawsuit was dropped when it was ruled the man wasn’t lying. Lidsky said the question here is whether the government could punish someone whose lies aren’t directly harming an individual.

Elizabeth A. Rowe
Professor of Law; Director, Program in Intellectual Property Law

On Feb. 28 Rowe delivered a lecture on the “Basic Principles of Patent Law” to United Nations diplomats at the World Intellectual Property Organization in New York.

Daniel Sokol
Associate Professor of Law

“Apple’s market clout likely to draw more scrutiny” (March 12, 2012, Associated Press)

The U.S. Justice Department is considering filing a lawsuit against Apple based on evidence of the company working with five publishing companies in a scheme to raise the price of electronic books. Sokol commented on why Apple might not have had as much scrutiny in the past as companies such as Microsoft and Google.

From the article:
Apple may simply behave better than some of its rivals, or it may be doing business in areas that are so new that government regulators are still learning how those nascent markets function, says D. Daniel Sokol, an associate law professor who focuses on antitrust issues at the University of Florida.

“To attract antitrust attention, you have to be more than just big. You have to be big and bad,” Sokol says. “It was only 2007 when Apple released the iPhone, and only 2010 when it released the iPad. The company hasn’t had that long to be bad yet, if it is indeed bad.”

“Golden Hills seeking bankruptcy protection” (Feb. 28, 2012, Ocala Star-Banner)

With the Golden Hills Golf and Turf Club filing for bankruptcy in February, this article looks at the causes and implications of the filing. Davis offered insight into what it means for a business to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

From the article:
Chapter 11 bankruptcy isn’t the end for Golden Hills. They can still conduct business, but still owe some of their creditors money.

“Chapter 11 is known as business reorganization,” said Jeffrey Davis, a law professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. “The goal is to arrive at a plan that over time pays the secured creditors and the unsecured creditors under the terms.”

Lyrissa Lidsky
Stephen C. O’Connell Chair & Professor of Law

Lidsky’s article “Incendiary Speech and Social Media,” was just published in Texas Tech Law Review.

Lidsky traveled to Florida Coastal School of Law on March 2 to give a presentation at the Law Review’s Cyber Law Symposium.

Tom C.W. Lin
Assistant Professor of Law

Lin recently published “The Corporate Governance of Iconic Executives” in 87 Notre Dame L. Rev. 351 (2011).

Joseph Little
Professor Emeritus

“KEL law firm sues Better Business Bureau over rating system dispute” (Feb. 21, 2012,Orlando Sentinel)

KEL law firm in Orlando is suing the Better Business Bureau after the organization gave the law firm a rating of “F” because of client complaints. The law firm is claiming the bureau’s rating system is biased and flawed. Little stated that as long as the Better Business Bureau can back up its rating system and claims, its conclusions about businesses are protected speech.

From the article:
Still, a BBB agency can’t just publish information without proper due diligence to verify it, said Joseph W. Little, a professor emeritus at the University of Florida’s Levin College of Law. The burden would be on KEL to prove reckless negligence by the BBB, he said.

“The BBB has common law right to express fair comment and honest opinion based on true facts,” Little said. “If it does that, then it is protected speech and opinion, even though it is not the opinion the law firm would want them to have.”

“House passes random drug testing bill” (March 2, 2012, Associated Press)

The article addresses questions raised after the Florida House passed a bill that would allow state employees to submit to random drug tests. Little discussed the constitutionality if the bill were to become a law.

From the article:
For the plan to be constitutional, the state’s interest in testing employees for drugs must outweigh the employees’ right to privacy, said Joseph Little, a professor emeritus of constitutional law at the University of Florida’s Levin College of Law.

“There has to be something special about the employment, though, like law enforcement officers or those with a security clearance,” Little said. “But if there’s no special need, you probably can’t do it.”

Jon Mills
Dean Emeritus; Director, Center for Governmental Responsibility

“Justices seek input on how to handle new redistricting rules” (Feb. 29, 2012, The Miami Herald)

The Florida Supreme Court questioned lawyers representing Democrats and Republicans about how to interpret Florida’s new redistricting rules last month. Mills was on-hand to represent the Democrats and was quoted in the article.

From the article:
“You are the ultimate authority,” said Jon Mills, a University of Florida law professor and former House speaker arguing for the Florida Democratic Party. The Legislature’s interpretation “may be interesting but your interpretation is binding.”

Leonard Riskin
Chesterfield Smith Professor of Law

During the fall semester of 2011, Riskin was a visiting professor at Northwestern University School of Law. While there, he received a Dean’s Teaching Award for 2011-2012 (awarded by the dean, based on student evaluations).

