By Lisa Hamant
I’m here today with Judge Carrie Glaeden, who works as a judge at Franklin County Municipal Court. We’ll be discussing the upcoming election in November and what she generally does in her role as a judge. Q. Hi Judge Glaeden, thanks for making time to talk with me today. With election season coming up, you must be very busy. I see you’re up for reelection for Franklin County Municipal Court. I believe this is your 12th year as a judge on the Municipal Court bench? A. It is, it seems like I just started yesterday. I’m having fun still. Q. What initially inspired you to want to become a judge? A. In fifth grade, we were studying the three branches of government and a teacher showed us a picture of the United States Supreme Court and I noticed that there were no women in the picture. I went home that evening and told my parents I was going to be the first female judge. When I was in law school, I worked at the city prosecutor’s office in the prosecutor program. That’s where they practice with misdemeanors and I realized that I wanted to become a judge. Q. You preside over criminal and traffic cases. Can you tell me a little more about that? A. The cases we preside over in municipal court are misdemeanor cases, so they are punishable by jail time not prison. We also preside over civil cases up to $15,000 in fines. Q. What are the most interesting crimes you’ve ever heard about? A. Domestic violence cases are a unique criminal offense. The dynamics are very interesting and you’ve got people that are in a committed relationship, and they just want what’s going on and the violence to stop. 25% of domestic violence victims actually end up being homicide victims. In this jurisdiction, we pay more attention to the relationship first, before the injuries that have occurred. Q. So it seems like a lot of what appeals to you is the helping people aspect of your job. On a different note, you were appointed to the Municipal Court bench in 2004, but elected in 2005 and 2009. How do you feel about having to run for judiciary reelection, rather than being appointed to the position? A. If you look at the numbers of the people who show up to vote, there is a huge drop off of the people that actually vote for judges. That is because they do not know who the judges are. Often times, if people do vote for judges, they choose a name they like or that sounds familiar to them, even though they do not know the actual candidate that is running or the actual judge that occupies that seat. Popular names are often voted for such as Brown and O’Grady because there have been office holders who have been elected in the past with the same name. Voters may think the person with this last name is the same person, when often times, it is not the same person, they just have the same name. Judicialvotescount.org is new this year and its purpose is to educate voters about the different candidates. Q. When did you start preparing for the upcoming election season? A. I started in January of 2015. We try to never stop. I think as an office holder, one of the things we need to do is be out in the community. As judges, we need to educate people about the justice system and the court system. I try to do that every year, but as far as campaigning and raising money and advertising, I kick that into gear in January. Q. There’s always definitely more to learn on the voter’s end about the justice system. Who do you turn to for help in advertising your campaign and helping you with everything behind the scenes? A. I have friends who have managed campaigns before. I have a campaign manager, and a media consultant. Q. What would you say are your most predominant campaign efforts? A. The number one strategy is to get my name out and get my experience out there. I’m in my twelfth year of being a judge. I think I’m fair, impartial, and hardworking. There’s a lot of organizations that interview everyone that wants to participate. They interview both people and decide who they are going to endorse. I’m proud of all the endorsements I’ve received this year. Q. Anyone who works in the legal system must be impacted by politics in some way. How would you say politics affects your job? A. I really don’t think the capital P politics has a lot to do with my job, because once you become a judge you’re fair and neutral. You have set laws and you just have to use those to make good decisions. I think I do a good job of being fair and impartial. Q. You seem very passionate about your job. A. Thank you! We don’t have a lot of mandatory sentencing where we have to send people to prison for a long period of time, so we can take advantage of probation and give people the tools they need so they don’t commit the offense again. Q. What would you say is your favorite part of your job? What do you look forward to about coming to work everyday? A. The best part is when I hear from somebody and they walk in my courtroom, or they send me a card or a letter, saying you may not remember me, but I appeared in front of you X years ago and you turned my life around. They’ll maybe say they’re now alcohol free or drug free, they’re married or engaged. They’ll tell me, ‘I turned my life around’. So that’s what keeps me going is that I can help people along the way. I know I’m doing a worthwhile job. Q. I also saw that you got your J.D. at Ohio State and your Bachelor’s Degree at the University of Wisconsin. What advice do you have for aspiring lawyers or judges, that are either in law school now or are undergraduates hoping to apply for law school someday? A. It’s quite competitive, so get good grades, do not fall victim to peer pressure because the drinking age is twenty one and alcohol is pretty free flowing. Over half the people can drink, if you’re at a party and don’t think you’re going to get caught, there might be an undercover officer there, and it can kind of mess up the career path. Thank you for your time and the interview. It’s been a pleasure. We look forward to your run in the upcoming election in November. By Olivia Worthington
