Wednesday, February 21, 2024

Israeli Legal History Bibliography

[We have the following announcement.  DRE.]

The David Berg Foundation Institute for Law and History at the Tel Aviv University Faculty of Law maintains a bibliography of secondary sources on Israeli legal history. We are currently embarking on another round of updates (the last was in 2020), and we would welcome help in bringing publications, whether new or previously overlooked, to our attention.

We are looking for publications, in any language, with a substantial connection to the legal history of Israel, beginning with the late Ottoman period (from c. 1800) up to the year 2000. If you work in the field, we'd appreciate your looking over the current list and sending us bibliographic information on any sources we're currently missing.

Please send information on sources or any questions to Ms. Asil Sager ( or to

[H/t: H-Law]

Tuesday, February 20, 2024

Benton to Deliver Inaugural Dean's Lecture at Edinburgh Law

Former ASLH President Lauren Benton, the Barton M. Biggs Professor of History and Professor of Law at Yale University, will deliver the inaugural Dean’s Lecture at the Edinburgh Law School, University of Edinburgh, On Wednesday, 13 March 2024, 17:00 - 18:30 GMT, at the Law School’s Usha Kasera Lecture Theatre.  “A world renowned historian of law and empire, her lecture will draw on many of the themes explored in her new book They Called it Peace: Worlds of Imperial Violence.”  Register for ticket's here.

 Yale Law's notice of the book is here.

--Dan Ernst

Monday, February 19, 2024

The Julien Mezey Dissertation Award

 [We have the following announcement.  DRE]

The Association for the Study of Law, Culture, and the Humanities is excited to announce that we are accepting submissions for the Julien Mezey Dissertation Award. This annual prize is awarded to the dissertation that most promises to enrich and advance interdisciplinary scholarship at the intersection of law, culture and the humanities.

The Association seeks the submission of outstanding work from a wide variety of perspectives, including but not limited to law and cultural studies, law and critical race studies, law and gender and sexuality, legal theory and environmentalism, law and literature, law and psychoanalysis, law and visual studies, legal history, legal theory and jurisprudence. Scholars completing humanities-oriented dissertations in SJD and related programs, as well as those earning PhDs, are encouraged to submit their work. Applicants eligible for the 2024 award must have defended their dissertations successfully between March 2023 and March 2024.

The Association will cover the Mezey Prize winner’s travel and lodging costs to our annual meeting.  Nominations for the 2024 award must be received on or before March 15, 2024.  For submission instructions, please see our website.

Saturday, February 17, 2024

Weekend Roundup

  • Now on YouTube: the National Constitution Center’s panel on “the history of the African American fight for freedom during the Civil War and Reconstruction periods”  Edda Fields-Black and James Oakes were panelists.  Thomas Donnelly of the NCC moderated.
  • The Union County Board of County Commissioners is hosting Gibbons v. Ogden: Its Continuing Importance 200 Years Later with Edward Hartnett, Seaton Hall, on Tuesday, March 4th from 12:30 p.m. until 1:30 p.m. "at the Courtroom of Honorable Lisa Miralles Walsh (A.J.S.C.) on the 1st Floor Tower of the Union County Courthouse, located at 2 Broad Street, Elizabeth." 
  • Last semester, in the  course titled “Research Methods in Judicial History,” Yale students "had the opportunity to delve into the working papers of former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart ’37 LAW ’41 (Yale Daily News).
  • This season in the Institute for Justice's podcast series Bound by Justice is devoted to property cases, including "a tour of the house at issue in Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon" and three pods on the history of zoning."
  • ICYMI: "Of Course Presidents Are Officers of the United States," says Mark Graber (The Atlantic).  Mug commemorating real-life crime 1823 style flies to 10 times estimate (Antiques Trades Gazette).  John Q. Barrett on Cardozo's quip (SSRN). How a 1924 Immigration Act Laid the Groundwork for Japanese American Incarceration: An Interview with Mae Ngai (Smithsonian).

Weekend Roundup is a weekly feature compiled by all the Legal History bloggers.

Friday, February 16, 2024

Literary–Legal Imagining: An Early Modern Workshop

[We have the following announcement.  DRE.]

Literary–Legal Imagining: An Early Modern Workshop. 11 March 2024. 10.30am – 6.00pm.  New College, Oxford & St John’s College, Oxford.

Literary-Legal Imagining is a one–day workshop, hosted by New College and St John’s College, and supported by [the Centre for Early Modern Studies] and the English Faculty. This workshop will explore the kinds of research questions that arise from the pervasive overlapping of the legal and the literary in early modern life and texts.

Current doctoral students and recently doctored ECRs will present examples from their work-in-progress, stimulating discussion of how early modernists might approach the legal–literary interface. It will showcase the vibrancy of current work in the law and literature movement and highlight new directions for research in the interstices between these two disciplines.

Speakers: Alex Laar (Oxford); Jonathan Powell (Leiden); Dan Haywood (Oxford); Herin Han (Oxford); and Jake Wiseman (UCL). A keynote will be given by Lotte Fikkers (Leiden), with Lorna Hutson (Oxford) acting as a respondent.

The workshop will be in two parts. In the morning session, Alex Laar will give a paper on ‘Sir Thomas Smith’s Legal Annotations’ at New College Library. At this session, there will be an opportunity to examine annotations made in sixteenth–century lawbooks in New College’s Special Collections.

After lunch at St John’s, there will be two panels and a keynote, with breaks between and time for Q & A at each. The first panel, on ‘Gender, Scripture and Legal Imagining’ will feature papers by Jake Wiseman and Herin Han. The second, on ‘Common Law and Literary Genre’ will feature papers by Dan Haywood and Jonathan Powell. Finally, Lotte Fikkers will give a keynote paper on early modern women’s life-writing in law and literature, with a response from Lorna Hutson and a round-up discussion.

The workshop will conclude with a drinks reception at St John’s.

Registration is free but essential for catering purposes. If you would like to attend, please contact to register by 28 February 2024.

Timetable and key information [after the jump]:

JACH (Winter 2024)

The Winter 2024 issue of the Journal of American Constitutional History has just been published.  Here is the TOC:

Today’s Brandeis Brief? The Fate of the Historians’ Brief Amidst the Rise of an Originalist Court, by M. Henry Ishitani

Despite their significantly higher overall citation rates than comparable forms of amicus briefings, historians’ amicus briefs to the Supreme Court have been a surprisingly overlooked and under-studied legal tactic. This article attempts to correct this gap in our understanding of this subgenre of history-based briefing, revealing the hard data and political trends shaping these judicial citations.

