Recognizing the valuable assets that underrepresented identities bring to careers is both important and empowering. This recognition is especially powerful when listening to experiences through the sharing of candid personal stories. Authentic storytelling can lead us to increased self-discovery while reassuring us that we’re not alone on our journeys toward personal and professional growth.

Living and working in a society that continues to struggle with perceiving “otherness” as a weakness, how have you recognized your strengths (or asset capital) in order to navigate and succeed in your career?

by Feb. 26.

Panelists’ Info:
1.
2.
3.
4. Shereen Elgamal
5. 

As one of North Carolina’s most distinguished attorneys of the modern era, Janet Ward Black forged her legal career in personal injury and family law, but the former president of the North Carolina Bar Association is quick to list any number of ways attorneys can improve the lives of other people.

For instance, attorneys:

• Help with adoptions
• Develop real estate
• Patent cures for diseases
• Take corporations public
• Negotiate debt burdens of families with sick children
• Fight unconstitutional laws

Black told 福利亚洲国产精品 School of Law’s new students on Aug. 12, 2016, that the law is a powerful tool when trusted in the hands of dedicated practitioners. “You can change the world because you will understand what laws mean to people,” she said. “It is a sacred trust that you will be able to enjoy.”

And in delivering the Convocation address to the Class of 2018, she shared with students her own mistakes as a law student – not speaking up, not taking trial advocacy, not taking part in law review. “If you want to make yourself more valuable in the economy,” Black said, “you have to learn to be able to speak in public for things you care about.”

Elon Law’s annual Convocation program took place this month in Whitley Auditorium on the university’s main campus where students heard from Black and law school leaders about the opportunities that await them over the next 2.5 years.

Black pointed out that the Elon Law alumni network is something to appreciate.

“If I had gone to Elon Law School and my classmates were scattered around North Carolina, I would immediately have a network of people I knew who I could contact,” she said. “One of the things they didn’t teach me in law school, and that they’ll teach you here, is that 75 percent of you are going to have to go out and get clients. If you don’t have relationships, you won’t have a network that will send clients to you.”

She implored students not to simply work for grades, but to be avid learners in all aspects of life.

“You have to commit to be a lifelong learner,” she said. “Every single day in my practice, I have to learn something different. I have to want to learn every day. And it keeps my practice lively. You’ll also need to commit to being a lifelong teacher. Take the responsibility of being a mentor.”

Black is the principal owner of Ward Black Law, one of the largest woman-owned law firms in North Carolina. The Greensboro firm represents people in accident injury, workers’ compensation, defective products, family law, veterans’ disability and Social Security disability matters.

Black is a graduate of Duke Law School and a cum laude graduate of Davidson College. She served as the third woman president of the North Carolina Association of Trial Lawyers and the fourth woman president of the North Carolina Bar Association. She is only the second lawyer in history to serve as president of both organizations.

The program she created while president of the 16,000-member Bar Association, “4 ALL,” has been used as a model in the United States and Canada for providing free legal services to the poor since 2008. The annual program includes an “Ask a Lawyer” day statewide telethon during which hundreds of North Carolina lawyers provide free legal advice to callers.

Black received the North Carolina State Bar’s Distinguished Service Award in 2009 and Duke Law School’s 2010 Charles S. Murphy Award for public service. Black has been named in North Carolina Super Lawyers, North Carolina’s Legal Elite and The Best Lawyers in America and her firm has been named as one of the Best Law Firms in America by U.S. News & World Report since 2010. She is a member of the Women’s Presidents Organization and C12, Christian CEOs and Business Owners’ Group.

Black was awarded The Order of the Long Leaf Pine in 2016 for her lifelong service to the state of North Carolina.

She ended her formal remarks with encouragement for students to get personally involved in their legal work. “That’s the kind of lawyer you want to be. The one that no matter your status in life, you’re willing to get personally involved. That you become a servant.”

The Convocation program featured additional remarks from 福利亚洲国产精品 Provost Steven House, Elon Law Dean Luke Bierman, and Elon Law Associate Dean Enrique Armijo. House and Armijo described for students the quality of the faculty that will teach them about the law while reminding the class to be active participants in their own learning.

