As the House Judiciary Committee considers impeachment, there are three important questions for it to answer. Did President Trump violate his oath of office? If so, did his misconduct constitute high crimes and misdemeanors? And if so, should President Trump be impeached and removed from office?

President Trump has wanted to focus on the first question and stop further consideration there. Democratic members of Congress have focused attention on the second question and invited academic testimony there. But the third question is the most important one.

As Mara Liasson pointed out earlier today on NPR, there’s a big gap between the number of Americans who think Trump acted wrongly and the number who think he should be impeached. In offering possible explanations for the gap, Liasson observed that impeachment is the “political death penalty.” And juries don’t impose the death penalty for all capital offenses. It is therefore critical that members of Congress determine when an impeachable offense deserves impeachment and when it does not.

Some scholars and pundits have said that grounds for impeachment exist when presidents use their official powers for personal gain. But as I’ve discussed previously, that standard would apply to most presidents. The important question for the House will be to define which uses of power for personal gain should lead to impeachment and which should not. The House needs to identify a standard that will work not just for President Trump but for all future Presidents.

I’ve started a newsletter at my school, highlighting interesting legal and technology stories – but some weeks, I am overwhelmed. I want to keep the newsletter small and manageable, so I’ve decided to use the blog for overflow: items I think are worth reading that didn’t make this week’s newsletter. This will largely be open-web material, since this is an open-web blog.

Suffolk University Law School is holding its conference on legal education and technology, LITCon, March 30, 2020. More details here, including how to apply to give a rapid-fire talk. And they even have a cute little not-a-bot to help you decide if you should go.

According to this Buzzfeed article, there’s a trend of police officers using mugshots and suspect photos for viral content and memes on social media.

This week, I discovered Sidney Fussell at The Atlantic and I may need a subscription because he is good:

Stanford Law School has an Open Policing Project that is collecting and analyzing data from traffic stops from over 40 states. Data Scientist Amy Shoemaker will be providing an update on the project @ Stanford Codex on December 5, 2019. If you’re in the area, great, but if you aren’t, there’s remote viewing options, too, but you must register to get the info.

What exactly is a smart city? And who benefits from its existence, if it is actually a real thing? Jathan Sadowski argues that the surveillance and centralized control needed for a city to become ‘smart’ is not done primarily for the benefit of the public.

As Deval Patrick throws his hat into the ring and Michael Bloomberg takes steps to join the presidential race, their prospects are questionable. According to an historical analysis by Jeff Greenfield, late entries fare poorly. Even more evidence that our nominating process is seriously faulty. It’s not good for candidates or the public if people come too late to the campaign a year before Election Day.

Candidates have to devote too much time to campaigning and too little time to more productive activities. As a result, many very qualified people decide against running, And locking in the field more than a year in advance greatly limits the ability of voters to update their preferences on the basis of current information.

One might worry that a shorter process would favor established candidates with greater name recognition. There’s some truth to that. But the Framers of the Constitution were right to want people to ascend to the presidency after a distinguished career of public service. Other countries have figured out how to keep campaigns to a few months or less. So should we.

The media’s reaction to Senator Elizabeth Warren’s health care plan reflects a troubling approach to the way it thinks we should evaluate candidates for the presidency. After the Senator released her very smart proposal, the media might have asked a number of important questions about the plan’s impact on health care access. Instead, much of the commentary has been about the tax implications of the plan.

Of course, as Senator Warren repeatedly reminds us, what really matters to people is how much they have to pay for their health care, not whether they pay through premiums, deductibles, or  taxes. People want to know their total costs, and single-payer plans are less expensive than what we have now.

More importantly, there are bigger questions at stake. For example, to the candidates who prefer an Affordable Care Act expansion to Medicare-for-All reform, the media could be asking why those candidates want to maintain a Medicaid program for the poor that they wouldn’t choose for themselves. Or why they think Medicaid recipients in Massachusetts should have a better program than Medicaid recipients in Texas.

As voters assess their options for the 2020 presidential election, one key question is whether a candidate thinks everyone should play by the same rules or whether we should have different rules for the wealthier and the less fortunate. Medicare-for-All has the same health care rules for everyone. Even an enhanced Affordable Care Act would not.