Symposium: Dobbs, History, and Abortion Rights

No recent constitutional issue has raised a more significant moment for historical intervention than a woman’s right to obtain an abortion. The following symposium, organized by Professors Mary Ziegler and David Schwartz, takes a hard look at the historical questions surrounding Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

Abortion-Eugenics Discourse in Dobbs: A Social Movement History, by Reva B. Siegel & Mary Ziegler

To win over new supporters and counter equality arguments of the abortion-rights movement, the antiabortion movement began to equate the abortion-rights movement with the painful legacy of eugenics perpetrated by the state in the early twentieth century. This essay traces the movement dynamics that led to the creation of this argument, and then follows this abortion-is-eugenics argument from billboards to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

The Wages of Crying Roe: Some Realism about Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, by Neil S. Siegel

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was based upon moral opposition to abortion and gender bias, instead of its stated reasoning—a draconian version of the “history and tradition” test.

Dobbs v. Brown, by Andrew Coan

The ongoing debate over the Dobbs majority’s attempt to claim the mantle of Brown v. Board of Education has many threads. This Essay will focus on three—stare decisis, the interpretive method, and Herbert Wechsler’s famous “neutral principles” critique— none of which is as clear-cut as the defenders or the critics of Dobbs have supposed.

The Critical Role of History after Dobbs, by Serena Mayeri

Though the Dobbs majority’s argument relies on a flawed and impoverished account of “history and tradition,” history remains relevant to constitutional law and political discourse about reproductive rights and justice, and is critical to our understanding of our political community today.

--Dan Ernst

Thursday, February 15, 2024

Prévost to Lecture on Renaissance Jurists

The Edinburgh Law School’s Centre for Legal History will host a talk with Xavier Prévost, Professor of Legal History at the University of Bordeaux, on 10 May. Professor Prévost will lecture on "The Encyclopedism of Renaissance Humanist Jurists."  Register here.

The expression “Legal humanism of the Renaissance” refers to the movement that emerged from the full integration of law into humanist knowledge, which began at the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries. Starting with a critique of medieval scholasticism for the study of legal texts, this intellectual movement proposed new methods for producing legal ideas based on an encyclopedic approach. Although there were many methodological differences between the legal scholars grouped under the banner of humanism, they shared the conception of a legal science that is not closed in on itself. Thus, they applied to law the humanist idea that knowledge forms a vast body made up of elements that may be intellectually differentiated, but which remain interrelated: the understanding of one of these elements must therefore logically call upon all those related to it. Not only did these scholars master the legal sources (Roman law, canon law, customs, royal legislation, court decisions, etc.), but they constantly referred to history and geography, philosophy and theology, philology and rhetoric, literature and poetry, mathematics and architecture, agronomy and astronomy.

The encyclopedism of Renaissance humanist jurists then caused an upheaval in the understanding of law, while participating massively in the production of knowledge beyond legal ideas. Presenting such an approach can contribute to the current debate which, faced with the extreme compartmentalisation of disciplines and even a growing separation between legal branches, is calling for greater use of interdisciplinarity.

--Dan Ernst.  (H/t: Scottish Legal News.)

Wednesday, February 14, 2024

Allen on Hand on Moral Turpitude in Immigration

It's gated, but interesting: Jak Allen has published What Is a “Moral” Citizen? Learned Hand and the Judicial Role for Defining Immigrant Morality Tests, 1929–61, in American Political Thought 13:1 (Winter 2024):

Learned Hand (LC)
“Good moral character” and acts of “moral turpitude” remain significant US standards for citizenship hopefuls and potential deportees. However, there is little scholarship examining whether morality standards have been used as effective exclusionary tools in the history of US immigration law. This article addresses this incomplete picture by raising topical questions about democratic process in lawmaking and prompting historical reassessment of moral expectations as barriers to immigration. It highlights the leading role of federal appellate judge Learned Hand in exposing the interpretive challenges that moral-based standards presented to courts in the early to mid-twentieth century. The article argues that Hand attempted to reduce the discretionary scope of judges by relying on society’s “common conscience” to decide legal disputes in this deeply subjective field of law. However, in applying this more layered, context-specific view of moral standard, Hand also exposed flaws in his own philosophical adherence to judicial restraint.

--Dan Ernst

Tuesday, February 13, 2024

Honoring Charles Hamilton Houston at New York Law

On Tuesday, February 20, 2024, from 12:45 p.m. to 2:00 p.m., New York Law School will observe Black History Month with Honoring Legal Icon Charles Hamilton Houston:
José F. Anderson, Dean Joseph Curtis Professor of Law at the University of Baltimore School of Law, will join Kirk Burkhalter, Professor of Law and Director of the 21st Century Policing Project, for a conversation discussing Charles Hamilton Houston’s enduring legacy as a lawyer, educator, and civil rights activist. The event will be moderated by John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law and Director of the Racial Justice Project Penelope Andrews.

--Dan Ernst

Monday, February 12, 2024

Kroncke on Labor in the American Empire

Jedidiah J. Kroncke, University of Hong Kong, has posted Suspended in Empire: The Imperial Legacies of American Territorial Labor:

On the Trail, Northern Luzon, 1924 (LC)
A great deal of recent attention has been giving to acknowledging the full historical scope of American empire and its legal foundations. A recurrent focus of this attention has been the impact of the Insular Cases—a set of early 20th-century doctrines that legitimate American territorial acquisitions while denying their full incorporation under the Constitution. Issues of political citizenship and property have thus predominated critical work on the Insular Cases.

This article expands on this resurgent interest by focusing on another critical element of this acknowledgment: the history of territorial labor which has long been central to the political economy of American empire. Explicating the role and regulation of territorial labor reveals enables of more complete picture of American empire, as well as its evolving pursuit of new legal forms to project national power while avoiding democratic accountability.

Most concretely, the unprincipled doctrines of the Insular Cases have led to a paradigm of perpetually precarious bargaining in which territorial labor only enjoys the formal protection of labor and employment law subject to complete federal discretion and potential revocation. Mapping the diverse and contingent legal regimes this bargaining has produced unearths all too many tragedies past and present as the largely invisibilized labor of territorial people has been circulated throughout American empire while building its economic and military foundations.