The Syrian Civil War has had direct implications for the United States in terms of legal issues, with the most prominent factor being the topic of immigration. The worsening conditions in Syria have led to many Syrian refugees attempting to migrate into other countries. Germany has been very accepting of these refugees, however the United States was initially criticized for only being willing to take 10,000 Syrian refugees into the country. This number has since increased to 70,000, but political parties in the United States remain very divided over this issue.1 Republicans are generally against taking in refugees, on the basis that terrorism is a large concern. “Our enemy now is Islamic terrorism, and these people are coming from a country filled with Islamic terrorists,” said Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York.2 Citizens in South Carolina are especially concerned, local businessman Jim Mcmillan said, “The U.N. calls it ‘refugee resettlement’ - the Muslims call it hijra, migration.”3 United States law generally supports this argument. The Immigration and Nationality Act opened the doors for further immigration, however after the September 11th attacks, the United States has become very reluctant to accept refugees for security reasons. The Terrorism-Related Inadmissibility Grounds (TRIG) states that “any individual who is a member of a ‘terrorist organization’ or who was engaged or engages in terrorism related activity is inadmissible to the United States.”4 Terrorist groups are prominent in Syria, so this concern is legitimate. However, the United States government has said that extensive security checks will occur to ensure no refugee with any terrorist implications or history is allowed on American soil. The debate as to whether taking in more refugees is beneficial to the United States is, much like Congress, polarized between the two political parties, but the majority of American citizens are opposed to taking in more refugees. Republican Senator John McCain said that the crisis was Obama’s fault to begin with, is against taking in extensive amounts of refugees, and believes asking for more money from Congress to deal with refugees is the way to solve this conflict. The reason Senator McCain blames President Obama is because Mr. McCain advocated for an extensive military response to the Syrian issues. The issue with this is that Russia backs the government of Assad, while the United States does not. The potential consequences of intervention in Syria are a proxy war with Russia, which could prove both politically and economically disastrous for the United States. On the other side, Democratic Senator Chris Murphy asked, “Do we think we make this country more or less safe from terrorism by showing a cold heartedness to the refugee crisis? I think the answer is no.”5 The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has already referred 18,000 cases to the United States for resettlement. The United States does not want to lose international prestige by being unaccepting to refugees that have been devastated by the Syrian civil war, but does not want to upset public opinion by accepting people whose country is widely linked to terrorism into the country. There has been talk of new laws to clarify immigration with regards to terrorism, but nothing concrete has been set in place. There is also the issue of discrimination towards the Syrian refugees once they enter the United States. Much like during World War II, when the Japanese were interned and discriminated against, Syrian refugees could also be viewed unfairly as a link to terrorism because of the country they are from. Any discrimination against Muslims once they have become a citizen of the United States violates their First Amendment rights, but this does not constitute that this will not happen, which is a problem. The Syrian refugee crisis has presented numerous legal issues within the United States. Political parties are extremely divided over taking in numerous amounts of refugees, which only continues to further polarize the nation. The laws on immigration with regards to terrorism are being called into question, and the interpretation of such laws given the current situation are under immense discussion. Issues over letting Syrians into the country who have any possibility of being linked to terrorism are very concerning to United States citizens. Security checks are being conducted, but the underlying worry about terrorism leads to a lack of public support for the refugees as well as discrimination. Discussions over new laws to specifically outline immigration guidelines with regards to terrorism are occurring, but the subject having such as grey area and the