On July 23, 2019, I emailed the Associate Deans’ and Deans’ ABA listservs asking for information about innovative courses. I received 54 responses describing more than 60 courses. This is my third post describing what I have learned.

I organized the courses into four categories: Required, Electives, Skills and Clinics, and Law and Technology, and I am planning six blog posts, including my first post on innovative required courses, a second post on innovative electives that focus on cutting edge topics and cutting-edge practice areas, this third post addressing the other electives sent to me, two postings that will focus on Skills Courses and Clinics, and one posting that will focus on Law and Technology Courses.

Each posting describes the courses, identifies the law school that offers the course, and, if I have the information, provides the name of a professor at the law school who teaches the course. I will include at least some commentary about most of the courses. The quoted language comes from the email I received from the law school or from the law school’s website.

I divided the nominated electives into four categories: (1) electives that focus on cutting-edge legal topics, (2) electives that focus on specific, interesting practice areas, (3) electives that focus on lawyer well-being, (4) and a catch-all category intro which I tossed the other eight interesting electives. This post will focus on the electives in the second two categories.

Electives that Focus on Lawyer Well-Being

The University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law’s “Mindful Lawyering” course, which Professor Clifford Rosky teaches as a two credit-hour, pass fail course, is an effort to communicate the law practice implications of a mindful practice.

Mindfulness refers to the practice of trying to pay attention to whatever is happening in the present moment, from one moment to the next, without criticism or judgment. Practicing mindfulness can help us develop greater awareness, concentration, and acceptance–allowing us to reduce our susceptibility to distractions, and respond creatively and constructively to pressures and demands, rather than reacting blindly out of habit.

The course description explains:

[I]n this course, students will practice mindfulness on a daily basis, both inside and outside of class. The course is divided into three units, in which we apply mindfulness to the personal, interpersonal, and institutional aspects of one’s professional identity as a lawyer. First, we will cover “personal” topics such as the relationship between the body and the mind in stress and relaxation responses; using mindfulness to examine one’s strengths, weaknesses, and blind spots; reflecting on what it means to be a “mindful” lawyer; and developing a mindful approach to thriving in law school and the practice of law. Second, we will cover “interpersonal” topics, including the “soft skills” of lawyering such as various styles of listening; vicarious trauma and empathy fatigue; basic principles of conflict management; the role of the lawyer in lawyer-client relations; and the recognition and reduction of implicit bias. Last, we will cover “institutional” topics such as fostering wellbeing in legal education and the practice of law, and new developments in the profession such as holistic and collaborative lawyering, restorative justice, and therapeutic jurisprudence.

Students in the class are “expected to maintain a daily practice of mindfulness.”

In a course called “The Happy Lawyer: Finding Your Path” developed by University of Richmond School of Law Dean Wendy Perdue and Professor Christopher Corts, Richmond students take a slightly different approach to developing habits that will ensure their long-term well-being. The course description explains that the course:

[E]xplores the role that workplace attributes and personal characteristics play in the lives of lawyers. Class meetings will be held on Sunday evenings over dinner at the home of Dean Perdue. During each class session, students will discuss prepared readings relevant to the course topic, and interact with guest speakers who will share a real-world perspective on lawyering, career development, self-care practices, and the particular ways they have pursued happiness, purpose, and meaning in their work.

Perhaps most interestingly, the class, which is capped at 10 students, meets each week at Dean Perdue’s home over Sunday night dinner. Here is an article that both provides additional information about this class and important background on the challenges that this course and the other courses described here are trying to address.

A third variation on this theme, the University of Tennessee College of Law’s “Thriving as a Lawyer (A Scientific Approach),” was developed by Professor Doug Blaze and Adjunct Professor Candice Reed (UT Law ’00), who earned her Masters in Applied Positive Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania. The course was

Designed to introduce law students to the scientific principles of positive psychology, while incorporating “hands-on learning” through empirically validated positive interventions, which require cognitive reasoning and physical effort, encourage habitualizing behavior, involve goal-setting, and allow for self-efficacy or autonomy.