Further complicating this formally inchoate set of rights are the practical realities territorial labor has historically been subject to under conditions of American empire: localized employer domination, tactics of racialized labor migration, and the overshadowing anti-democratic disciplinary rationales of U.S. national security. These realities are evident throughout the diverse range of contemporary territories as well as in their scarring effects within former American territories and military occupations. Moreover, imperial labors’ roaming logics of dehumanization are today increasingly displaced onto even more vulnerable foreign migrant workers within many territories themselves.

Acknowledging the role of territorial labor in American empire blurs the line between territorial and incorporated life and law. Most powerfully, it reveals how the conditions of territorial labor reflect back the enervated nature of American economic citizenship writ large. This reflection is just one of the many ways in which territorial history presents lessons increasingly applicable to broader swaths of American life under conditions of modern economic globalization. The article ultimately integrates territorial history into renewed demands for a democratic political economy for all those living under American sovereignty.

--Dan Ernst

YLS Seminar on the History of Latin American Law

On Wednesday, February 14, 2024, from 2:00 - 6:00 PM, in Room 124 of the Yale Law School, YLS’s Schell Center for International Human Rights and the Max Planck Institute for Legal History and Legal Theory is sponsoring a symposium, History of Latin American Law:

The event aims to present and discuss the book [The Cambridge History of] Latin American Law in Global Perspective recently published by Cambridge University Press. The book, edited by Tamar Herzog and Thomas Duve, brings together sixteen articles written by scholars from Latin America, Europe, and the United States on the history of Latin American law. The event will be structured around two panels. In the first one, panelists will examine the theoretical and methodological commitments of the book. In the second one, panelists will analyze three topics that cut across the volume: cultural minorities, legal pluralism, and the relationship between law and State.
Here is the program.  Space is limited.  Registration is required.

–Dan Ernst

Saturday, February 10, 2024

Weekend Roundup

  • Stephen J. Pollak (credit)
    Stephen J. Pollak died a week ago.  He was Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division during Lyndon Johnson's administration, a long-time partner at the Washington law firm of Shea & Gardner, and an imaginative, dedicated, and extremely thoughtful President of the Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit, the kind of lawyer a legal historian dreams of working with but rarely finds.  Here is the in memoriam page of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.  He gave an oral history to the Historical Society of the DC Circuit, which I've previously described here.  He gave another to the LBJ Library.  DRE
  • From the Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History: "Former Supreme Court of Canada judge Ian Binnie will talk to the Osgoode Society about four prominent litigators whose careers [spanned] Canadian legal history from Confederation to the present: Oliver Mowat, W.N. Tilley, J.J. Robinette, and Ian Scott."  May 1, 2024 - 5:30 pm at Zoom.  Register here.
  • The Women’s and Gender Studies Institute and The Centre for the Study of the United States in the Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy at the University of Toronto has posted a notice for a Postdoctoral Fellow.  The co-taught course the fellow would teach may include “gender and the American legal system.”  More.  H/t: H-Law.
  • ICYMI:  "In today’s gun rights cases, historians are in hot demand" (OBP).   But "does racist history count"? (LA Times.)
  • Update: An panelists at an HLS symposium dispute the history of universal injunctions (Harvard Law Today).
Weekend Roundup is a weekly feature compiled by all the Legal History bloggers.

Friday, February 9, 2024

Heath on Chinese Boycotts

J. Benton Heath, Temple University Beasley School of Law, has posted Economic Sanctions as Legal Ordering:

This Article recovers a critical episode in the history of economic sanctions and considers its implications for world order today. Beginning in 1905, Chinese citizens launched a series of protests targeting American, British, and Japanese goods. These boycotts caused economic damage, disrupted international relations, and at times won significant political victories. At the same time, they captured the imaginations of peace advocates, lawyers, and scholars, who saw in the boycotts either a fundamental threat to legal ordering, a promising avenue for enforcing interstate peace, or, most radically, an engine for new kinds of political organization outside the typical forms of state and empire.

This Article argues that the debates over the early twentieth-century Chinese boycotts invite us to rethink the relationship between economic sanctions and legal ordering. Through historical and theoretical work, the Article demonstrates that boycotts were understood at the time as a form of insurgent legal ordering, which threatened the unity of the state-based legal system. Drawing on the history of the boycotts, this Article develops a theory of insurgent legal ordering. And it shows how lawyers of the period developed a response to this perceived threat that required states to centralize and control the means of economic warfare. The result not only sheds light on the history of economic sanctions, but also suggests a broader critique of the role of economic sanctions in the international legal order today.
--Dan Ernst

Thursday, February 8, 2024

Callahan on Woodbury Davis and Antislavery Constitutionalism

James Patrick Callahan, a third-year student at the Boston College Law School, has just published his note, Antebellum Enigma: Justice Woodbury Davis, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, and the Antislavery Constitution, in the Boston College Law Review:

 In 1856, abolition activist Woodbury Davis joined the Maine Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) and quickly became its most radical member. Davis was an antebellum enigma: a high-ranking judge who advocated for Black voting rights, rejected the federal consensus that Congress could not pass laws interfering with slavery, denied that the Fugitive Slave Clause even applied to slaves, and believed that the Constitution was an engine for abolition. While Davis was on the SJC, the court issued advisory opinions on two of the most explosive issues in American politics: Black voting rights after Dred Scott v. Sandford and the Fugitive Slave Act. This Note explores the evolution of the law on slavery and race in the United States prior to the Civil War, focusing on Maine and the political pressures surrounding the SJC at that time. Next, this Note examines the SJC’s Voting Rights Opinion (1857) and the Personal Liberty Law Opinion (1861), focusing especially on Justice Davis’s novel constitutional arguments. Finally, drawing on these two cases, this Note argues that radical modes of antislavery constitutionalism were embedded in the American judiciary prior to the Civil War and evaluates the impact of this discovery on current debates in legal history.

