Symposia

 

The William & Mary Law Review, in conjunction with the Institute of Bill of Rights Law, has a proud tradition of bringing noted scholars together each spring semester in an annual Symposium.  The following are recent topics and participants of these symposia:

2016 Symposium: Judicial Supremacy v. Departmentalism

Rebecca Brown, University of Southern California Gould School of Law
Erwin Chemerinsky, University of California, Irvine School of Law
Erin Delaney, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
Neal Devins, William & Mary Law School
Mark Graber, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law
Corinna Barrett Lain, University of Richmond School of Law
Sanford V. Levinson, University of Texas School of Law
Victoria Nourse, Georgetown University Law Center
Saikrishna Prakash, University of Virginia School of Law
Fred Schauer, University of Virginia School of Law
Kevin C. Walsh, University of Richmond School of Law
Keith E. Whittington, Princeton University

The Symposium will take place on Friday, Feb. 19-Saturday, Feb. 20, 2016. Papers submitted as part of the Symposium will be published in Volume 58, Issue 4 of the Law Review.

2014 Symposium: The Contemporary First Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Press, and Assembly

Ashutosh Bhagwat, UC Davis School of Law
Joseph Blocher, Duke University School of Law
Julie Cohen, Georgetown University Law Center
John Inazu, Washington University School of Law
Leslie Kendrick, University of Virginia School of Law
Heidi Kitrosser, University of Minnesota Law School
Ronald Krotoszynski, Alabama School of Law
Gregory Magarian, Washington University School of Law
Mary-Rose Papandrea, Boston College Law School
Martin Redish, Northwestern University School of Law
Neil Richards, Washington University School of Law
Mark Rosen, IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
Frederick Schauer, University of Virginia School of Law
Mark Tushnet, Harvard Law School

The Symposium gathered leading First Amendment scholars to discuss topics including the sources and scope of free speech protection, Internet exceptionalism, leaks of classified information, privacy, the intersection of freedom of speech and economic interests, comparative and cross-cultural expressive concerns, the regulation of public assembly, and government subsidization of speech.

The Symposium took place on February 21-22, 2014. Papers submitted as part of the Symposium will be published in Volume 56, Issue 4 of the Law Review.

2013 Symposium: The Civil Jury as a Political Institution

The debate over the civil jury in the United States – in both the academic literature and public domain -- tends to focus on how good or bad it is as an adjudicative institution.  But its justification has always been as a political institution.  Though the civil jury’s role as a political institution has strong historical roots, its place in our contemporary political system has received relatively little, sustained scholarly attention. This Symposium built on recent work taking a renewed look at the various justifications for the civil jury as a political institution: as an instrument of popular sovereignty, a vehicle for applying community norms in law, a source of democratic legitimacy, and a check on government and corporate power. We brought together a group of people from different disciplines, including law, political science and psychology, to bring both theoretical and empirical perspectives to bear on this important set of issues.

The Symposium was held February 22-23, 2013 and papers submitted as part of the Symposium were published in Volume 55, Issue 3 of the William & Mary Law Review.

2012 Symposium: Law Without a Lawmaker

Anthony Bellia, Notre Dame Law School
Lea Brilmayer, Yale Law School
Bradford Clark, George Washington University Law School
Abbe Gluck, Columbia Law School
Craig Green, Temple University Law School
Michael Steven Green, William & Mary Law School
Emily Kadens, University of Texas Law School
Caleb Nelson, University of Virginia Law School
Kermit Roosevelt, University of Pennsylvania Law School
Steven D. Walt, University of Virginia Law School
Louise Weinberg, University of Texas Law School
Ernest A. Young, Duke Law School

This Symposium was devoted to exploring the existence and validity of law not created by the lawmakers of a particular jurisdiction. Some of the questions addressed were: What was the nature of the general common law under the regime of Swift v. Tyson? How did Erie end this regime and what, if anything, was Erie's constitutional source? Do the principles used to decide choice-of-law cases transcend the law of any jurisdiction, and, if so, are they unconstitutional? Does customary international law transcend the law of any jurisdiction, and, if so, is it unconstitutional? Where else can law not created by the lawmakers of a particular jurisdiction be found? Is the appeal to such law an inescapable fact of legal reasoning?

The 2012 Symposium took place on February 24-25, 2012.  Papers submitted as part of the Symposium were published in Volume 54, Issue 3.

2011 Symposium: Constitutional Transformations

John O. McGinnis, Northwestern University Law School
Paul M. Schwartz, University of California, Berkeley School of Law
Jide Nzelibe, Northwestern University Law School
John C. Yoo, University of California, Berkeley School of Law
Edward L. Rubin, Vanderbilt University Law School
Frederick Schauer, University of Virginia School of Law
Helen Hershkoff, New York University School of Law
Gillian E. Metzger, Columbia Law School
Amy L. Wax, University of Pennsylvania Law School
Robin L. West, Georgetown University Law Center
Christopher S. Yoo, University of Pennsylvania Law School

This Symposium gathered leading constitutional scholars to discuss whether current economic, political, and social conditions represent a transformative constitutional moment, and, if so, what implications this may have for constitutional practice, theory, and understanding.  The participants addressed a variety of constitutional issues, including declining state participation in certain critical public functions, increasing state ownership of private assets, the constitutional implications of new federal entitlement programs and mandates, the changing transmission of international norms across boundaries, the changing role of states in the federal system, the operation of the surveillance state, the conception of “citizenship” in a globalized world, the meaning and enforcement of equality, and the role of originalism and popular constitutionalism during periods of constitutional change.

This Symposium took place on February 25-26, 2011.  Papers submitted at the Symposium were published in Volume 53, Issue 2 of the Law Review.

2009 Symposium: Boundaries of Intellectual Property

Margo Bagley, University of Virginia School of Law
Dan Burk, University of California at Irvine School of Law
Graeme Dinwoodie, Chicago-Kent College of Law
John Duffy, George Washington University Law School
Brett Frischmann, Loyola University Chicago School of Law
James Gibson, University of Richmond School of Law
Wendy Gordon, Boston University School of Law
Steven Hetcher, Vanderbilt University Law School
Nicolas Jondet, University of Edinburgh
Mark Lemley, Stanford Law School
Jessica Litman, University of Michigan Law School
Jason Mazzone, Brooklyn Law School
Brett McDonnell, University of Minnesota Law School
Mark McKenna, Notre Dame Law School
Michael Meurer, Boston University School of Law
Pamela Samuelson, Berkeley Law School
Joshua D. Sarnoff, American University – Washington College of Law
Rebecca Tushnet, Georgetown University Law Center
Jane Winn, University of Washington

This Symposium was published in Volume 51, Issue 2 of the Law Review.