TRIG law already being in place likely render this point irrelevant. The United States is trying to please the international world, both political parties in the legislature, and their citizens in regards to their policy on the Syrian refugee crisis, which could prove to be an impossible task. Footnotes: 1. Gardiner Harris, David E. Sanger, and David M. Herszenhorn “Obama Increases Number of Syrian Refugees for U.S. Resettlement” (New York Times September 10, 2015) http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/world/middleeast/Obama-directs-administration-to-accept-10000-syrian-refugees.html 2. Gardiner Harris, David E. Sanger, and David M. Herszenhorn “Obama Increases Number of Syrian Refugees for U.S. Resettlement” (New York Times September 10, 2015) 3. Richard Fausset “Refugee Crisis in Syria Raises Fears in South Carolina” (New York Times September 25, 2015) http://nytimes.com/2015/09/25/US/refugee-crisis-in-Syria-raises-fears-in-South-Carolina.html 4. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services “Terrorism-Related Inadmissibility Grounds” (Department of Homeland Security October 1, 2014) 5. Harris, Sanger, and Herszenhorn “Obama Increases Number of Syrian Refugees for U.S. Resettlement By Maya Tener “In a few decades, the relationship between the environment, resources and conflict may seem almost as obvious as the connection we see today between human rights, democracy and peace.” -Wangari Maathai One of the most pressing issues confronting the international community today is our deleterious impact on the planet’s ecosystems, more specifically the pollution and overuse of our waterways. The degradation of our ecosystem often causes significant harm to human well-being, and the resulting pollution of our oceans and other waterways is collectively the result of deforestation, nonpoint source pollution, and consumption.
Wetlands are an important feature of the aquatic system, and are at the forefront of significant controversy. They function as water storage, mitigating the effects of floods and droughts; water purification and filtration systems; recreational areas; and plant and animal habitats. Wetlands also contribute to food production, and arguably have value as open and aesthetic spaces. To the layman, many of these values are more obvious for wetlands in proximity to large rivers and streams than they are for wetlands and streams that are isolated from other waters. Despite their value, historically, many federal programs encouraged wetlands to be drained or altered. Even today, while more federal laws either encourage wetland protection or regulate their modification, there is pressure--political and otherwise--to modify, drain, or develop wetlands for uses that some see as more economically beneficial”(Dellapenna 1305). These anthropogenic activities precipitate changes in our water sources which then exacerbate the decline of those precious resources. Worldwide efforts are in place to slow or eliminate the already heavy degradation of the Earth’s ecosystems. These efforts involve significant changes in ‘policies and institutions, substantial technological innovations, and increases in the capacity of people to manage local ecosystems and adapt to ecosystem change” (GreenFacts Water Resource Digest 2007). However, much of the current action is insufficient or ill-framed, thus failing to address the detrimental effects resulting from mismanagement of our fragile natural resources. One such attempt to aid in the management of water pollution came in the conception of the Clean Water Act (CWA), also referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 33 U.S.C. §§1251-1387. The CWA is the principal law governing pollution of surface waters in the United States. Its principal intent is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters" 33 U.S.C.§ 1362(7). But “the Nation’s waters” are immense and as such this term has given rise to copious litigation. A portion of the CWA defines “the Nation’s waters” as “navigable waters,” which has done little to ease the controversy due to the breathe of the scope court’s have given the term.1 33 CFR 328(a)(1). A review of the most recent progress of the Court’s and regulatory agencies in ascertaining the scope of the CWA must begin with the case of a Michigan developer John Rapanos. Like many property developers of the day John A. Rapanos, hoping to construct a shopping center, asked the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to inspect his site in December of 1988, to determine whether it contained regulated wetlands. A state official informed Rapanos that while the site likely included regulated wetlands, Rapanos could proceed with the project if the wetlands were delineated (that is, identified and preserved) or if a permit was obtained. Rapanos began the construction on his property without filing for permits and in contravention of cease-and-desist orders from state officials and the EPA. see 33 U.S,C. Sec.1311(a). The EPA filed a suit against Rapanos. The case asserted that CWA protects wetlands contiguous to a tributary that flows into a traditional navigable water. While acknowledging that the wetlands were destroyed, Rapanos argued that the property in question was not subject to the Clean Water Act because of a lack of federal jurisdiction. He asserted that the wetlands on his property were not part of the “waters of the United States” as required by the Act. The Act defines “navigable waters” as “waters of the United States” 33 U.S.C. §1362(7). - The Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), which issues permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters, based its claim on it interpretation of “the waters of the United States.” It defined this term expansively to include not only traditional navigable waters, 33 CFR §328.3(a)(1), but also other defined waters, §328.3(a)(2), (3); “[t]ributaries” of such waters, §328.3(a)(5); and wetlands “adjacent” to such waters and tributaries, §328.3(a)(7). “[A]djacent” wetlands include those “bordering, contiguous [to], or neighboring” waters of the United States even when they are “separated from [such] waters … by man-made dikes … and the like.” §328.3(c).895 F. Supp 165 . On appeal, the Sixth Circuit stated that the “case before us is one of jurisdiction.” Rapanos claimed that Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) had redefined the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act to such a degree that his land was no longer under the CWA’s protection.Despite Rapanos’ urging for the Court to first turn to the text of the CWA.” The Sixth Circuit cited the Supreme Court decision in US v Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121,133, 106 S.Ct. 455, 88 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1985) as precedent saying that “Congress chose to define waters covered by the Act broadly” and admitting that “[a]lthough simple in theory, the application of ‘waters of the United States’ has been anything but straightforward. U. S. v Rapanos, 376 F.3d 629. The court continued its analysis as follows: “As common sense makes clear, the Clean Water Act cannot purport to police only the navigable-in-fact waters in the United States in order to keep those waters clean from pollutants. A pollutant can contaminate non-navigable water and pollute the navigable-in-fact waters downstream.” Congress acknowledged this reality when it created the Clean Water Act, stating, ‘Water moves in hydrological cycles and it is essential that discharge of pollutants be controlled at the source.’S.Rep. No. 92-414, at 77 (1972), U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 3668. As Solid Waste makes clear, however, the need to protect the navigable waters from pollution, as the Clean Water Act intends, does not require extending the federal government's jurisdiction over all non-navigable waters.” id. Thus, the Court opined that rather than, “immediate adjacency” all that was required was a “significant nexus”—a ubiquitous phrase in Section 404—between the wetlands and perceived traditional navigable waters (Copeland 4). The “significant nexus,” test, if satisfied, can therefore, give the court and enforcers of the act jurisdiction. Unsatisfied with the Sixth Circuit Court’s determination, Rapanos petitioned for certiorari, posing the question, does the court have jurisdiction over a wetland if it is not classified as protected under the CWA? The Justices of the Supreme Court had difficulty, to say the least, deciding the jurisdictional issue, ending in a fractured 4-1-4 ruling. Rapanos has pervasive significance within the CWA itself, since “waters of the United States” governs not only the Section 404 wetlands permitting program, but also multiple other provisions and requirements of that law (see footnote 1). A broad reading of its jurisdiction created novel semantics (such as viewing dry arroyos as “waters,” and manmade ditches as “tributaries”) whereas a more narrow view of the statutory language would restrict the Corps purview. It was not surprising in light of the above themes that the Justices split as they did: the four more conservative Justices rejected the Corps’ expansive view of its adjacent wetland jurisdiction, the four liberal/moderates upheld it, and Justice Kennedy came down in between with a case-by-case Nexus test.2 Justice Scalia plurality opinion stated that “waters” in “waters of the United States” should be construed as only relatively permanent, standing or flowing bodies of water, such as streams, rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water “forming geographic features.” This definition led him to exclude “channels containing merely intermittent or ephemeral flow.” Wetlands, are included as “waters of the United States” if “adjacent” meaning only when they have a “continuous surface connection” to bodies that are “waters of the United States” in their own right. Justice Scalia opined that the wetlands in Rapanos had only an intermittent, physically remote hydrological connection to “waters of the United States” and were not covered by Section 404, but should rather fall under Section 402 regulation.3 The dissenters, an opinion penned by Justice Justice Stevens supported an expansive view of federal CWA authority and claimed that, on remand, lower courts should uphold jurisdiction in any circumstance where the Wetland was either adjacent to or have a remote hydrological connection to “navigable waters”following the earlier decision in Riverside Bayview, he argued that jurisdiction was not confined to wetlands having continuous surface flow with traditional navigable waters or their tributaries. Rather it endorsed regulation over non-isolated wetlands generally, without case-by-case