Share

Ipse Dixit

A Podcast on Legal Scholarship

Ipse Dixit is a podcast on legal scholarship. Each episode of Ipse Dixit features a different guest discussing their scholarship. The podcast also features several special series."From the Archives" consists historical r... More
Latest Episode
2020-1-18

Alan Mygatt-Tauber on the Extraterritorial Fourth Amendment

Season 1, Ep. 465

In this episode, Alan Mygatt-Tauber, Adjunct Professor at Virginia Commonwealth University and Assistant Counsel at the Naval Facilities

Engineering Command, Northwest, discusses his article "Rethinking the Reasoning of Verdugo-Urquidez," which will be published in the Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality. Mygatt-Tauber begins by describing the Supreme Court's holding in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) that the Fourth Amendment applies extraterritorially only if the defendant has a "substantial connection" to the United States. He observes that Verdugo-Urquidez is inconsistent with Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), and that the "substantial connection" rule is unworkable for both judges and law enforcement officers. He argues in favor of an alternative standard based on who is conducting the search, rather than who is being searched. And he reflects on the broader meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Mygatt-Tauber is on Twitter at @AMTAppeals.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

2020-1-18

Alan Mygatt-Tauber on the Extraterritorial Fourth Amendment

Season 1, Ep. 465

In this episode, Alan Mygatt-Tauber, Adjunct Professor at Virginia Commonwealth University and Assistant Counsel at the Naval Facilities

Engineering Command, Northwest, discusses his article "Rethinking the Reasoning of Verdugo-Urquidez," which will be published in the Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality. Mygatt-Tauber begins by describing the Supreme Court's holding in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) that the Fourth Amendment applies extraterritorially only if the defendant has a "substantial connection" to the United States. He observes that Verdugo-Urquidez is inconsistent with Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), and that the "substantial connection" rule is unworkable for both judges and law enforcement officers. He argues in favor of an alternative standard based on who is conducting the search, rather than who is being searched. And he reflects on the broader meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Mygatt-Tauber is on Twitter at @AMTAppeals.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

2020-1-18

Valena Beety and Jennifer Oliva on Bitemark Evidence

Season 1, Ep. 464

In this episode, Valena Beety (@valenabeetv), Professor of Law at Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, and Jennifer Oliva (@jenndoliva), Associate Professor of Law at Seton Hall University School of Law, discuss their new article, "Regulating Bite Mark Evidence: Lesbian Vampires and Other Myths of Forensic Odontology," forthcoming in the Washington Law Review. Professors Beety and Oliva begin the discussion explaining the serious flaws of junk sciences such as bite mark evidence. They then discuss a trial in which a lesbian couple were convicted of murder based upon flawed bite mark evidence propounded by a dentist who described, during trial, his improper examination of the murder victim, while explaining bite mark evidence as being half art and half science. The pair also explain how such use of junk science runs afoul of established evidentiary standards under Daubert, and why junk science such as bite mark evidence has been allowed to proliferate in criminal cases rather than in the civil sphere. Professors Beety and Oliva also highlight the inequities that arise in the use of bite mark evidence, especially among LGBTQ defendants. They then offer novel extrajudicial solutions in an effort to prevent the use of such faulty "science" in future. The paper is currently available on SSRN.


This episode was hosted by Maybell Romero, Assistant Professor of Law at Northern Illinois University College of Law. Romero is on Twitter at @maybellromero.

2020-1-16

Carolyn Shapiro on Democracy and the Guarantee Clause

Season 1, Ep. 463

In this episode, Carolyn Shapiro, Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States at Chicago-Kent College of Law, discusses her article "Democracy, Federalism, and the Guarantee Clause," which will be published in the Arizona Law Review. Shapiro begins by describing what the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution is and what it was originally intended to accomplish. She surveys the history of the Guarantee Clause and how its salience has waxed and waned over time. She argues that political "spillovers" of extreme partisanship can endanger democracy. And she argues that Congress and other policymakers can and should use the Guarantee Clause as a tool to curb extreme partisanship in the interest of democratic values. Shapiro is on Twitter at @cshaplaw.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

2020-1-14

Simon Tam on Trademark Registration

Season 1, Ep. 462

In this episode, Simon Tam, the founder and bassist for The Slants, an Asian-American dance-rock band, discusses his fight to register his band's name as a trademark with the USPTO, and how he helped changed trademark law. Tam begins by describing the origins and aesthetics of The Slants, including why he chose the band's name. He explains why he filed a trademark registration application, and why he chose to fight the USPTO's denial of his application. And he reflects on why he thinks the Supreme Court (mostly) got it right, when it held in Matal v. Tam (2017) that the Lanham Act's prohibition of the registration of "disparaging" trademarks violated the First Amendment. Tam is on Twitter at @SimonTheTam.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

2020-1-10

Robin Effron on Notice Pleading

Season 1, Ep. 460

In this episode, Robin Effron, Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School, discusses her article "Putting the 'Notice' Back Into Pleading," which will be published in the Cardozo Law Review. Effron begins by explaining what pleading is and what a plaintiff is expected to plead under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in order to survive a motion to dismiss. She describes the origins of what came to be known as "notice pleading" and how it developed over time. She observes that notice pleading effectively conflates notice and factual sufficiency, and argues that we should conceptualize them separately in order to better understand and realize the purpose of our pleading regime. Effron is on Twitter at @binsky18.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

2020-1-9

David Garlock on Re-Entry and Rehabilitation

Season 1, Ep. 459

In this episode, Guy Hamilton-Smith interviews David Garlock, Program Director at New Person Ministries, Co-Chair of the Lancaster County Re-Entry Coalition, and a 2019 JustLeadership Fellow. Garlock talks about his work with helping people convicted of sex offenses transition back into society, his journey in how he came to do that work, his work with Bryan Stevenson, and his role in the new film "Just Mercy." Garlock is on Twitter at @DavidLeegarlock.