Other Innovative Electives

The breadth of courses in this last category reflects the breadth of interests of our faculty colleagues around the country. Two of the courses seem to be grounded in their law school’s context. Wayne State University Law School’s “Race, the Law, and Social Change in Southeast Michigan” focuses on social justice issues from the lens of the law school’s home city, Detroit. The course description explains:

Detroit is the most segregated metropolitan area in the country. This course examines the role and limits of law in addressing issues of race, discrimination and equality in Southeast Michigan. From a legal and anthropological perspective, students will study the efforts that attorneys have made over the past century to create a region more consistent with American values of inclusiveness. The course will examine individual and class action lawsuits and other forms of policy advocacy, all addressing legal problems in Southeast Michigan, examining litigation tactics and the role of expert testimony. The history and social problems of the region are examined from the perspective of the courtroom.

Lincoln University Duncan School of Law’s “Lincoln’s Constitution” course draws on the work of its namesake for the focus of a course. The course description explains:

This course provides an in-depth analysis of Abraham Lincoln’s constitutional perspectives, interpretations and actions. After a brief review of Lincoln’s biography and times, the course will examine his attitude and actions regarding slavery, secession, war powers, habeas corpus, emancipation, free speech and other individual rights, and reconstruction. The course also will evaluate the profound effects of Lincoln’s actions on modern American constitutional law.

The remaining courses are all over the map and are presented in the order I received them.

While many law schools offer a “Spanish for Lawyers” course, American University Washington College of Law’s Professor Jayesh Rathod has developed a more in-depth course, “Bilingual Lawyering.” The course description explains:

This one-credit course is designed to prepare students to be effective bilingual (Spanish-English) practitioners of U.S. immigration law. Students who enroll must have conversational Spanish language ability, as the course is taught primarily in Spanish. The immigration law survey course (LAW 655-001) is a co-requisite or prerequisite. . . . The content of the course will include the following: (1) discussion of, and practice in articulating substantive immigration law, and relevant legal procedures, to Spanish-speaking clients; (2) discussion of, and practice in counseling Spanish-speaking clients with immigration-related legal concerns; (3) ongoing discussion, in Spanish, of issues and questions raised by the assigned course readings; and (4) review of Spanish language vocabulary needed to communicate with clients about immigration law. More broadly, during the course we will consider challenges inherent in bilingual lawyering, along with different approaches to bilingual lawyering scenarios. In short, this is not simply a “Spanish for immigration lawyers” course, but rather a more rigorous effort to prepare you for the practice of immigration law in both English and Spanish

In this essay, Professor Rathod provides additional information about the course and explains the pedagogical context for the course.

[The essay] . . . outlines a unique, bilingual instructional model that involves adding an optional credit hour – taught in Spanish or another language – to existing doctrinal courses. Drawing from the literature on language pedagogy and classroom experiences over several years, the essay describes the basic architecture for these courses, specific instructional techniques, as well as some challenges and limitations of this model.

One of my favorite innovative electives is Northeastern University School of Law’s new “Laboratory Seminar in Applied Design and Legal Empowerment.” The course is a true interdisciplinary effort, bringing together law students and art students to solve important legal services problems. As the law school explained:

The NuLawLab’s engagement with students at the School of Law typically begins with their enrollment in the Laboratory Seminar in Applied Design and Legal Empowerment. This limited-enrollment intensive seminar explores the use of design principles in the development of new models for delivering legal information and services. Law and art students explore problem-solving methodologies derived from the fields of product and systems design as they apply them to a specific legal design problem. By the end of the experience, students have worked together as a team to take an idea from brainstorm to tested prototype.

The University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law has implemented a unique approach to offering field experience courses. The courses are offered during intersessions and are attached to one of the law school’s doctrinal courses. As the law school explained:

Preservation law is connected to a one-week trip on the Buffalo National River, International Criminal Law is connected to a one-week trip to international organizations in the Hague, Missouri Civil Procedure is connected to a trip to the Missouri Supreme Court, and Family Violence is connected to a trip to the Yucatan to learn about how family violence is addressed in Mexico. Students reflect on their experiences and how the doctrines from class translate into practice in the field.