analysis. Pursuant to the US Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Rapanos 115 F.3d 367 (1997) the provisions of CWA are implemented on a state by state basis. However, the implementation of the CWA in this manner leaves it open to ambiguous interpretation in conflict with the intent of the law. The Court’s decision provided little clarification because no rationale commanded the support of a majority of the Justices. The lower courts were left extracting different rules of decision from Rapanos for resolving cases. In practice, courts often look for common approaches supported by a majority of the Justices, looking both to the views of plurality Justices and those of the dissenters.4 The Court had the opportunity to rein in the power of Congress to enact federal environmental laws and clarify how the CWA was to be interpreted by reaching a majority. The Justices’ answer could have determined the reach of CWA regulatory authority for all CWA programs, since the CWA uses but one jurisdiction defining phrase (“navigable waters”) throughout the statute. Instead, they left a ruling that was muddled. It failed to give the legislation more teeth. The legal and policy questions associated with Rapanos regarding the outer geographic limit of CWA jurisdiction and the consequences of restricting that scope continues to challenge regulators, landowners, developers, and policymakers. The Corps/EPA issued further guidance in 2008, saying that a wetland generally is jurisdictional if it satisfies either the plurality or Kennedy tests. In 2011, the Agencies proposed revised guidance intended to clarify whether waters are protected by the CWA, but this proposal was controversial and was not finalized. As the ambiguity of the Rapanos decision and questions about the Agencies’ jurisdiction increased so too has pressure on EPA and the Corps to promulgate new regulations. In March, 2014, they announced revisions to define “waters of the United States.” In 2015, a new ruling, Waters of the United States, attempted to expand the EPA’s authority by redefining the legal term “navigable waterways”, but was blocked by a federal judge in North Dakota. The new rule that was to be established makes the laws interpretation even more broad and undefined.5 The reason the rule incited so many lawsuits against it was because: “...[I]t enables agency bureaucrats to control virtually anything that gets wet, including a desert dry wash that gets a “drizzle,” actual EPA language criticized by House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) at a Heartland Institute conference in Washington in June.(Arnold 1) In conclusion, the CWA jurisdiction remains a hotly debated issue with no indication of being resolved in the near future. It is crucial that the federal government, scientists, and the EPA form a compromise giving the CWA a clear ruling to establish the boundaries of “navigable waters” to help states step boldly into the breach in federal wetlands protection, effectively protecting the environment and businesses private property. Footnotes: 1. The term “navigable waters” is defined in section 404(g)(1): the waters include, but are not limited to, the “navigable waters of the United States.” A water body qualifies as a “navigable water of the United States” if it meets any of the tests set forth in 33 C.F.R. Part 329 (e.g., the water body is (a) subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, and/or (b) the water body is presently used, or has been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use (with or without reasonable improvements) to transport interstate or foreign commerce). 2. “The nexus required must be assessed in terms of the Act’s goals and purposes. Congress enacted the law to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters,” 33 U. S. C. §1251(a), and it pursued that objective by restricting dumping and filling in “waters of the United States,” §§1311(a), 1362(12). The rationale for the Act’s wetlands regulation, as the Corps has recognized, is that wetlands can perform critical functions related to the integrity of other waters—such as pollutant trapping, flood control, and runoff storage. 33 C. F. R. §320.4(b)(2). Accordingly, wetlands possess the requisite nexus, and thus come within the statutory phrase “navigable waters,” if the wetlands, alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters understood as navigable in the traditional sense. When, in contrast, their effects on water quality are speculative or insubstantial, they fall outside the zone fairly encompassed by the term “navigable waters.” Because the Corps’ theory of jurisdiction in these cases—adjacency to tributaries, however remote and insubstantial—goes beyond the Riverside Bayview holding, its assertion of jurisdiction cannot rest on that case. The breadth of the Corps’ existing standard for tributaries—which seems to leave room for regulating drains, ditches, and streams remote from any navigable-in-fact water and carrying only minor water-volumes toward it—precludes that standard’s adoption as the determinative measure of whether adjacent wetlands are likely to play an important role in the integrity of an aquatic system comprising navigable waters as traditionally understood. Absent more specific regulations, the Corps must establish a significant nexus on a case-by-case basis when seeking to regulate wetlands based on adjacency to non-navigable tributaries, in order to avoid unreasonable applications of the Act. In the instant cases the record contains evidence pointing to a possible significant nexus, but neither the agency nor the reviewing courts considered the issue in these terms. Thus, the cases should be remanded for further proceedings.” Cornell law school legal information institute 3. In Section 402, the plurality explained, it is not require that the point source discharge directly into a jurisdictional water. It is enough that the discharged pollutant is likely to ultimately be carried downstream to such a jurisdictional water. Thus, unlike with Section 404, discharges into non-covered waters could still be regulated. 