“On behalf of Elon’s faculty, I welcome you to our academic community,” House said. “Our hope for you while at Elon is that will be become independent, self-directed learners … that you’re passion and curiosity will be contagious, and that you will continuously reflect on this great learning adventure.”

Each of the students in the Class of 2018 were introduced during the ceremony, which included document they signed pledging to uphold the 福利亚洲国产精品 School of Law Honor Code and the values of 福利亚洲国产精品: honest, integrity, responsibility and respect.

New students also received the university’s traditional gift of an acorn to symbolize the beginning of their Elon education. Elon is the Hebrew word for “oak.”

Bierman concluded the program with his own call to action – nothing, he said, frustrates him more than seeing students miss opportunities – and he reminded the Class of 2018 that Elon Law is “the preeminent law school for engaged and experiential education in the law.”

The law is a noble profession of which he is proud to be a part.

“What we do is clean up messes. We prevent messes. We make things work,” Bierman said. “We accomplish things. And we help other people accomplish things.”

Ten years ago, on the morning of Aug. 10, 2006, a group of students walked through the doors of what was once the main branch of the Greensboro Public Library to begin their legal studies as the inaugural class of the 福利亚洲国产精品 School of Law.

Elon Law was a pioneer in legal education then as the 115 students started class in the fully remodeled building. And it’s a pioneer now, Elon Law leaders said this week, having redesigned its original curriculum to give today’s students an even deeper experiential legal education – in less time, and at better value – unlike any other law school in the United States.

“It is not inconsequential to think about what we have accomplished,”  Elon Law Dean Luke Bierman told this year’s incoming students on Wednesday at an anniversary breakfast celebration, exactly one decade to the day since that first class made Elon Law history. “We are the law school with a difference, and we are proud of that. We think that is essential for your education, for your preparation, for our role in the community.”

National accolades since 2006 include:

2012: The National Jurist named Elon Law one of “America’s 20 most innovative law schools”
2013: Elon Law’s leadership program won the American Bar Association’s E. Smythe Gambrell Award, the top national award for excellence in legal professionalism education
2013: Elon Law was featured for “getting serious about business skills” by the National Law Journal
2015: The National Jurist named Elon to its honor roll of best law schools for practical training
2015: U.S. News & World Report features Elon Law’s new curriculum as one of the most far-reaching innovations in legal education.
2016: U.S. News & World Report features Elon Law as a “pioneer” in legal education
2016: preLaw magazine names Elon Law among “best schools for practical training”

The law school has welcomed over the ensuing years several of the nation’s leading intellectual and legal minds, including retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who visited Elon Law for its dedication in September 2006.

Some of the many other notable visitors to Elon Law include:

• Cory Booker: U.S. senator and former mayor of Newark, N.J.
• Harold Ford, Jr.: Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, former member of Congress
• Anthony Foxx: U.S. Secretary of Transportation and former mayor of Charlotte, N.C.
• Jennifer Granholm: former Michigan governor
• Jim Hunt: former North Carolina governor
• Adam Liptak: Supreme Court correspondent for The New York Times
• David McCullough: Pulitzer Prize-winning author and historian
• Bonnie McElveen-Hunter: Former United States ambassador to Finland
• Jeffrey Toobin: CNN legal analyst, journalist, author
• Nina Totenberg: National Public Radio legal affairs correspondent
• Aldona Wos: Former United States ambassador to Estonia

Elon Law has most recently gained national attention for its redesigned approach to legal education. The Princeton Review and the National Jurist have both showcased the law school over the past year for a curriculum focused on experiential learning in 2.5 years at greater value to students.

Anchored by full-time residencies-in-practice during the second year of study, Elon Law pairs students with attorney mentors, and it requires them to take part in lab simulations led by attorneys, bridge-to-practice courses, and leadership courses. Students have opportunities to gain a richer understanding of the law through additional work in legal clinics, clerkships, and moot court and mock trial programs.

