Skip to main content

LII Director Bruce teams with Carl Malamud for podcast

On May 1, LII Director Tom Bruce and open-access advocate Carl Malamud of public.resource.org were featured on the popular practitioner’s podcast Lawyer2Lawyer. Also included in the podcast, but recorded separately, was Andy Martens, Senior Vice President of New Product Development for Thomson West. No doubt the discussion was less lively than it might have been had all three been present simultaneously, but it’s still a good run through the issues. Tom also said that “it was good fun trying to talk faster than Carl”. We’re grateful to L2L hosts Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams (pictured) for the opportunity to appear on the show.

You can listen to the podcast here (also available in WMA format)

Readings in Legal Information, pt. 6

An interesting topic about which little has been said: information-seeking behavior by lawyers. We all know it’s different, both in its drive for a comprehensiveness (as opposed to simple utility), and in the ways in which it serves advocacy. But there hasn’t been very much research on how, exactly, that works — or on how lawyer information-seeking practices differ from those of information seekers in other fields (actually, we might back away from that claim a little — this area is ripe for a literature review that we have not had time to do).

Much of the little that is out there describes a transition from printed books to online research, something that now looks a bit dated. But there are a exceptions to that, good starting points all:

Advisory opinion:definition of the day

An advisory opinion is a sort of judicial “dry run” — the court states a non-binding opinion on a legal question submitted by a legislature or government official without the filing of a case. See, e.g., the advisory opinion of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on civil unions.

81 years ago today

On May 2, 1927, the US Supreme Court ruled in Buck v. Bell that a Virgnia statute allowing the compulsory sterilization of the so-called feeble minded did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The effect of Buck v. Bell was to legitimize eugenic sterilization laws in the United States as a whole, leading to the forcible sterilization of more than 50,000 people. Buck v. Bell was never overturned by the Supreme Court, but, in 1942 (in the aftermath of WWII), the Supreme Court ruled in Skinner v. Oklahoma that compulsory sterilization could not be sentenced as a punishment for a crime and the practice gradually fell out of use. You can read the whole sad story at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell.

Readings in Legal Information, pt. 5


Marc Galanter’s Why the Haves Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change is one of the most-cited law review articles of all time, and we’ve quoted from it here before. It discusses the advantages that accrue to repeat players in our legal system. For legal information junkies, it’s interesting to note how many of those advantages are information-based — that is, rooted in one party having access to information that the other one doesn’t.

Toddling Title 6 now sports three chapters!

You might wonder why we feel it’s important to announce the appearance of new material in the US Code — after all, it happens all the time. But the birth of a whole new Title is a special event — and the short title of still-toddling Title 6 is “Domestic Security”. Thus the announcement: in the annual cycle of US Code updates, Title 6–DOMESTIC SECURITY was refreshed February 27, and it went up to three chapters from its original one.

That’s right — Domestic Security started its life in the US Code as a single chapter. This is very unusual. US Code titles “always” have at least three chapters (see, e.g.. the tiny, nearly invisible Title 9). But with Title 6, we are witnessing the start of a new title, complete with a single-chapter phase. The process started, in this case, with Public Law 107-296, the “Homeland Security Act of 2002“. The first codified version was distributed in January of 2004.

This isn’t the first Title 6 we’ve ever had. A prior Title 6, Surety Bonds, was enacted July 30, 1947, and was repealed Sept. 13, 1982. It had fifteen sections, whose content was either repealed or reclassified to other parts of the code. You may read the details of this in an often neglected part of the US Code, the notes.

One reason the notes are neglected is that they can become necessarily bulky and intimidating over the years, as they faithfully record many and complex changes. But with the new Title 6, we have a chance to see each transition happening for the first time, including the notes when they are fresh and still simple!

Next friend:definition of the day

Someone who appears in court in place of another who is not competent to do so, usually because they are a minor or are considered incompetent. Often the role is filled by a parent or other relative; it can be any legally-competent person whose interests do not run counter to those of the person on whose behalf they are acting . The “next friend” is not a party to the proceeding, nor are they a formally-appointed guardian. Instead, they are considered an agent of the court whose role is to protect the rights of the incompetent person. See also guardian ad litem.

Coming in for a landing


In the specialized language of Google Analytics, a “landing page” is one where users enter your web site directly — that is, either from a bookmark or a link from another site, rather than by referral from another page on your site. They’re interesting to us because they give us a good feel for what our audience feels is worth looking at or recommending to others. From that vantage point, the top 5 Supreme Court cases at the LII are: