Oprah Interview as Truth Commission – Part II: What Counts as Success?

LESLEY WEXLER

In this second of a series of columns, Illinois Law professor Lesley C. Wexler continues analogizing Oprah’s interview with Meghan and Harry to a truth commission and describes some goals against which we might measure the success of a truth commission. Professor Wexler proposes such measures as (1) whether the commission finishes its mandate and widely disseminates its findings, (2) whether it establishes a definitive narrative of the relevant abuses, and (3) whether it serves as catharsis for individual victims. She suggests that although some initial facts on the ground are negative, reform and reconciliation are still possible.

Read More

Supreme Court Rules that Claims of Nazi-Era Expropriation of Jewish Property Are Barred by Germany’s Sovereign Immunity

SAMUEL ESTREICHER, JULIAN KU

NYU Law professor Samuel Estreicher and Hofstra Law professor Julian G. Ku comment on a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, holding that the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars claims based on Nazi-era expropriation of Jewish property. Professors Estreicher and Ku argue that the unanimous decision in that case, Germany v. Philipp reflects a now-solid trend of Roberts Court decisions limiting the reach of U.S. law and jurisdiction to stay within the territory of the United States while also avoiding controversial and unsettled interpretations of international law.

Read More

State ex rel. Grant County Commission v. Honorable Lynn A. Nelson

Docket: 20-0600

Opinion Date: March 23, 2021

Judge: Jenkins

Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition and reversed the order of the circuit court denying the motion filed by the Grant County Commission to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint, holding that the Commission was not a proper defendant to the statutory claims asserted by Plaintiff. In the underlying complaint, Plaintiff sought to recover damages resulting from the termination of her employment. The Commission filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that it was not a proper party because it was neither Plaintiff's employer nor was it a health care entity. The district court denied the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Commission was an improper defendant in this case, and therefore the circuit court committed clear legal error in denying the motion to dismiss; and (2) the circuit court erred by not affording the Commission immunity from Plaintiff's intentional tort claim.