Introduction

    These are potential topics for student writing I’ve come across recently.  Some of the suggestions relate to recent cases, although whether the best format would be a case note or a general comment on the issue raised by the case is up to the author to decide. Where possible, I have tried to include links to cases and articles mentioned in the topic suggestions, but in some cases you’ll have to find the material yourself. I plan to post new topics from time to time as I come across them, so you may wish to recheck this page periodically if you are still looking for new topics.

    You may also want some advice on choosing a topic, or some advice on writing a paper.

    Caveats:

• I’m not saying that these will necessarily make good topics, just that they might.   I’ve erred on the side of inclusiveness.  The topic possibilities vary in quality and interest; some would require more work to develop as topics than others, and some may well not pan out as good topics on closer investigation or after further thought.
• I have haven’t done any preemption checks, so even if a topic is a good one, the literature needs to be checked out.
• Although I update topic suggestions as I become aware new information, there is no guarantee that everything on this page is up to date. For example, where a topic rests heavily on one case decided by a panel of a federal appeals court, it would be good idea to try to determine if there’s been a petition for rehearing en banc before making the final decision to write a comment on that decision.
• Many of these suggestions are outside my fields.  I have indicated below with a  topics I might be willing to consider advising someone on, subject to overall time constraints (and, of course, the ultimate suitability of the topic for writing).  You may click on the  to e-mail me.

    If you have suggestions of your own for a topic you want to write on, please feel free to talk to me about being an advisor.  In general, the areas I would know best would be property, constitutional law (mainly but not entirely in Con. Law I issues), international human rights law, and some other aspects of international law.  Beyond that, it would depend on how much I knew about the topic.

      Good luck in your search for a topic!

Topic suggestions:

1. Antitrust Law. In Schor v. Abbott Laboratories, No. 05-3344 (7th Cir. 7/26/06), the plaintiff charged Abbott Laboratories with using its patent for Norvir, a protease inhibitor used to treat HIV infection, to try to monopolize the market for all protease inhibitors. What's notable is that the Court rejected the plaintiff’s underlying theory of “monopoly leveraging” on these facts, disagreeing with the Ninth and possibly the Second Circuits.
2. Constitutional Law/Family Law. The decisions by the New York Court of Appeals, the Eighth Circuit, and the Washington Supreme Court upholding the limitation of marriage in New York, Nebraska, and Washington respectively to a man and a woman are worth a comment. See Hernandez v. Robles, No. 86 (N.Y. Ct. App. 7/6/06); Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, No. 05-2604 (8th Cir. 7/14/06); Andersen v. King County, No. 75934-1 (Wash. 7/26/06).
3. Constitutional Law/Professional Responsibility. Wishnatsky v. Rovner, No. 04-3503 (8th Cir. 2006 Jan. 5, 2006), raises interesting First Amendment and professional responsibility questions. A conservative activist unhappy with the decision by the University of North Dakota Law School’s clinic to represent someone challenging the display of the Ten Commandments outside Fargo’s city hall wrote a letter to the clinic’s director asking the clinic to represent him in a suit challenging the placement of a statute of the Greek goddess Themis on the courthouse. His letter and actions indicated his real desire was to make a political point. The clinic director declined the case, stating that his “persistent and antagonistic actions” would preclude the clinic from effectively representing him. He sued the clinic. On appeal from a dismissal of his complaint, the 8th Circuit determined that the clinic’s action amounted to a denial of governmental services based on viewpoint discrmination and remanded the case.

Older Topic suggestions:

These are topic suggestions based on somewhat older cases or issues. You’d probably want to be careful about writing a case note on one of the cases, since there’s more of a likelihood of preemption. They may lead you to some good topics, though.

1. International Human Rights Law/Alien Tort Statute/Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991/Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Enahoro v. Abubakar, 408 F.3d 877 (7th Cir. 2005), involved a lawsuit charging a member of the military junta that ruled Nigeria from 1993 to 1999 with torture and extrajudicial killings in Nigeria. Plaintiffs (Nigerian citizens) brought the lawsuit under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350. The Seventh Circuit ruled that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602 et seq. does not provide immunity to individuals (including the defendant, General Abdulsalami Abubakar). As the dissent pointed out, that ruling is in conflict with the holdings of a number of other circuits. (The practical difference is somewhat limited, in that immunity under the FSIA would likely not apply to acts like torture and extrajudicial killings, to the extent that they constitute violations of peremptory norms.) At the same time, though, the Seventh Circuit determined that the exhaustion of remedies requirement of the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 note, applied to the plaintiffs’ claims -- even though they had not sought relief under the TVPA. In effectively using the TVPA to restrict the scope of the ATS, the Seventh Circuit disagreed with the rulings of other circuits. Applying an exhaustion of remedies requirement to all claims under the ATS would not necessarily preclude them; there is an exception for remedies that are futile, and that might often be so in human rights cases. But it would add a new level of complication to suits under the ATS and might also presage a more general narrowing of the courts’ willingness to hear human rights claims under the ATS. The relationship between the TVPA and the ATS, and the appropriateness of an exhaustion-of-remedies requirement, are both topics on which there has been considerable comment ever since the TVPA was enacted, but the the Seventh Circuit’s holding may merit a Case Note, particularly as it relates to the majority’s claim that the Supreme Court’s 2004 holding in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 124 S. Ct. 2739 (2004), merited its holding on the relationship between the ATS and the TVPA.
2. Disability Law.  If an employee has a condition that does not qualify as a “disability” under the Americans with Disabilities Act, but is “regarded as” disabled, is the employee entitled to reasonable accomodations? The Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits have said no. But the First, Third, and Eleventh Circuits have held otherwise. The most recent case is D’Angelo v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. 04-10629 (11th Cir. 8/30/05). See Workers Regarded as Disabled Are Entitled To Reasonable Accommodation under ADA, 74 U.S.L.W. 1136 (9-13-05).
3. Family Law/Parental Rights/Gay and Lesbian Rights.  In two cases in August 2005, the California Supreme Court recognized parental rights of two women who had been partners but who had separated. See Elisa B. v. Superior Court and K.M. v. E.G..
4. Internet/Criminal Law.  An on-line seller of rare books, acting in effect as an ISP for participating book dealers, routinely copied e-mails from Amazon to the other book dealers, as part of a scheme to gain an advantage for itself. The government charged the ISP with violating the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1). The district court dismissed the charge, holding that intercepting an e-mail in transient storage on a server did not violate the Act. A three-judge panel of the First Circuit affirmed, but sitting en banc the First Circuit ruled that the Act did cover the interception. In so ruling, it held contrary to four other circuit courts that have addressed the issue. See United States v. Councilman (No. 03-1383) (8/11/05) (en banc), summarized in “Interception of Temporarily Stored E-Mail Is Wiretap Violation, En Banc Court Rules,” 74 U.S.L.W. 1108 (8-23-05).