In October, he gave two plenary presentations on “Managing and Connecting Inner and Outer Conflict: Integration of IFS and Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice,” at the international Conference of the Center for Self-Leadership in Boston and the Pre-Conference Workshop.

He also moderated a panel presentation on The Chicago Mortgage Foreclosure Mediation Program, sponsored by the Northwestern Law Hispanic Student’s Association and the John Marshall Law School Mediation Program.

Daniel Sokol
Associate Professor of Law

Sokol presented his early work “A Transaction Cost Economics Explanation of Law and Entrepreneurship Vertical Contracting” at IU Bloomington Mauer School of Law.

Jeff Wade
Director of Environmental Division, Center for Governmental Responsibility

On Feb. 17-18, Wade participated in a conference as part of the run-up to the UN Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development, scheduled for June of this year. The conference, titled “Contribution of International Environmental Law to Sustainable Development: Global and National Perspectives,” was held at the University of Delhi Faculty of Law in New Delhi, India. Wade presented a paper, “Coastal Development in an Unstable Climate: Precaution, Adaptation and Resilience,” and moderated a panel on marine pollution and coastal regulation.

Michael Allan Wolf
Richard E. Nelson Chair in Local Government Law

Wolf made a presentation on judicial takings with Bill Treanor (Georgetown) at the Third Annual Meeting of the Association for Law, Property and Society, at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C., on March 2.

Austin Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, debated Danaya Wright, UF Research Foundation and Clarence J. TeSelle Professor of Law, over the Defense of Marriage Act in a Federalist Society event last month. UF Law Professor Lyrissa Lidsky, right, served as moderator. (Photo by Nicole Safker)

The University of Florida Levin College of Law has welcomed a number of prominent figures to speak on campus, including retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and former Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary General on Human Rights Defenders Hina Jilani, since the start of the fall semester.

And almost weekly, the UF Law Federalist Society has hosted notable academic and policymakers, enriching campus discussion and debate on controversial issues such as gun rights, affirmative action, same-sex marriage, environmental regulations and racial profiling. Each semester the society puts together a series of speakers that are experts in their field.

It also invites members of the judiciary to offer comments on their role in the judicial system, and two judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, Gerald B. Tjoflat and William H. Pryor Jr., accepted the society’s invitation to meet with UF Law students this semester.

“The large group of speakers we are able to invite represents a broad range of opinions on different issues, opinions that usually stem from a constitutionally or politically conservative or libertarian viewpoint,” said Jordan Pratt (3L), co-president of The UF Federalist Society.

The society is privately funded, which allows it to attract some of the top legal minds in the country in pursuit of its goal to increase discourse on important legal topics.

Pratt added that these speakers supply students with perspectives in addition to the views that are presented in the classroom. All forums are open to student questions.

“Our interests are aligned with those of the university at large,” said Pratt, referencing the society’s goals of fostering an intellectual atmosphere on campus and giving students exposure to distinguished guests.

The final speaker for the fall semester on Wednesday will feature Jeffery Clark, a partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP in Washington, D.C. He worked as deputy assistant attorney general for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Justice Department and will discuss climate change and trade legislation.

Austin Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, debated Danaya Wright, UF Research Foundation and Clarence J. TeSelle Professor of Law, over the Defense of Marriage Act in a Federalist Society event last month. UF Law Professor Lyrissa Lidsky, right, served as moderator. (Photo by Nicole Safker)

More than 200 people watched Wednesday as Danaya Wright, UF Research Foundation and Clarence J. TeSelle Professor of Law, debated with a legal expert from the Alliance Defense Fund over Congress’s power to define marriage.

“The Federal Defense of Marriage Act: Is It Constitutional?” was a debate sponsored by the UF Federalist Society and OUTLaw: UF Law’s Gay & Straight Alliance. Students, faculty and others interested in the subject were invited to the Chesterfield Smith Ceremonial Classroom, HOL 180, at the UF Levin College of Law to watch Wright and Austin Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, argue the issues behind the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law in 1996, defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law and gives states the option to not recognize domestic partnerships or other civil unions that are official in another state.

“Nimocks testified this summer before the Senate Judiciary Committee on behalf of DOMA,” said Jordan Pratt (3L), co-president of The UF Federalist Society, “and we thought it would be a real treat for students to get to ask questions of someone who is an actual participant in the debate on Capitol Hill.”

When the UF Federalist Society announced it would be bringing Nimocks as part of its speaker series, it invited progressive groups on campus to comment. OUTLaw responded with the idea for a debate between Nimocks and Wright.

“We wanted to respond in some way,” said Max Wihnyk (2L) and president of OUTLaw, “but we weren’t sure how. We worked with the UF Federalist Society and decided a debate would be the most helpful and the most fruitful for all of the law students.”