The University of Richmond School of Law offers a second course of interest to this post. The law school’s innovative “Vices – Prohibition, Regulation, and Social Impact” course

[E]xamines the historical treatment of and trends in public policy regarding gambling, pornography, prostitution, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and other drugs . . . [and] the effectiveness of these policies on human behavior and related industry, including the impact of legal and illicit markets on society, race and gender.”

The University of Arkansas Little Rock, William H. Bowen School of Law offers an interesting post-Business Organizations course called “Corporate Justice.” The course extends the concepts students learned in Business Organizations to social justice issues. Subjects include “Corporate Board Diversity, the Private for-profit Prison industry, the Financial Market Crisis of 2008, and the pursuit of social justice in the corporate context.” The course, designed by Bowen Professor andré douglas pond cummings, seeks to equip students “with a renewed knowledge of basic Corporate Law concepts, like the Business Judgment Rule and Board of Director fiduciary duties,” and “the skills necessary to engage in shareholder activism, [address] board of director diversity, and [understand] causes for capital market traumas.”

The final course in this category is the University of Mississippi School of Law‘s “Law and Science Fiction” course. The law school describes its specialized law and literature course in this way:

Many of the great works of science fiction deal with law in its various guises, some directly, others indirectly. In particular, science fiction offers a unique perspective to address issues relating to contemporary problems in law and society. This mini-seminar will explore some of the major themes of science fiction as they relate to law and society, focusing on questions of diversity and autonomy. Course materials will include short stories, graphic novels, novels, episodes from science fiction TV shows, and movies.

From October 20–23, 2019, I attended Relativity’s annual Relativity Fest as one of twenty Relativity Fest Scholars. While focused on electronic discovery (“eDiscovery”), the conference also included broader discussions about law for technology and technology for law.

Before the conference, Relativity’s Academic Program paired each Scholar with a mentor who worked in eDiscovery. I was fortunate to be mentored by Cristin Traylor, Discovery Counsel at McGuire Woods. During our mentoring meetings, we discussed my career goals and her career journey. We prepared for a great Relativity Fest experience. I’m grateful for the time that Cristin spent mentoring me. Congratulations to her for winning the Attorney Tech Evangelist Award during the Relativity Innovation Awards ceremony. Speaking of awards, the Institute for the Future of Law Practice (“IFLP”) received the Academic Innovator of the Year Award. I enjoyed participating in IFLP’s bootcamp and internship program this past summer. Their award was well-deserved!

Over the course of the four days of Relativity Fest, I met people from all over the world. I attended sessions about legal technology, current legal issues related to technology, and eDiscovery. In the vendors’ hall, I met with cool software companies that develop tools to integrate into Relativity’s platform. Relativity Fest’s focus on diversity, as seen in the composition of the judicial panel and Margot Shetterly’s “Hidden Figures” presentation, inspired me (see my live-tweets below). I also enjoyed using, for the first time, Relativity’s software in the Relativity Experience room.

Most of all, I loved the feeling of collaboration at Relativity Fest. Lawyers and law students were in the minority as I found myself surrounded by talented programmers, litigation support professionals, paralegals, and more. All were friendly as I talked with them and learned about their careers. From those discussions, I saw that lawyers can benefit significantly from the talents of our friends who work in eDiscovery. By collaborating, we can improve the delivery of legal-services.

Thank you to Relativity and the Relativity Academic Program for the opportunity to attend Relativity Fest. Thank you specifically to Janice Hollman, Mila Taylor, David Horrigan, and Mike Gamson for the opportunity to be a Relativity Fest Scholar. I’d looked forward to attending the conference since starting law school in Chicago, and I look forward to continuing to learn more about eDiscovery and Relativity!

Below are my live-tweets from Relativity Fest 2019.

On April 18, 2019, I attended the Northwestern Innovation Lab’s Law and Technology Demos. The Innovation Lab is a multidisciplinary class in which students from Northwestern’s Pritzker School of Law and McCormick School of Engineering collaborate to solve a legal problem. Below are my live-tweets from the event. See also this write-up about the demos.

I look forward to participating in the Innovation Lab in Spring 2020!

In general, one cannot be confident about the intent of the Framers, and that is true about impeachment. For example, while some observers have claimed that President Trump’s dealings with the Ukraine lie at the heart of the Framers’ reasons for impeachment, the issue is far from clear.