“Our emphasis on lawyering, learning, and leadership are the things we are known for,” Bierman said. “We believe that we are No. 1 for engaged education. That is important for how you will become a lawyer, and it is important for how we build this institution. Thank you for being a part of that.”

Bierman recognized many of the people instrumental to the law school’s creation, including 福利亚洲国产精品 President Leo M. Lambert, Provost and Executive Vice President Steven House, and former Provost and Executive Vice President Gerry Francis. Bierman expressed gratitude to former deans Leary Davis and George Johnson for establishing the law school’s earliest traditions of excellence.

Also vital to Elon Law’s early success is an active and influential advisory board, chaired by CNN analyst David Gergen, a former advisor to four American presidents. Three former chief justices of the North Carolina Supreme Court continue to serve on the Elon Law Advisory Board, as does a former president of the American Bar Association, among other active and interested members of the community.

Financial support from the Bryan Foundation, led by former Greensboro Mayor Jim Melvin, and Bobby Long, a North Carolina entrepreneur and philanthropist, also made Elon Law possible.

The breakfast featured remarks by Professor Catherine Ross Dunham, a founding faculty member and an expert in the law related to civil procedure and civil litigation. She teaches and writes in the area of federal civil procedure and is co-author of the text “Skills and Values: Civil Procedure.”

Dunham told the gathered students, faculty and staff in the second floor commons area that she can’t help but think that Elon Law is experiencing another beginning. The new curriculum is exciting to those professors and staff who founded the school, as it represents the innovation in legal education that first inspired them to join Elon Law in 2006.

Founding faculty were teachers and law school administrators deeply interested in law school teaching and innovation, she said. They have all been privileged to be a part of “the greatest legal education experiment of our careers.”

But the need for innovation in legal education will never cease as society, technology and the law evolve.

“You walked through those doors right there and you are now burdened with being the new set of innovators,” Dunham said. “We’re looking to you to show us the next changes, and the next wave, and the next progression in legal education, through your work here. … I am extremely proud to be a part of this institution. I salute the first 10 years of Elon Law – and the next 10 years of Elon Law.”

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is perhaps best known for his leadership in the American Civil Rights movment….as a champion for racial equality in this country….as a leader of non-violent civil disobedience. But we sometimes fail to recall that there exists a greater world population who know and revere Dr. King, not because of their personal connection to the struggles with American culture, American laws or American politics, but because his message speaks to the struggles of all humanity, and transcends continent and culture.

Those of us who learned of Dr. King from a foreign perspective know him as an international human rights leader. He spoke against the travesties committed by the South African apartheid government.  He supported land reform for peasants in Latin America despite opposing American policies in Guatemala, Chile and elsewhere.  King encouraged the Latino Movements, and provided support, resources, and public relations to colleagues such as Dolores Huerta and Cesar Chavez.[2]  He often elaborated on the relationship between the civil rights movement here and the struggle for colonial independence abroad.[3] He recognized and spoke about the strong parallel between resistance against European colonialism in Africa and the struggle against racism in the United States.[4] Dr. King was vocal about his opposition to the Vietnam War.[5] He discussed international poverty as a global class issue, and one that Americans must confront globally. 

It is, perhaps, easy to forget that this humble, American-born leader, is honored in cities and countries around the world with monuments and murals, street names and parks. From Germany and France to Israel and Egypt to Japan and South Africa, he is as much of a venerated champion of human rights there, as he is a leader of civil liberties here.[6]

He projected an approach to international relations new to the twentieth century – an approach that was based upon Ghandian non-violence, on human dignity, and on empathy for the people of developing nations.[7] In his famous Riverside Church sermon, he invoked the binding authority of international law through the United Nations Charter on the United States.[8] He placed issues of American economic poverty under an international lens, and emphasized the economic rights that his movement championed as human rights[9] – rights that transcend the borders of this country and resonate deeply with those suffering around the world – rights that are embedded in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