--Dan Ernst

Wednesday, February 7, 2024

Eyer and Tani on the Role of Disability Cases in the Supreme Court's Federalism Revolution

I'm excited to announce the publication of an article that I've been working on for some time, along with co-author Katie Eyer (Rutgers Law). It is titled "Disability and the Ongoing Federalism Revolution," and has just been published in the Yale Law Journal (Volume 133, Issue 3). The article is largely legal history, but it also includes observations and predictions about the current Supreme Court. Here's abstract:

The Supreme Court’s “new federalism” revolution remains one of the most important developments in recent U.S. legal history. The Court revitalized “states’ rights” doctrines under the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments, rendering states partially or wholly immune from many types of federal litigation. Simultaneously, the Court retrenched the authority of national legislators—and aggrandized its own authority—by limiting what Congress may do under its Commerce Clause, Spending Clause, and Fourteenth Amendment powers.

But one important facet of this “new federalism” revolution has gone unappreciated: the load-bearing role of earlier disability-related cases. In the 1970s and 1980s, this Feature shows, the Court used disability-related cases to revive the all-but-moribund Eleventh Amendment, even as it declined to embrace Eleventh Amendment arguments in cases involving school desegregation and sex discrimination. So, too, it was disability cases that established and entrenched federalism-grounded “clear statement” rules of statutory interpretation in the 1980s and early 1990s. Likewise, a disability case in the early 1990s previewed the Court’s later diminution of Congress’s authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In crucial ways, we show, these disability precedents enabled the “new federalism” revolution of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Cases such as Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996) could not have been reasoned as they were without earlier disability precedents. The real-world consequences have been striking: the disability-related cases we discuss—and the better-known “new federalism” cases that built on them—have reduced the enforceability of federal civil rights guarantees, threatened wide swaths of social welfare legislation, and diminished Congress’s ability to respond to pressing problems.

Moving forward, disability-related federalism precedents will remain important. Doctrines and language from these cases offer some of the best tools that state and local defendants have for extending the more dangerous facets of the “new federalism”—as evidenced by recent litigation in the lower courts involving voting rights and LGBTQ discrimination, among other high-stakes issues. Moreover, at the Supreme Court, disability cases have continued to provide the site for new retrenchments in Congress’s spending power, alongside robust assertions of the Court’s own authority. Thus, while conventional wisdom treats the “new federalism” revolution as a historical artifact, this Feature reveals such an assessment to be both perilous and premature.

The full article is available here.

-- Karen Tani

Call for Applications from the Program on Constitutionalism and Democracy at UVA: Postdoctoral Research Associate

We have the following call for applications, from the Department of Politics at the University of Virginia:

The Program on Constitutionalism and Democracy (PCD) in the Department of Politics at the University of Virginia invites applications for a Postdoctoral Research Associate and lecturer position. PCD’s mission is to promote scholarship and undergraduate teaching that is informed by political theory and that focuses on the American political tradition.

Postdoctoral Research Associates will conduct their own research, participate in PCD programming, and teach one undergraduate course per semester, either “The American Political Tradition” (PLAP 2250) or “American Political Economy” (PLAP 3500). These courses require as background a concentration in political theory and/or an approach to American politics focusing on American political thought and American political development. The opportunity to teach an advanced seminar on a specialized topic may also be available. The Postdoctoral Research Associate will report to Professor James Ceaser. The anticipated start date is August 25, 2024. Applicants must complete all requirements for their PhD, including a successful defense, prior to start date. The initial appointment is for 1 year; however, the appointment may be renewed for an additional year contingent upon available funding and satisfactory performance.

        This position is located in Charlottesville, VA.

Read on here.

-- Karen Tani

Tuesday, February 6, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson to Deliver UNLV Pro Lecture

 [We have the following announcement.  DRE]

The William S. Boyd School of Law and UNLV Department of History presents the 19th Annual Pro Lecture in Legal History, Thursday, March 21, 2024, 6:00 PM - 7:00 PM.  In-Person and Virtual

Heather Cox Richardson, historian and author of Democracy Awakening: Notes on the State of America, will be joined by Michael Green, PhD, Professor and Chair of the UNLV History Department, for a fireside chat to discuss her book and explains how America, once a beacon of democracy, now teeters in the brink of autocracy--and how we can turn back. During this vital narrative Cox will answer such questions as "What is the current state of our democracy?" "How did we get here?" And "what we can do to take our country back?"

[In-person attendance is limited only to “special guests and UNLV students, faculty and staff,” and pre-registration is required, with a UNLV email.]   (Non-UNLV email registrations will be cancelled.) Should the event reach capacity then please join us via ZOOM (virtual registration information is below)

Register here for in-person, which will end at 12 p.m. on March 21 or when seating capacity is reached.  Walk-in registration not permitted.  

Non-UNLV community members and those not available to participate in-person can join us via ZOOM.  Register here for virtual access.

Monday, February 5, 2024

AJLH 63:3 "Histories of Executive Power"

American Journal of Legal History 63:3 is a special issue, “Histories of Executive Power.”  As AJLH editor Yvonne Pitts explains in her introduction:

Unprecedented contemporary debates over the scope of executive power brings new urgency to the histories of drafting and early implementation of the U.S. Constitution’s Article II, which defined “Executive Department.” Multidisciplinary historical scholarship has had and continues to have profound implications for constitutional jurisprudence today, becoming integral to federal appellate court briefs, and peppered through the notes of recent Supreme Court decisions. This special issue results from a collaboration between the American Journal of Legal History and the Stanford University Constitutional Law Center’s 2022 Spring Conference, The History of Executive Power. The conference brought together scholars from different disciplinary, ideological, and historical perspectives to discuss, synthesize, dig deeper into the past, and move forward toward developing empirical and interpretive methods toward a rigorously grounded, historicized constitutionalism.