Nimocks and Wright were each given an allotted time to make their arguments, with Nimocks going first with his points and last with a rebuttal to Wright’s position. Arguments ranged from constitutional to economic to historical, showing the issue of defining marriage goes beyond that of morality.

“We believe that balanced, open, and respectful debate fosters the values upon which the legal academy was founded,” Pratt said, “and we are happy to provide a forum where ideas can be discussed among students and faculty.”

Nimocks argued that the economic benefits of marriage, such as tax breaks, were incentives for procreation and that judicial precedent gave Congress the power to limit such benefits to certain groups of people.

“The Equal Protection Clause does not require that we treat different things the same,” Nimocks said. “We would have to believe there are no differences between men and women to believe that what sexes make up a marriage would make no difference.”

Wright’s counterpoint was that DOMA violates the United States Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and, in some applications, may violate the Tenth Amendment. She also addressed Nimocks’ economic argument by discussing the circumstances under which married couples do not procreate while same-sex couples may successfully adopt and raise children.

“If society cares about children, it should encourage same-sex marriage,” Wright said. “There is no rational basis for denying those who society deem more at risk of social and health problems from participating in an institution that is proven to lower these risks.”

After Nimocks and Wright concluded their arguments, attendees were given the opportunity to ask the speakers questions about their positions on DOMA and the future of the act.

“We had 203 people in a room, all with different opinions, and they each got to listen to — and participate in — a respectful two-way dialogue on an issue that often evokes strong feelings on both sides,” Pratt said. “We would call that a success.”

As part of diversity month, University of Florida LGBT Affairs created a “Making it Better” video, which is a compilation of UF faculty, support staff, and students and can be viewed here.

The Lawyer's Running Club, better known as Running with Lidsky, shows off their matching shirts before an afternoon jog. (Photo by Vincent Massaro)

If you see a group of law students – and maybe a few professors – running away from the law school, it’s not a mass exodus. It’s just Running with Lidsky – and they’ll be back.

On Friday afternoons, Stephen C. O’Connell Chair and Professor of Law Lyrissa Lidsky’s group of law school runners can be seen circling Lake Alice a little after 2 p.m. during fall and spring semesters, forging connections with each other and maybe blowing off a little steam from the previous week.

Lidsky – who started the weekly running club in the fall of 2008 – said the weekly runs have been more rewarding than she ever expected them to be. As her schedule became increasingly busy over the years, it was becoming more difficult to make time to connect with students on a personal level, Lidsky said, and thought a running club might provide her with such an opportunity.

“I just really appreciate the chance to get to know students whom I wouldn’t otherwise know, to have a relationship with them that’s less formal than it normally is,” she said, “it’s just been very valuable for me.”

Lidsky also points out the health benefits – it helps keep her blood pressure down and manages stress – and the unexpected benefits of an unofficial mentoring function among the students.

“It makes connections between students who might not otherwise meet, particularly between 2L and 3L students with 1Ls,” she said. “The 3Ls can say ‘I’ve been through this, you’re going to get through this, it’s ok.’”

Second-year law student Chris Grobbel agrees, saying Running with Lidsky is “a great social environment where like-minded people get together in pursuit of a common goal.”

“Law school is a stressful time for just about everyone, so an activity that is healthy, reduces stress, and empowers practitioners to deal with the mental challenges of law school is a pretty ideal match in my book,” he said.

And Grobbel is taking an active role in seeing that Running with Lidsky continues. He registered the club as an official organization with the University of Florida, which puts it in a position to keep growing.

Grobbel said registering as an official UF organization comes with its benefits. The group is a finalist for a Pepsi Refresh $15,000 campus improvement grant, which would be used to install an exercise circuit around Lake Alice for anybody on campus to use. And he said they hope to be a budgeted organization soon, which would provide opportunities for sponsoring races or bringing speakers to campus.

Although the new name for the club – the one UF officially recognizes – is the Lawyer’s Running Club, Grobbel said it will always be known as Running with Lidsky.

“Professor Lidsky is really the driving force of our organization, we would not be where we are but for her,” he said, adding, “that’s a torts joke by the way.”

The group meets on Fridays at 2 p.m. at the UF Law campus. The group size varies, but a good week will have 10 to 15 people running, Lidsky said. The group’s jog takes them on a 5k route – a little over three miles – around the west side of Lake Alice, over to Gale Lemerand Drive, then back up Village Drive to the UF Law campus. Lidsky said it is usually about a 30-minute commitment, depending on how fast one goes. And student affairs provides Gatorade for the group afterwards.

Lidsky stresses the fact that anybody in the law school is welcome and that the group accommodates people of all abilities. She said some people choose to walk while others run; either way is fine.

“All abilities, all ages, all speeds,” she said.

For the most up-to-date information about Running with Lidsky, look at its Facebook page, which will have any changes or updated information about meetings.