4. Soon after Rapanos was decided, a federal district court commented that Justice Kennedy’s opinion “advanced an ambiguous test—whether a ‘significant nexus’ exists to waters that are/were/might be navigable.... This test leaves no guidance on how to implement its vague, subjective centerpiece.” United States v. Chevron Pipe Line Co., 437 F. Supp. 2d 605 (N.D. Tex. 2006). 5. The Rule asserts jurisdiction over waters that are remote and intermittent waters. No evidence actually points to how these intermittent and remote wetlands have any nexus to a navigable-in-fact water. The standard of arbitrary and capricious is met because the Agencies have failed to establish a “rational connection between the facts found” and the Rule as it will be promulgated. The Rule also arbitrarily establishes the distances from a navigable water that are subject to regulation. … Once again, the court has reviewed all of the information available to it and is unable to determine the scientific basis for the 4,000 feet standard. Based on the evidence in the record, the distance from the high water mark bears no connection to the relevant scientific data purported to support this because any water that is 4,001 feet away from the high water mark cannot be considered “similarly situated” for purposes of 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a)(8). While a “bright line” test is not in itself arbitrary, the Rule must be supported by some evidence why a 4,000 foot standard is scientifically supportable. On the record before the court, it appears that the standard is the right standard because the Agencies say it is. By Samuel Huryn
The legal field is often seen as one of the most prestigious, well-paying jobs among college students. Despite this, however, recent reports show that enrollment numbers across United States law schools have continually dropped since 2010. An article published in September 2015 in the Las Vegas Review Journal states that “[i]n 2010, there were 52,488 law students nationally. Today there are 37,924, a 28 percent decline.”1 Obviously, this is a disconcerting trend for law schools throughout America, who face the possibility of less resources in the future, which will also have an impact on students. At the same time, however, scores on the bar exam have also reached their lowest point in decades. This is primarily blamed on law schools lowering their standards for acceptance. A study shows that “[t]he average score on the multiple-choice portion of the July test fell 1.6 points from the previous year, reaching its lowest level since 1988, according to data provided to Bloomberg by the National Conference of Bar Examiners.”2 The drop was expected. Erica Moeser, the president of the National Conference of Bar Examiners, stated that it is “a period where we can expect to see some decline, until the market for going to law school improves.”3 The drop was also explained as a result of a new section on Civil Procedure, which some believed made the exam more difficult. These trends are negative for both law schools and the legal industry as a whole. The cycle seems to be somewhat reflexive, in that decreasing amounts of law students force law schools nationwide to lower their standards for acceptance. In turn, this allows less prepared students to be admitted, which has a downward effect on bar exam scores. The trends are explained as a combination of America’s “economic woes, combined with fewer jobs available for law school graduates, mixed with more law schools.”4 This leaves schools with the difficult task of balancing quantity and quality in enrollment. Obviously, this will have an impact on any undergraduate student wishing to attend law school, along with those already attending. For almost all students, employment is the ultimate goal for attending law school. In an economy where employment is still uncertain, students have to be sure to achieve to the utmost of their ability in order to succeed in what could be a shrinking legal field. Works Cited 1 Jane Ann Morrison, “Fewer Students Now the Norm in U.S. Law Schools” (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 2015), http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/columns-blogs/jane-ann-morrison/fewer-students-now-the-norm-us-law-schools 2 Natalie Kitroeff, “Bar Exam Scores Drop to Their Lowest Point in Decades” (Bloomberg, 2015) http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-17/bar-exam-scores-drop-to-their-lowest-point-in-decades 3 Kitroeff, “Bar Exam Scores Drop to Their Lowest Point in Decades” 4 Morrison, “Fewer Students Now the Norm in U.S. Law Schools” |
Archives
March 2018
Categories |