One of the contributors, Christopher Walker, has posted the abstracts for all the articles on Notice and Comment.  Below is the TOC:

Yvonne Pitts

Three Modalities of (Originalist) Fiduciary Constitutionalism
Ethan J. Leib

The Path of the Prerogatives
John Mikhail

The Early Years of Congress’s Anti-Removal Power
Aaron L. Nielson and Christopher J. Walker

Removal and the Changing Debate over Executive Power at the Founding
Jonathan Gienapp

Alexander Hamilton on Executive Authority
Ilan Wurman

Movement on Removal: An Emerging Consensus about The First Congress and Presidential Power
Jed H. Shugerman

--Dan Ernst

Saturday, February 3, 2024

Weekend Roundup

  • Via the New Books Network, an interview with Robert Post (Yale Law School) on The Taft Court (10): Making Law for a Divided Nation, 1921-1930.
  • John Q. Barrett, St. Johns Law, delivered “Nuremberg Laws and Nuremberg Trials: Abuses and Uses, and Hopes, Regarding the Rule of Law,” at Touro Law Center's commemoration of International Holocaust Remembrance Day (YouTube).
  • Owen Fiss, Yale Law School, discusses his book, Why We Vote, including "his work with the DOJ in southern states and his time as a clerk for then-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall (then on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York) and then-Justice William J. Brennan Jr." on the ABAJ's Modern Law Library Podcast.
  • William A. Harris, Director of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum, will discuss the Library’s special exhibit, “Black Americans, Civil Rights, and the Roosevelts, 1932-1962" in an event live-streamed on the White House Historical Association's Facebook page starting at 5:30 pm ET on Tuesday, February 6  (More).
  • Katherine Hobbs on Wilkie Collins, "The Sensation Novelist Who Exposed the Plight of Victorian Women" (Smithsonian).
  • A thread on a recent dispute between historians of political thought and of international law by Daragh Grant.  H/t: Christian Burset, who notes that, while it focuses "most immediately on the tension between legal and intellectual historians from Cambridge," it has broader implications for how these disciplines relate to each other." 
  • Did you know of the interactive websites of Leigh Bienen, Northwestern University, on Chicago history, including homicides and Florence Kelly?  (Infodocket)
  • ICYMI, Trump v. Anderson Edition.  Harvard Magazine on the Professors Blight, Faust and Lepore's amicus brief.  Blight and Lepore discuss the case with NPR's Steve Inskeep (NPR).  The National Constitution Center on Congress and the disqualification of Victor Berger under the 14th Amendment (NCC).  Scalia, J., thought Presidents were "officers of the United States" (Lawfare). Lawrence O'Donnell on the historians' brief (MSNBC).  Sean Wilentz on the Case for Disqualification (NYRB).

 Weekend Roundup is a weekly feature compiled by all the Legal History bloggers.


Friday, February 2, 2024

Gibson, "Witchcraft: A History in Thirteen Trials"

Scribner has published Witchcraft: A History in Thirteen Trials (2023), by Marion Gibson (University of Exeter, UK). A description from the Press:

A fascinating, vivid global history of witch trials across Europe, Africa, and the Americas, told through thirteen distinct trials that illuminate the pattern of demonization and conspiratorial thinking that has profoundly shaped human history.

Witchcraft is a dramatic journey through thirteen witch trials across history, some famous—like the Salem witch trials—and some lesser-known: on Vardø island, Norway, in the 1620s, where an indigenous Sami woman was accused of murder; in France in 1731, during the country’s last witch trial, where a young woman was pitted against her confessor and cult leader; in Pennsylvania in 1929 where a magical healer was labelled a “witch”; in Lesotho in 1948, where British colonial authorities executed local leaders. Exploring how witchcraft became feared, decriminalized, reimagined, and eventually reframed as gendered persecution, Witchcraft takes on the intersections between gender and power, indigenous spirituality and colonial rule, and political conspiracy and individual resistance.

Offering a striking, dramatic story, unspooling through centuries, about the men and women who were accused—some of whom survived their trials, and some who did not—Witchcraft empowers the people who were and are victimized and marginalized, giving a voice to those who were silenced by history.

An interview with the author is available here, at New Books Network.

-- Karen Tani

Thursday, February 1, 2024

Collins's "Tragedy on Trial"

Ronald K. L. Collins has published Tragedy on Trial: The Story of the Infamous Emmett Till Murder Trial (Carolina Academic Press):

Tragedy on Trial reveals as never before the entire and shocking story of the 1955 trial of Emmett Till's murderers. Based on extensive research, and accompanied by photos of the trial and a “For the Record” Introduction by Lonnie G. Bunch, III (Secretary of the Smithsonian), the brisk narrative brings the story alive, revealing all its manipulations of justice, including:
  • the sheriff who from beginning to end put the fix in for the defendants;
  • the ethically conflicted county attorney who selected the jurors;
  • the successful scheme to never charge the guilty defendants with kidnapping;
  • the defense lawyers who corruptly built their case on racism of the cruelest kind;
  • the White woman who falsely accused Emmett Till, inflaming an already bigoted all-White male jury;
  • the Black witnesses for the defense who were rounded up and secretly jailed in distant jurisdictions;
  • the defense's medical “experts” who were not experts; and
  • the defense's closing arguments (never recorded but now reconstructed) directed to “every Anglo-Saxon” member of the jury.
Ronald Collins offers an original and in-depth account that highlights the fearless efforts of Mamie Till and the courageous friends and family who testified. Collins also uncovers the truth behind the widely read 1956 Look magazine story, correcting falsehoods that persist to this day.

--Dan Ernst

An AHA Congressional Briefing on International Sanctions

[We have the following announcement.  DRE.]

The American Historical Association invites you to attend a Congressional Briefing offering historical perspectives on the role and impact of sanctions as an instrument of international relations. The briefing will take place on Tuesday, February 6 at 9:00 a.m. ET in Rayburn House Office Building Room 2044.

Panelists Benjamin Coates (Wake Forest Univ.), Bruce Jentleson (Duke Univ.), and Nancy Mitchell (North Carolina State Univ.) will provide historical context on sanctions. Dane Kennedy (George Washington Univ.) will serve as moderator.

The event is open to the public; a breakfast spread and coffee will be served. If you have any questions, please email

The AHA’s Congressional Briefings series seeks to provide Congressional staff members, journalists, and other members of the policy community with the historical context essential to understanding contemporary issues. The sessions are strictly nonpartisan and avoid advancing particular policy prescriptions or legislative agendas. Recordings of recent briefings on historical perspectives on immigration, US-China relations, artificial intelligence, and the history of housing policy are available online.

Wednesday, January 31, 2024

Another Historians' Brief in Trump v. Anderson (Now with Graber's)

[We're updating and moving this post up because Professor Graber's brief is now available.  DRE.]

Another group of eminent historians have filed an amicus brief in Trump v. Anderson: Jill Lepore, David Blight, Drew Gilpin Faust, and John Fabian Witt

Update: Here is the Harvard Crimson on the Professors Faust and Lepore's participation on the brief. 

Update: Mark Graber's brief is here.

Dan Ernst

Arvind and Burset on Camden and Mansfield

T. T. Arvind, York Law School, and Christian R. Burset, Notre Dame Law School, have posted Partisan Legal Traditions in the Age of Camden and Mansfield, which is forthcoming in the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies:

Lord Camden (LC)
The eighteenth century is often treated by scholars as a period of juristic consensus. This article argues, in contrast, that the late eighteenth century saw the emergence of rival ‘Patriot’ and ‘Tory’ legal traditions. Through a detailed study of the jurisprudence of Lords Camden and Mansfield—who were both pillars of the law, as well as political and juristic rivals—we show that they differed systematically in their understanding of the common law. Those differences had a partisan cast: although they were not crude attempts to instrumentalise law to political ends, their political and jurisprudential commitments influenced each other and emerged from the same intellectual roots. We place these differences in the context of the fragmentation of eighteenth-century Whig politics, and argue that they have important implications for how we understand and use the common-law tradition today.
--Dan Ernst

Monday, January 29, 2024

ICH Seminar: The Presidency and the Constitution

The New-York Historical Society’s Bonnie and Richard Reiss Graduate Institute for Constitutional History Seminar, which is not to be confused with the Institute for Constitutional Studies, directed by Mavea Marcus at GW Law, has announced its Spring 2024 seminar for advanced graduate students and junior faculty.  DRE]

The Presidency and the Constitution: Historical Case Studies and Contemporary Questions

Presented in person at the New-York Historical Society and via Zoom.*  Fridays, May 3, 10, 31 and June 14, 2024 | 2–5 pm ET.  The Instructors are Corey Brettschneider and Kate Shaw.  Apply by March 29, 2024:

Scholars have renewed their focus on threats to democracy and, specifically, the ways the American presidency holds the potential to undo many of the legal norms fundamental to self-government. In this series of seminars, Corey Brettschneider and Kate Shaw lead an inquiry into four past case studies—including the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Tenure of Office Act and Andrew Johnson’s presidency, Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s interactions with the Federal Communications Commission and use of radio to directly message the American people, and the constitutional vulnerabilities to a criminally-minded president through the lens of the Richard Nixon presidency—with an aim towards thinking about the systemic vulnerability of the American Constitution generally, and the executive branch specifically, to democratic decay and collapse.

*Although we encourage students to attend the class in person, livestream participation will be offered to admitted students who do not live in the New York metropolitan area or who are unable to attend a class in person. If you are interested in attending some or all of the class sessions virtually, please indicate this in your application statement.    

More information here

[Of course I'm intrigued by the reference to FDR and the FCC.  DRE.]

Saturday, January 27, 2024

Historians Brief in Trump v. Anderson

The historians' amicus brief in Trump v. Anderson, an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court from the Colorado Supreme Court's exclusion of Donald J. Trump from the state's primary presidential ballot, is here.  Signers include James McPherson, Nell Painter, Vernon Burton, Manisha Sinha, Steve Hahn, and Thomas Holt.  H/t to another signer, Adam Domby.

--Dan Ernst

Weekend Roundup

  • Jill Lepore reviews Robert Post's The Taft Court: Making Law for a Divided Nation, 1921-1930 (New Yorker).  YLS's notice of the book is here.
  • Jonathan Entin, Case Western Reserve University, on The Surprising History of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (Governing).
  • Allen Levine on Samuel Leibowitz, who "earned a national reputation defending everyone from Al Capone to the Scottsboro Boys, he represented small-time crooks like ‘Izzy the Goniff’ and used his knowledge of gefilte fish to win a client’s acquittal" (Tablet). 
  • The American Historical Association has issued a CFP for its 138th annual meeting to be held in New York City, January 3–6, 2025.
  • "Civic Stories: Students of the Civil Rights Movement," a student-oriented video of the National Constitution Center (YouTube).

Weekend Roundup is a weekly feature compiled by all the Legal History bloggers.

Friday, January 26, 2024

Landmark Cases on Punitive Damages

Landmark Cases in the Law of Punitive Damages, edited by James Goudkam, University of Oxford, and Eleni Katsampouka, Kings College, London, has been published by Hart/Bloomsbury.

Punitive damages are private law's most controversial remedy. This book traces the development of the jurisdiction from the foundational decisions of Huckle v Money and Wilkes v Wood in England, to leading modern cases such as Harris v Digital Pulse Pty Ltd in Australia, Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co in Canada, Couch v AG (No 2) in New Zealand, PH Hydraulics and Engineering Pte Ltd v Airtrust (Hong Kong) Ltd in Singapore and Mathias v Accor Economy Lodging, Inc and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co v Campbell in the United States. Many of the decisions addressed are not only landmarks regarding punitive damages but are among the most important judgments delivered in private law more generally.

The essays, which are written by leading scholars from a wide range of jurisdictions, cast new light on the cases covered. They do so by examining their historical antecedents and the impact that they have had on the development of the law. The full spectrum of issues regarding punitive damages is addressed including the insurability of punishment, constitutional constraints on the remedy's availability and whether the award should be confined to particular causes of action. The collection will be of interest to all scholars and students of private law. It concentrates on common law cases although civilian perspectives, drawn from France and Germany, are also offered.

Discount Price: £96.  Order online at & use the code GLR AQ7 to get 20% off!

--Dan Ernst.  Table of Contents after the jump.

Postdoc on Local Law under Rome

 [We have the following announcement.  DRE]

The [European Research Council] project Local Law under Rome is offering a number of Postdoctoral fellowships at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem beginning October 2024, or as soon as possible thereafter. Scholars who have received their Ph.D. after October 1st 2019 or will submit their Ph.D. no later the beginning of the Postdoctoral period are eligible to apply.

The successful candidate will be a part of a unique interdisciplinary team which will be engaged in comparative study of local legal cultures within their Roman imperial context. Together we seek to enhance the understanding of provincial legalism in its multiple manifestations.  

We are seeking experts in one (or more) of the following legal traditions, who are committed to a contextual and historical analysis of legal materials: (1) Early rabbinic law (2) Legal papyrology (3) Roman law in the provinces, or (4) Greek law. We also welcome applications by scholars of (5) Anthropology of Law who are interested in these materials.

The appointed fellow is expected to work closely with other team members. S/he will participate in the project’s ongoing activities and is expected to contribute to its collaborative outputs, produce project-related publications and provide materials for the comparative database.    

The scholarship will be granted for a maximum of 3 years. (subject to review at the end of each year). The fellow will receive a monthly stipend of approximately 11,000 NIS. Additional funding for travel will be available following approval. The fellow will have an office at the Mount Scopus Campus in Jerusalem and is expected to be present there regularly. Knowledge of Hebrew is not required.

Please submit the following documents (in one PDF file) to the e-mail address below:

  • Introduction
  • Letter describing your academic experience and motivation for participating in the project (2-3 pages)
  • Curriculum vitae
  • Abstract of the PhD dissertation
  • Writing Sample: dissertation chapter or a paper that has been published or accepted for publication (no more than 30 pages)

In addition, please arrange for two Reference Letters to be sent directly.

We encourage potential applicants to contact us for additional information on the project, the
application procedure, The Hebrew University and life in Jerusalem.  Applications will be Reviewed beginning March 15, 2024.

Prof. Yair Furstenberg, Talmud Department, Mandel Institute for Jewish Studies, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel.

Thursday, January 25, 2024

"Women, Their Lives, and the Law"

Women, Their Lives, and the Law: Essays in Honour of Rosemary Auchmuty, edited by Victoria Barnes, Nora Honkala, and Sally Wheeler, has been published by Hart/Bloomsbury:

This collection of essays honours Rosemary Auchmuty, Professor of Law at the University of Reading, UK. She has fostered the study of women's academic careers and, more politically, advanced progress on gender and equality issues including same-sex marriage and property law. Her research promotes the case of feminist legal history as a way of revealing the place of women and challenging dominant historical narratives that cast them aside.

Just as Rosemary's work does, the book seeks to end the marginalisation and exclusion of women in the legal world, by including them. The book begins fittingly with a discussion of Miss Bebb, the woman whose biography Auchmuty deployed to push feminist legal history into the mainstream. It turns then to a discussion of women known and unknown and their struggles within the legal profession offering within those chapters a critical appraisal of the role of history and biography as a methodology. From there it moves to consider feminist perspectives and critiques of the dominant structures of private law. This is followed by chapters that explore those who educate the legal profession within the academy. The chapters, and the collection as a whole, examine areas of law that have a deep significance for women's lives.

--Dan Ernst.  TOC after the jump.

Wednesday, January 24, 2024

BU's Clark Legal History Series

[We have the schedule for the Elizabeth Battelle Clark Legal History Series at the Boston University Law School.  For further information, contact Professor Jed Shugerman (  DRE]

All talks are on Thursdays, 4:20–6:20pm, in room 410, unless otherwise indicated.

Thursday, January 18
Kevin Arlyck, Georgetown Law, “The Nation at Sea: The Federal Courts and American Sovereignty, 1789-1825”

Thursday, February 1
Ashraf Ahmed, Columbia Law, & Noah Rosenblum, NYU Law, “Building Presidential Administration”

Thursday, February 8
Annette Gordon-Reed, Harvard Law, & Peter Onuf, UVA History

Thursday, February 15
Aziz Rana, BC Law, “The Constitutional Bind: How Americans Came to Idolize a Document That Fails Them”

Thursday, February 29
Jilene Chua, BU History, “Birthright Citizenship in the Empire: Chinese-Filipino Intimacies and Race-making in US Colonial Philippines, 1912-1947.”

Thursday, March 7
Anna Lvovsky, Harvard Law, “Vice Patrol: Cops, Courts, and the Struggle Over Urban Gay Life Before Stonewall”

Thursday, March 21
Malick Ghachem, MIT History

Thursday, March 28, 4:20–5:20pm
Robert Tsai, BU Law, with guest and biography subject Steve Bright, Southern Center for Human Rights, “Demand the Impossible: One Lawyer’s Pursuit of Equal Justice for All”

Thursday, April 4
Ryan Williams, BC Law, “Historical Fact”

Thursday, April 11
Matthew Boutros, BU Law 3L, & Jed Shugerman, BU Law, on Federal War-Time Prosecutions Based on “Implied” presidential powers and “the law of nations” – without any federal statutes, 1790s

Tuesday, April 16, 5:00pm (special Tuesday history department lecture in the History Department, not the law school)
Reva Siegel, Yale Law School, on Rahimi, the Second Amendment, Domestic Violence, and “Originalism” after Bruen

ABF/NU Legal History Colloquium

[We have the following announcement of the American Bar Foundation/Northwestern University (ABF/NU) Legal History Colloquium.  The links to the papers are password protected and will circulate only to those who plan to attend.  DRE.]

The ABF/NU Legal History Colloquium will be held periodically on Wednesday evenings (see dates below) from 4:30 – 5:30 pm at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, Room 339 of the Rubloff Building (the corner of Chicago Avenue and Lake Shore Drive).

January 24 – Gautham Rao (American University – Department of History)
The Slave Trade Manifest: A Legal History

January 31 – Luis Fuentes-Rohwer (Indiana University – Maurer School of Law)

February 14 – Kate Masur (Northwestern University – Department of History)

February 21 – Sara Mayeux (Vanderbilt University – Law School)

March 6 – Mitra Sharafi (University of Wisconsin-Madison – Law School)

March 13 – Kristin Collins (University of Michigan – Law School)

April 3 – Jonathan Levy (University of Chicago – Department of History)

April 10 – Myisha S. Eatmon (Harvard University – Department of History)

Tuesday, January 23, 2024

Cognitive Legal Humanities

Critical Analysis of Law 10: 1 (2023) is a special issue, Cognitive Legal Humanities:

Whereas cognitive legal studies has attracted a considerable amount of attention from law professors over the past few decades, Cognitive Legal Humanities (CLH) is only starting to gain traction. CLH brings together work in the cognitive sciences, the humanities, and law, focusing not so much on the prescriptive concerns that often animate research in cognitive legal studies, but on ways of enriching that vein of work—and legal scholarship more generally—by bringing the methods and materials of the humanities to bear on questions involving intention, consciousness, perception, memory, reasoning, attention, and emotion in relation to legal issues.
Maksymilian Del Mar and Simon Stern's introduction to the special issues is here.