His influence was so much more extensive than we often recognize. At that time in history, during the mid-1960s, the struggle against colonialism, apartheid, and racial inequality coalesced with the conclusion of groundbreaking international human rights treaties. One result was the 1965 .[10] The Convention was the first major international human rights treaty adopted since the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[11] At the time, the United Nations had grown to 115 members, and almost seventy-five percent of those countries were in the developing world.[12] The UN delegates from developing countries were united in their efforts to combat racial injustice. Dr. King’s influence was obvious and born of the shared support among him and those leaders, working to combat the same inequalities and prejudices. [13]

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. insisted that with American power comes a commensurate degree of moral responsibility in the world.  In this regard, America must speak for the overseas poor Dr. King believed that US foreign policy and international relations must stand on moral principles of justice for the vulnerable and defenseless. He demanded that American civil rights law be seen as part of international human rights law, and not separate from the latter. We must remember this, and not confine the lessons of Dr. King to the civil rights struggle of one people in one particular place at one particular time, for he did not intend for his message to be contained. He was clear that his advocacy was for rights that are fundamental to all humans, and that are derived not from state sovereignty, but from the natural law of God.

The struggle for these fundamental rights for which Dr. King so passionately fought continues. The practice of ethnic cleansing endures.[14] Unsafe labor conditions result in the death of thousands of underpaid poorly treated workers every year.[15] Ongoing war relentlessly claims lives on multiple continents. Countries maintain political prison camps and a regular practice of torture.[16]  Draconian laws persecuting gays and lesbians are brutally enforced.[17]  Women are deprived of the right to education.[18] Migrant workers die by the dozens each week.[19] Children and women are sold as commodities.[20] Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day.[21]

We can be sure that if he were here with us today, he would speak out against these travesties. What of his great message, of his tremendous example, do we apply?

Great people emerge in societies around the world. Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Oscar Arias Sanchez, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.  This country’s own Martin Luther King, Jr. will forever be among the greats, a champion of hope, here and across the globe. If we limit the legacy of Dr. King to this country, we shortchange our own ability to appreciate the full worth of one extraordinary American, whose message continues to shape the beliefs of people across the globe.

More information about Elon Law Professor Antonette Barilla is available here.

Elon Law Now is a series of commentary on legal and current affairs by members of the Elon Law faculty.

“App-based on-demand services have emerged as the latest hot business trend. Companies like Uber, Postmates and Taskrabbit enable users to arrange rides, deliveries and other services at a moment’s notice. The business model has brought greater convenience and reduced costs for customers, while attracting enormous infusions of venture capital for the companies. But for the workers who actually perform the services, the picture is less rosy.

“As a (NELP) explains, the success of companies like Uber is attributable in significant part ‘to the efficiency with which they squeeze labor from their workforces, spreading business risks downward to their workers, without whom they cannot succeed but to whom they have no commitment or accountability.’ These companies do so by positioning themselves as intermediaries connecting people in need of services with other people willing to provide those services.

“Disclaiming the legal obligations of employers, the companies insist that the workers are ‘independent contractors’ operating their own micro-businesses. As a result, the workers assume the legal risks and financial costs of doing business, which in a traditional employment relationship would be the employer’s responsibility. Uber drivers, for example, must provide their own vehicles and pay for the maintenance, gas, insurance and various other costs of operation. These expenses put a substantial dent a driver’s income. While Uber touts supposedly typical driver earnings in the $90-100,000 range (figures that have repeatedly been , after accounting for expenses, it is questionable whether Uber drivers really earn more than traditional taxi drivers.

“Workers classified as independent contractors also lack protection under wage and hour, anti-discrimination, workplace safety, workers compensation, unemployment compensation and other employment laws. In consequence, they are exposed to risks and vulnerable to exploitation that such laws are intended to shield against. Independent contractors also lack the protection that federal labor extends to employees who seek to organize and act collectively to enhance their bargaining power in dealing with the employers. Indeed, independent contractors who engage in collective action may face not only retaliation by the companies for which they work, but substantial liability under antitrust law.

“The nature of work in the on-demand economy may also have an adverse impact on workers’ satisfaction and well-being. Jobs consist of discrete ‘gigs’, with workers performing that offer little opportunity for skill enhancement and can fuel alienation (think ). Irregular and unpredictable schedules can prove disruptive and stressful.