As the New York Times put it about the Framers, “one of the high crimes they had in mind was giving into what Hamilton called ‘the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.’” At the time of the founding, the United States was not the world power it is today. Rather, the dominant countries—such as England and France—were in Europe, and the Framers worried that those countries would exercise control over us.

But today, the United States is the world power that can exercise its dominance over weaker countries. That is why the Ukraine and other countries expend considerable effort to woo the U.S. government and earn its favor. The problem with the Ukraine is not that Trump allowed it to control our policy making but that he was trying to control its policy making.

Of course, Trump’s efforts to exploit our relationship with the Ukraine are still very troubling, as is his other misconduct, including his efforts to obstruct the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his efforts to profit off his presidency. This takes us to a second problem with invoking the Framers’ views on impeachment.

They saw impeachment as an important tool for checking a wayward President, but they also believed that accountability on Election Day was the primary check on the President, with Congress and the Courts as secondary checks. Impeachment is there as a last resort when other checks and balances fail.

A critical question for Congress is whether other checks and balances have been sufficient to contain Trump. To an important extent, they have been. For example, when pressed by members of Congress, Trump released the aid withheld from the Ukraine. Similarly, pressure by lawsuits has led the Trump Organization to put its Washington, DC hotel up for sale.

In the end, the case for impeachment needs to be clear–otherwise, Congress risks the perception that it is employing its impeachment power for political gain.

On July 23, 2019, I emailed the Associate Deans’ and Deans’ ABA listservs asking for information about innovative courses. I received 54 responses describing more than 60 courses. This is my second post describing what I have learned. (Note 1: I adjusted my label from “unique courses” to “innovative courses” so I can duck the question of whether any particular course meets the high standard of distinctiveness required by the word “unique.”)

I organized the courses into four categories: Required , Electives, Skills and Clinics, and Law and Technology, and I am planning six blog posts, including my first post (which addressed Required Courses), two postings on Electives (for which I received the largest number of nominated courses) and of which this posting is the first, two on Skills Courses and Clinics (for which I received the second largest number of nominated courses), and one on Law and Technology Courses.

Each posting describes the courses, identifies the law school that offers the course, and, if I have the information, provides the name of a professor at the law school who teaches the course. I will include at least some commentary about most of the courses. The quoted language comes from the email I received from the law school or from the law school’s website.

In this posting, as my title for this posting suggests, I am focusing on innovative electives. I divided the nominated electives into four categories: (1) electives that focus on cutting-edge legal topics, (2) electives that focus on specific, interesting practice areas, (3) electives that focus on lawyer well-being, (4) and a catch-all category intro which I tossed the other eight interesting electives. This post will focus on the electives in the first two categories; my next post will focus on electives in the second and third categories.

Electives that Focus on Cutting-Edge Legal Topics

The breadth of courses I shoe-horned into this category is significant. The category includes a course framed around the criminal procedure issues in the Netflix television series Making a Murderer, a course that focus on governmental oversight and accountability, which has been in the news a bit lately, and a course entitled “Hip-Hop and the American Constitution.”

In the University of Utah School of Law’s three credit-hour “Making a Murder” course, created and taught by Professor Shima Baradaran Baughman, students analyze criminal procedure issues not covered in typical Criminal Procedure courses, such as:

[S]cience in the court room, venue motions, prosecutorial ethics, police evidentiary issues, jury behavior, etc. In each class session, the students watch an episode or two of the series. The class then discusses the particular issues highlighted in that episode. The students also read over 2,000 pages of trial transcripts and motions from the Avery/Dassey cases so they can judge for themselves whether police/lawyers/judges acted properly.

This article includes an interview with Professor Baughman, who provides further details about this wildly popular course.

American University Washington College of Law is offering a particularly timely seminar called “Advanced Topics in Oversight and Accountability” created and taught by Professor Fernando Laguarda. According to Professor Laguarda’s syllabus, this two-credit course explores and analyzes “the work of the Inspectors General, Office of Government Ethics, Office of Special Counsel, Government Accountability Office, and the Office of Management and Budget, among other constituent elements of the ‘oversight and accountability community.’”