Monday, January 22, 2024

Legal History at AALS

I'm afraid I didn't attend the Legal History sessions at the Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools earlier this month, but here, from the program, are two sessions sponsored by the Legal History Section (in the latter case, jointly with other sections).

Legal History of Capitalism.  The legal history of capitalism has entered a new phase, following the rise of the new history of capitalism. Its focus on the evolution of the law creating, governing, and enabling the institutions of a market economy, indeed, including its very existence, has energized a new generation of legal historians. This session will attend to the work of young scholars, voices that have uncovered heretofore unseen aspects of the history of capitalism. Legal history is by its nature interdisciplinary, it discusses the sophisticated work of legal historians outside of the legal academy, the better to build intellectual and institutional bridges.

Session Speakers: Kevin R. Organization: Michigan State University College of Law; Gregory A. Mark, DePaul University College of Law (Moderator); Nadav Orian Peer, University of Colorado Law School; Sarah Winsberg, Brooklyn Law School.

The Uses and Misuses of History: The Roberts Court and Its Constitutional Revolution.  The Roberts Court has embarked on a constitutional revolution using history to legitimate its authority. Sometimes the Courts conservative majority employs originalism, sometimes it invokes tradition, and sometimes it ignores originalism and tradition altogether. Critics charge that many of the Court's decisions are undermining democracy and civil rights, while supporters argue that the Court is restoring the Framers' Constitution. This program will discuss how lawyers, scholars, and judges use and misuse history. Our starting points will be Jack Balkin’s Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (2024) and Jonathan Gienapp’s Against Constitutional Originalism: A Historical Critique (2024).

 --Dan Ernst

Saturday, January 20, 2024

Weekend Roundup

  • The National Fellowship Program in US Politics at UVA’s Jefferson Scholars Foundation has extended its application deadline to February 1. More info here
  • A notice of "Miranda’s Victim," a film directed by Michelle Danner on Patricia Weir’s violent sexual assault by Ernesto Miranda in 1963 (Cineaholic).
  • "Unearthing Injustice: Carlisle Indian Industrial School and The Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska’s Fight for NAGPRA Repatriation," a blog post of the Native American Rights Fund.
  • Ronald Collins will discuss his new book, Tragedy on Trial: The Story of the Infamous Emmett Till Murder Trial at Politics & Prose in Washington, DC, on March 17.
  • ICYMI: A review of Covered with Night: A Story of Murder and Indigenous Justice in Early America (Liveright, 2022) (New York Alamanck).  The National Law Journal explains How to Effectively Leverage Your Firm History in Your Law Firm Marketing Materials.

Weekend Roundup is a weekly feature compiled by all the Legal History bloggers.

Friday, January 19, 2024

Transformation of Consumer Law and Policy in Europe

The Transformation of Consumer Law and Policy in Europe, ed. Hans-W Micklitz and , Christian Twigg-Flesner (Hart/Bloomsbury) has been published:

This book analyses the transformation of consumer law and policy in Europe from 4 perspectives: first, the temporal transformation, i.e., changes that can be tracked from the turn of the millennium; secondly, the substantive dimension, i.e., changes in the scope of the rights and remedies provided by consumer law, as well as the underpinning values; thirdly, the institutional dimension, i.e., changes in the role of national courts, national Parliaments, consumer agencies, and consumer organisations; and fourth, the procedural element, i.e., the shift from individual enforcement via courts to enforcement by public regulators, consumer associations, alternative dispute resolution, and the development of collective enforcement exercised by consumer agencies and/or consumer organisations.

With contributions by leading consumer law scholars from across Europe, this book is a fascinating account of how consumer law has often been shaped by national as much as European interests.

--Dan Ernst.  TOC after the jump 

Bamzai on the APA's Interpretive Foundations

Aditya Bamzai, University of Virginia School of Law, has posted On the Interpretive Foundations of the Administrative Procedure Act, which is forthcoming in the George Mason Law Review:

The Administrative Procedure Act’s standard-of-review provision instructs reviewing courts to “decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action,” and to set aside agency action “not in accordance with law.” How the APA’s statutory text might fit with the concept that courts should “defer” to agency legal interpretations is the subject of significant debate. Moreover, because deriving the meaning of the APA requires understanding the shifting law of the 1940s Supreme Court, the question is a conceptually and theoretically important one. This Essay seeks to understand the APA’s standard-of-review provision from the perspective of those who wrote it—by assessing the statute’s antecedents, text, structure, and legislative history, along with the other steps that Congress took during the 1940s to establish a standard-of-review in related areas.
--Dan Ernst

Thursday, January 18, 2024

Berger-Howe Legal History Fellowship

[We have the following announcement.  DRE]

Harvard Law School invites applications for the Raoul Berger-Mark De Wolfe Howe Fellowship for the  academic year 2024-2025.  Eligible applicants include those who have a first law degree, who have completed the required coursework for a doctorate, or who have recently been awarded a doctoral degree.  A J.D. is preferred, but not required.  The purpose of the fellowship, which is awarded annually, is to enable the fellow to complete a major piece of writing in the field of legal history, broadly defined, as the fellow seeks to begin or establish an academic career in legal history.  There are no limitations as to geographical area or time period. With occasional exceptions, previous fellows have gone on to pursue faculty appointments or other fellowships in American universities, primarily on law faculties.

Fellows are expected to spend the majority of their time on their own research. They also help coordinate the Harvard Law School Legal History Workshop.  Fellows will be required to be in residence at the law school during the academic year (September through May).

Applicants for the fellowship for 2024-2025 should submit their applications and supporting materials electronically to Professor Bruce H. Mann (

Each interested applicant should submit:

  • a detailed (five pages maximum) description of the proposed project,
  • a writing sample,
  • a comprehensive résumé or curriculum vitae that gives the applicant’s educational background, publications, works in progress, and other relevant experience,
  • two academic letters of reference, which may be submitted electronically by the recommenders to Professor Mann at the above email address, and
  •  copies of official transcripts of all academic work done at the graduate level, which may be sent by regular mail to Professor Mann at Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138.

The deadline for applications is January 26, 2024.  Announcement of the award will be made by February 29, 2025.  The fellow will receive a stipend of $60,000.

Harvard Law School selects individuals for fellowships without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability status, protected veteran status, gender identity, sexual orientation, pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions, or any other characteristic protected by law.

Links to additional information may be found here.