“The economic and social costs associated with these problems go unaccounted for in most discussions of the on-demand economy. To rectify the problem, NELP has proposed a set of legal reforms to ensure that on-demand gig workers do not sacrifice basic and essential protections when they enter the on-demand economy. These proposals include:

Extending coverage under certain labor and employment laws regardless of nominal classification of workers as ‘employees’ or ‘contractors’;

Enabling workers to organize and bargain collectively over their terms and conditions of work;

Establishing standards for wages and working conditions in various service sectors;

Protecting workers’ privacy by regulating surveillance and data collection by companies;

Guaranteeing paid sick leave and retirement plans;

Enhancing access to jobs through universal broadband internet service and job-matching services.

“Of course, these proposals would entail costs that would either cut into company revenue or be passed on to consumers. Yet, these costs are not absent from the existing on-demand economy. They are borne by workers, out-of-sight and out-of-mind to the public that enjoys their services and the companies that profit from them. An important goal of the legal system is to allocate the costs of social activity in an efficient and equitable manner. Reforms like those suggested by NELP would help achieve that goal in the on-demand economy.”

More information about Elon Law Professor Eric Fink is available here.

Elon Law Now is a recurring series of legal issues analysis and commentary by members of the faculty at 福利亚洲国产精品 School of Law.

Professor Rich’s commentary follows:

“In the first major policy announcement of her administration, Attorney General Loretta Lynch issued new policies for targeting individuals responsible for white-collar crimes, not just companies. The policies come in the wake of criticism that the Department of Justice has not punished the individuals responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis and other financial disasters that shook our economy over the last several years.

“The policy change with the most teeth says that a company cannot get credit in settlement negotiations with the DOJ for cooperating with an investigation unless it provides all relevant facts it has about individuals involved in corporate misconduct.

“In principle, this approach is laudable. After all, corporations must act through people, so if a corporation has engaged in wrongdoing, it logically follows that some employee committed a crime as well. But it is a bit of mystery how the DOJ will implement the policy in practice. In most white-collar-crime situations, the DOJ does not do the bulk of the investigation; rather, the corporation investigates itself and turns information over to the DOJ. How can the DOJ ensure that the corporation does not merely identify scapegoats while leaving the highest-level executives untouched?

“The problem of how to get to high-level wrongdoers is already an issue in investigations of typical criminal organizations like drug cartels. Drug kingpins build layers of bureaucracy between themselves and the low-level associates who actually traffic in narcotics and commit violence against competitors. Unraveling that bureaucracy to get evidence of wrongdoing by those at the top of the pyramid is a monumental challenge for investigators.

“The same problem exists when investigating a corporation. Even when a corporation is operating legitimately, layers of employees often operate between high-ranking executives and the employees who do the nuts-and-bolts work of the corporation. There is no reason to think that directors and officers of a corporation will put less effort than drug kingpins in using a company’s bureaucracy to insulate themselves when the corporation engages in wrongdoing. Rather, the problem of unraveling that bureaucracy and going after the high-level criminals will be magnified by the fact that corporations are treated with kid gloves and allowed to conduct their own investigations into criminal wrongdoing.

“The DOJ’s policy change should be applauded, but until we treat criminal corporations like we do other criminal organizations, imposing actual criminal liability on executive-level wrongdoers will remain a pipe dream.”

Elon Law Now is a recurring series of commentary and analysis about current legal issues by members of the faculty at 福利亚洲国产精品 School of Law.

Levine’s presentation included discussion about the regulation of driverless cars, drones and other robotics, and featured insights about cybersecurity and trade secrecy. Excerpts from a recent letter to Congress on this topic, co-authored by Levine and law scholar Sharon K. Sandeen are excerpted below as an Elon Law Now commentary: 

“We write to express our continued concerns about the Defend Trade Secrets Act (‘DTSA’) and our willingness to assist you in determining how best to improve enforcement of legitimate trade secret rights. In August 2014, 31 academics signed a letter raising many concerns with similar legislation then pending in the House and Senate.

“In the July 29, 2015 announcing the new DTSA, the sponsors again identify the harm that they seek to address, namely, that ‘trade secrets can be stolen with a few keystrokes, and increasingly, they are stolen at the direction of a foreign government or for the benefit of a foreign competitor.’

“Indeed, these are the general arguments that were proffered in support of last year’s legislation. In response, the undersigned addressed these assertions in detail in a January 2015 article published in the Washington and Lee Law Review Online, titled ‘‘ [in which] we concluded that the DTSA does ‘not address, much less solve,’ the exact cyberespionage harm quoted above. Instead, we explained, the DTSA has many downsides, and is ‘most likely to spawn a new intellectual property predator: the heretofore unknown ‘trade secret troll,’ an alleged trade secret owning entity that uses broad trade secret law to exact rents via dubious threats of litigation directed at unsuspecting defendants.’

“Unfortunately, the new DTSA appears to simply combine many of the provisions of the two pieces of legislation that were introduced in 2014 (S. 2267 and H.R. 5233). As a result, it addresses few of the concerns raised in the January 2015 article and the August 2014 letter. Moreover, the sponsors have failed to explain how the DTSA improves existing trade secret law, nor how it will specifically address the harms that it purports to mitigate. Thus, the August 2014 letter and January 2015 article remain highly relevant to an analysis of the DTSA’s benefits and drawbacks.

“As Congress takes on the purported problem of patent assertion entities (also known as ‘trolls;’ an issue on which we take no position), it should be aware of the very real possibility that the DTSA could create an entirely new form of troll. This new ‘trade secret troll’ could cause significant harm to weaker and smaller businesses, as well as start-ups and fledgling entrepreneurs. Thus, we urge Congress to abandon the DTSA.”

Read the full letter to Congress by Levine and Sandeen here.

Elon Law Now is an ongoing series of commentary and analysis on current issues in law by members of the Elon Law faculty.

“On July 2—ten days after the U.S. Supreme Court declared in Obergefell v. Hodges that restrictions on same-sex marriages were illegal—Joe Stapleton and Jim Cato, two gay Texas men who have been a couple for 27 years, entered the Hood County Clerk’s Office to pick up their marriage license. The Hood County Clerk, Katie Lang, had been vocal in claiming a religious objection to issuing licenses to same-sex couples; Lang’s office refused the couple’s request. In response, on July 6 Stapleton and Cato filed a federal lawsuit, seeking a license and an injunction barring Lang and her office from refusing to issue licenses to other same-sex couples. The couple was awarded a marriage license the same day. And on August 17, the couple won $44,000 in attorney’s fees for the settlement of their suit.

“The Hood County suit and settlement is one of the first examples of what some view as the coming collision between the 14th Amendment-derived right to same-sex marriage on the one hand, and 1st Amendment-derived religious objections to same-sex marriage on the other. State law generally requires city or county clerks or registers of deeds to issue marriage licenses to qualified individuals—‘qualified’ here meaning those couples that are legally entitled to marriage, have completed an application, and are able to pay a license fee. Though a particular local government official may have religious-based objections to same-sex marriage, a government should be exceedingly careful in letting such an objection be the basis for the nonissuance of a license for or the refusal to perform a particular marriage, because doing so effectively makes the official’s personal religious views the law of the government for which they work, at the expense of the obligation of all governments to treat their citizens equally.  But some states have sought to overcome this problem through what they’ve called ‘religious freedom’-related legislation. For example, in anticipation of the Obergefell decision, North Carolina recently passed a law allowing ‘magistrates, assistant registers of deeds, and deputy registers of deeds to recuse themselves’ from ‘performing duties related to marriage ceremonies’ due to a ‘sincerely held religious objection.’ (One little-noted provision of the law does, however, require that a magistrate willing to perform any lawful wedding be present in every jurisdiction.) Other states, such as Michigan, have passed similar laws protecting religious objections to certain adoptions.

“How might courts resolve this collision? In some instances, constitutional law is reluctant to find someone’s right has been violated so long as the same right can be exercised in another similar way. Thus, a law like North Carolina’s might enable a particular deputy clerk or magistrate to recuse from performing their duties related to a particular same-sex marriage so long as another clerk or magistrate in that same county can provide those same services; under this rule, the issue would only arise when a county clerk or head magistrate instructs all of the public officials in their office to not issue licenses or perform same-sex marriages, as was allegedly the case in Hood County, or in Pike County and 12 other counties in Alabama, which declared they would not issue marriage licenses of any sort. Importantly, marriage as a religious union defined by particular churches or denominations, as distinct from civic marriages and their accompanying requirements imposed by state law, should not change post-Obergefell; a Jewish couple cannot use the First Amendment to force a Catholic priest to perform their marriage if the priest’s religious obligations would forbid it, and the same would be true if a gay couple sought to force a minister who did not believe such marriages to be consistent with his church’s teachings. And of course, if a public official has a bona fide religious objection to performing or registering same-sex marriages when the law requires him or her to do so, the official can always resign their post—as six magistrates did in North Carolina after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that North Carolina’s ban on gay marriage was unlawful. To paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, a county clerk may have a constitutional right to object to same-sex marriage, but he has no constitutional right to be a county clerk.”

Elon Law Now is a recurring series of law faculty insight and analysis about legal current affairs.

“The Greek debt crisis monopolizes headlines, but the Greeks are not the only struggling member of the European Union. While it was the first of the developed countries to default on its debt, at least four others have done the same. While the causes of financial difficulties vary, Greece’s unsustainable fiscal blueprint is attributed mainly to robust government budgets, including considerable pension commitments and high public sector salaries. Some also point to government corruption and fraud as a cause for internal economic depletion that continues to corrode the financial infrastructure despite billions being poured in by bailout plans.

“The third, and most recent bailout, promising eighty-six billion euros, has unsettled not only the Greeks, but also its similarly situated EU companions. Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians, Irish and others are uncomfortable with what many view as a dangerous ‘buy-out’ rather than ‘bailout.’ While the economic fundamentals are clear, collateral is a necessary surety, the notion that a nation’s cultural identity can be purchased and brought under the control of a foreign government is difficult to accept. And while the austerity measures are, for some, a direct contradiction to the socialist spirit of Europe, the recent acquisition of Greek objet d’art, property, and infrastructure is a distressingly reminiscent of the despoiling many European countries suffered before, during and after both world wars.

“Greek payments on its two previous bailouts were meant to be generated from the sale of state properties and assets. Under the terms of the first bailout, Greek officials agreed to privatize around 50 billion euros in property and infrastructure as a way of raising money for its creditors. To date, 3.2 billion euros have come from those sales. Such a tremendous shortcoming is cause for concern. But the recent suggestion by the Germans that titles to Greek assets be moved to an ‘external fund’ in Luxembourg so the Greeks could not back out on their sale was met with unease and apprehension by many. 

“The formation of the European Union was a phenomenal accomplishment for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the union of nation states that had been warring, and either conquering or being conquered by each other, for thousands of years. And while the younger generations of this century will be the first to have lived the entirety of their lives in a peaceful Europe, there are still those who recall with intensity, a world in which the sovereignty of their motherland and the safety of her people were unfailingly at risk. This is an important political and cultural point for non-Europeans to keep in mind when considering the predicament of the Greek state. While there are clear economic considerations to be made, the cultural issues are equally important. The cultural sovereignty of Greece must remain intact for the European Union to preserve the trustworthiness and commitment of its citizens. It would be destructive to the union for any one country to be viewed as having coordinated or controlled the economic demise of another, and to have stripped its people of their cultural identity.

“More than sixty percent of Greeks voted in favor of not enacting further austerity measures – the majority of those favor an exit from the European Union. If Greece were to leave the union, Italy and Spain are predicted to quickly follow suit. Most members view themselves as already having sacrificed a great deal for the whole. For many, the downturn in the quality of life since the inception of the Euro has kindled skepticism about the benefit of the union. When the average income tax in Europe exceeds thirty percent (with citizens of some countries paying well over sixty percent) people are wary of pouring additional monies into the preservation of a union that may not be worth, in their eyes, sustaining.

“And while the advantages and value the European Union brings to the global arena are vast, if the quality of life for Greeks and many of their neighbors doesn’t improve quickly, many will continue to blame the union and it’s Euro for their troubles. And, the question that ruminates in every working class household in Greece will soon have to be answered by other governments in the EU – ‘Is it worth it?’”

Elon Law Now is a recurring series of faculty commentary on current issues of law and policy. 

“On the afternoon of July 10, Brian Encina, a white male Texas state trooper, pulled over Sandra Bland, a black female, for failing to signal a lane change. The stop escalated into a physical confrontation, and Encina arrested Bland for assaulting a public servant. Three days later, Bland died in jail, a death that the coroner has ruled a suicide. After her death sparked an uproar, the Texas Department of Public Safety released a 52-minute dash-cam video of her arrest (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBh3wzXd3vg).  (Focus on the span from 8:45 to 15:00.) 

“The video only added to the outrage, as viewers on one side see a citizen at fault for failing to show proper respect to authority. On the other are those who see a police officer abusing his authority as revenge for Bland’s insults to his overinflated ego. And those in the middle will find both parties to have been at fault, as either Bland or Encina could have prevented the confrontation. For her part, Bland fails to tamp down her anger or irritation over being stopped, does not comply promptly to Encina’s orders, and verbally challenges Encina throughout the video. Encina, in turn, continually escalates the confrontation by ordering Bland from her vehicle and demanding her repeated compliance with his orders, all while letting his anger be visible and failing to respond to Bland’s questions.

“Many of those outraged by Encina’s actions are sure that he must have broken the law, but they’re wrong. Simply put, Encina acted lawfully (with perhaps one exception), and Bland did not. Under the Fourth Amendment, Encina could stop Bland for a moving violation (like failing to signal a lane change) and order her out of the vehicle. Bland, on the other hand, broke the law by refusing to comply with Encina’s lawful order. Once she did that, Encina lawfully arrested her and could use the force necessary to effectuate that arrest. And again, Bland broke the law by doing anything other than acquiescing to the arrest. (Encina likely broke the law by ordering Bland to stop filming him with her cell phone, though that question is not definitively settled in Texas. Under the Supreme Court’s qualified immunity rulings, this means that Bland would have had no recourse even if the order were unlawful.)

“So what does this tell us? This case reveals a striking imbalance of power. Law enforcement officers like Encina have enormous discretion: they can stop who they want (so long as the person commits any traffic offense no matter how minor), they can order that person out of a vehicle if they want, they can issue any ‘lawful order’ they want, they can arrest the person if they want, and they can use whatever force they believe is reasonably necessary to make that arrest. Citizens like Bland have little discretion: they must do whatever the officer says or face arrest and, possibly, violence.

“Some might say that Bland was in the wrong simply because she broke the law.  But that argument assumes that law and morality are equivalent when they’re not.  Law is secondary to morality and should regulate conduct in a manner consistent with society’s moral sense. Yet a sizable chunk of Americans don’t agree with the system that the law has created, one in which Bland’s case is unique only because it’s gotten attention. That system is set up to lead to arrest of Bland and people like her who, for whatever reason, are not happy with acquiescing to the unexplained or even capricious ‘lawful orders’ of a police officer.

“Figuring out the right balance between officer discretion and respect for citizens won’t be easy, but the first step is to recognize that there is something wrong with a legal system that says that what Encina did was alright.”

Michael Rich began his legal career at the New York City law firm of Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, where his practice focused on the litigation of claims under the First Amendment seeking access to public property and public accommodations. Rich’s current research focuses on crime prevention technology, with recent publications in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy and the Connecticut Law Review. His article, “Machine Learning, Automated Suspicion Algorithms, and the Fourth Amendment,” is forthcoming in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. In addition, Rich’s scholarly interests include the philosophical boundaries of criminal law, civil and criminal white-collar litigation, police investigatory methods, and government fraud. Rich received his J.D. from Stanford Law School and a B.A., magna cum laude, in Physics and English from the University of Delaware.

 is a faculty commentary series on legal news and current affairs.