Elizabeth Dale
Affiliated Associate Professor of Law
Dale presented a paper to the American Bar Foundation/Illinois Legal History Seminar Oct. 18. The paper is “Putting ‘Liberty’ in its Place: Discussions of ziyou, Slavery, and Sovereignty in Turn-of-the-Century China.”

Robert Jerry
Dean, UF Law and Levin Mabie & Levin Professor of Law “UF-sponsored health plan costs $300 more this year” (Oct. 15, 2010, The Independent Florida Alligator)

Because of a change in providers this fall, UF students saw an increase of almost $300 in the cost of their school-sponsored insurance plans, with a very similar plan to what was already in place. The director of the Student Health Care Center said they changed providers to avoid an even bigger increase in rates.

From the article:
Robert Jerry, dean of the Levin College of Law, said he is not surprised that student plans are increasingly expensive. The student population is healthier than most demographics, so student insurance is priced to make more profit than other insurance products, he said.

Jerry believes the new health care legislation passed by Congress may also have an effect on student health care plans. The new law states that full-time students can be covered by their parents’ insurance up until age 26.

There are ways to bring insurance costs down for students, but it’s not in the hands of the university, Jerry said. If the state and federal governments team up to regulate insurance and provide everyone with some degree of health care, costs would go down.

“We ought to have a system where everybody has some kind of access to basic health care,” he said.

Lyrissa Lidsky
Stephen C. O’Connell Chair, Professor of Law
“Wannabe warriors an ‘insult’ to their bravery” (Oct. 17, 2010, Pensacola News Journal)

The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 has been gaining some attention lately with two cases involving the act in federal appeals courts. The act made it a federal offense to wear a military medal or for a person to say he or she earned a military medal if the person did not in fact earn a medal. Opponents of the act say it violates the First Amendment and is unconstitutional, but admit the speech it would protect in this case is reprehensible.

From the article:
Lidsky said it is constitutional to punish people for making false statements in certain contexts — such as fraud, defamation, lying under oath or shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater — but the Stolen Valor Act is tricky because it doesn’t show clear damages to a victim.

“It’s making it a crime to tell a lie, but it’s making it a crime to tell a relatively harmless lie,” Lidsky The authors of the law contend that the lies erode the true value of military honors, but Lidsky asked, “Is there any evidence that that has had any effect on the morale of the troops?”

Joseph Little
Emeritus Professor
“Elect or appoint judges?” (Oct. 17, 2010, Orlando Sentinel)

Little commented on the benefits of having a system where voters can elect trial judges.

From the article:
Those who favor election, including Professor Joseph W. Little of the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida, say it protects the public by making judges more accountable.

Diane Mazur
Professor of Law
“How Does the Military Prove That Someone is Gay?” (Oct. 13, 2010, Slate)

Mazur is thanked as a source at the end of this article, which looks at the various methods the military has used to determine if a member of the military is gay. The determination and discharge proceedings usually focus on the actions of the person under scrutiny, rather than his or her actual sexual preferences.

“There is no legal reason to appeal DADT ruling” (Oct. 18, 2010, San Marcos Mercury)

The column looks at the recent ruling that found the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy unconstitutional and presents an argument about why there is no legal obligation to appeal the ruling. The article references a memorandum Mazur wrote on the topic.

From the article:
Diane Mazur, a professor of law at the University of Florida College of Law, has laid out in a legal memorandum the basics about executive discretion to decline to appeal laws held to be unconstitutional. Mazur’s primary areas of research include civil-military relations and military law generally. In her memorandum, she explains that the usual expectation is that the Justice department “will defend federal laws from constitutional challenge.” However, the usual practice is not mandatory: “There are well-recognized, standard exceptions that give the executive branch discretion in deciding whether or not to defend a law in some circumstances, and they would apply in deciding whether to appeal a court ruling finding that (DADT) is unconstitutional.”

Michael Seigel
Professor of Law
“Should authorities need a warrant to put a GPS tracking device on your car?” (Oct. 17, 2010, St. Petersburg Times)

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that law enforcement can use Global Positioning System (GPS) technology to track suspected criminals – without obtaining a warrant. The court also indicated that police could also go onto private property in order to install a GPS device. Seigel commented on Florida’s laws pertaining to the use of GPS.

From the article:
To use GPS tracking, they simply must convince a judge that it’s “relevant” to their investigation, said University of Florida law professor Michael L. Seigel.

“It’s a much lower standard,” he said. “It’s not requiring them to show any suspicion about an individual’s guilt.”

There’s also an easy way around state law. Local agencies could just ask the federal government for help. Federal agents don’t need a warrant to use GPS tracking devices in Florida, Seigel said.