Students in the course help develop and implement an “Oversight and Accountability Blog.” The goal for students working on the Oversight and Accountability Blog is “to publish updates on newsworthy developments from the oversight and accountability community as well as more extensive analytical essays about their work from students and, eventually, from practitioners and representatives of those agencies.”

In a somewhat related subject area, Professor Greg Crespi of the SMU Dedman School of Law is offering a course entitled “Presidential Impeachment and Related Topics.” The course:

[I]nvestigates the legal and political issues relating to Presidential impeachment and removal from office, focusing primarily but not exclusively on the current President. During the first ten weeks of the semester the class meets twice each week in a seminar-style format to discuss several assigned books and other current topical materials relating to various legal or political impeachment issues, including related criminal indictment and 25th Amendment issues. By the end of the tenth week, students are asked to choose an impeachment-related topic of appropriate scope, and research and write a 25-30 page law journal-style paper. During the last four weeks of the semester students are asked to briefly present their paper ideas and outlines or preliminary paper drafts for general class discussion and suggestions. The course satisfies the School of Law general writing requirement.

Here is an SSRN link to Professor Crespi’s essay describing the course and its development.

In Professor andre douglass pond cummings’ two credit course, “Hip-Hop and the American Constitution,” University of Arkansas at Little Rock, William H. Bowen School of Law students have the opportunity to explore “social justice theory and training” and develop their “interest in representing indigent and underrepresented clients.”

[T]his course includes the study of Fourth Amendment search and seizure law, First Amendment free speech law, Constitutional Intellectual Property protections, as well as Mass Incarceration, Policing, Family law and Corporate law all through the prism of hip hop music and culture . . . In each of these areas, hip hop artists have openly critiqued the top-down development of the law, and this class gives students the opportunity to explore the law from the bottom up, imagining what form the law might take if hip hop artist’s critiques and contributions were taken seriously and adopted.

The final course in this category, Florida A & M College of Law’s “Cannabis Law Social Justice Workshop” is a seminar that focuses on “key legal and policy issues related to racial disparities within every part of the cannabis industry, including the local, state and federal differences in the criminal justice system, economic and business disparities, and social justice implications.” The course also explores “the legislative and technology landscape in this dynamic area and . . . provide(s) opportunities to discuss cutting-edge issues at the intersection of law, cannabis, and social justice.”

Electives that Focus on Specific, Interesting Practice Areas

The six courses in this category explore a wide variety of practice areas of interest to students, including space law, legal operations, patent practice, privacy, and environmental law.

The first of the two space-related courses, the University of Nebraska College of Law’s “Space and Satellite Business Law,” explains the business context in this way:

[U].S. Space policy has favored increasing commercialization for three decades. Over 200 commercial space launches have occurred since the first one in 1989. New commercial activities, including ferrying cargo to and from the International Space Station and performing research and experiments for the private sector on the ISS, are becoming routine. Soon human transportation and asteroid mining will be part of the commercial space landscape.

The course reviews and examines “the history of Presidential space policies regarding space commercialization” and the work of “all key federal agencies charged with licensing and regulating the commercial space transportation and satellite industries.” The course also addresses “the statutes that give these agencies this authority and the rules that the agencies administer and enforce” and “The role of NASA.” The largest portion of the course focuses,

. . . on agreements that form relationships in the commercial space industry. These include Launch Service Agreements, Satellite Purchase Agreements, Transponder Sale/Lease Agreements, Non-Disclosure Agreements, Satellite Launch and In-Orbit Insurance contracts, and Hosted Payload Agreements. The course concludes with students engaging in a simulation of a condensed commercial space business transaction – from business plan to launch.

The second, space-related course, the University of Mississippi School of Law’s “International Space Law,” “explores the international laws applicable to outer space.” The course analyzes the “nature and scope of international law . . . vis-à-vis space-related activities.” Specific topics addressed in the course include:

[T]he nature and sources of international space law; binding and non-binding international space law instruments; the progressive development of space law in the United Nations and other international forums; and subjects of current debate, including commercialization of government exploration, space debris remediation, remote proximity operations, space resource ownership and utilization, environmental protection, international security, military uses of outer space, and the long-term sustainability of outer space activities.

Nova Southeastern University Shepard-Broad College of Law has developed a course focusing on an area of practice expected to grow significantly in the next few years, Legal Operations. In an ABA Journal article authored by University of Indiana Maurer School of Law’s Professor William Henderson, a leading law practice futurist, the author explains, “the milewide gulf between the legal profession’s infinitesimal knowledge of the burgeoning field of legal operations and how that field is going to reshape the entire industry.”

Nova’s course explores the many areas of legal practice in which “one or more of the parties to a transaction or dispute are business enterprises operating using a common set of disciplines and tools to share information, evaluate risk, and make financially-based decisions.” The course:

[P]rovides law students an introduction to these primary tools of quantitative analysis and research, to better understand the needs of their clients, provide additional strategies for structuring transactions and resolving disputes, and adding discipline to the operations of the lawyers’ own law firms. Through simulations, exercises and discussions, students . . . explore how best to apply these tools to the practice of law.

The Southern University Law Center is offering a course focusing on a specific aspect of patent law practice. The law school explains the course, “PTAB Practice and Procedure,” in this way:

[T]he American Invents Act took effect in 2012 creating the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) to, in part, review the patentability of any patent through post-grant review (PGR), inter partes review (IPR) and covered business method (CBM) process. The PTO, as an executive agency, has created a myriad of procedures, rules and regulations to further define the PTAB and its operation. In this course, students . . . learn the statutory, administrative rules and practice of the PTAB process. Students . . . also gain practical tips from expert PTAB practitioners from across the country about patent litigation and its interaction with the new PTAB process.

Professor Victoria Schwartz (no relation) of Pepperdine University School of Law (who also serves as the law school’s Associate Dean for Academic Affairs) has developed a privacy law course that focus on the practical applications of privacy law for students interested in careers as business lawyers. She reports that the course explores “issues of workplace privacy from the practical perspective of an attorney advising a business.” Because the area of law is still developing, she reports that course topics “may include electronic surveillance, drug, genetic and, psychological testing, polygraphs, social media issues, and employer control of off-duty activities.” Finally, she explains that, “While familiarizing themselves with the various legal frameworks applicable to workplace privacy, students . . . also develop skills in offering legal advice in areas that are not yet clear under existing law.”

The final course on this list explores a traditional area of law, environmental law, in a new way. Pace University Elizabeth Haub School of Law’s four credit “Environmental Skills and Practice/Clean Water Act” adopts an intriguing approach:

[U]sing a single statute, the Clean Water Act, as a model, this course introduces the student to interpreting and working with complex statutes and regulations. Through a series of exercises and simulations, it explores basic administrative and regulatory processes, such as rule making, permit issuance, and enforcement. It explores how the three branches of the federal government, together with federal and state governments and advocates for industries and nongovernmental organizations, interact to develop environmental laws and policy and the role of lawyers in that process.

Final Comments for This Blog Post

As these courses reflect, in an effort to produce excellent lawyers who deeply understand the law, law professors continue to create courses that explore cutting-edge legal topics and fields.

My own reaction to the list of courses above is a desire to travel around the country taking all these courses. I do not believe my boss would approve.

President Trump’s decision not to host the G7 Summit at his Doral golf resort was not only prudent, it also reflects an important lesson for his supporters in Congress and elsewhere. They can stand with him by opposing impeachment charges in the House and blocking a conviction in the Senate, or they can resist his problematic behavior in the first place and prevent him from creating grounds for impeachment.

According to news reports, Trump changed course on the Summit location because of objections from Republican members of Congress, as well as others among his usual supporters. In other words, when faced with sufficient opposition to his misconduct, Trump backed down. By seriously pushing back, Trump’s allies were able to stop him from committing a potentially impeachable offense.

And this is not the first time the President has responded to pressure. He backed down when pressed by a bipartisan group in Congress about his withholding of aid to the Ukraine and also when his aides refused to carry out his efforts to obstruct the Mueller investigation. Similarly, State Department employees and other current or former officials have ignored his pledge not to cooperate with the congressional investigation of his dealings with the Ukraine.

Trump may not like being challenged by his supporters, but they do him a big favor when they resist his ill-advised inclinations.