Professor Leslie Levin was mentioned in a Law.com article concerning the DOJ’s continued appeal regarding President Trump’s law firm executive orders.

Professor Leslie Levin authored an article on State Court Report discussing the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Webster v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline and the Montana Supreme Court’s decision in In re Knudsen. Levin argues that the Texas decision effectively strips the Commission for Lawyer Discipline of the authority to pursue grievances against executive branch lawyers, and that the decision was wrongly decided as a matter of law and policy.

Professor Sachin Pandya has co-authored an amicus brief in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock. The case addresses whether workers who deliver goods locally that travel in interstate commerce, but who do not transport the goods across borders, can avoid mandatory arbitration for wage claims under the exemption in Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act.

Professor Anna VanCleave co-authored an op-ed in CT Mirror discussing the push to expand parole eligibility for individuals who have committed crimes as young adults and the scientific basis supporting it.

VanCleave was also asked to comment on House Bill 5306 and its rigorous evidentiary standards. The bill, if passed, would allow judges to reduce sentences for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, or human trafficing if that abuse contributed to their crime.

Professor Sachin Pandya testified at a public hearing before the CT Judiciary Committee in support of Senate Bill 90. Senate Bill 90 attempts to consolidate and revise Connecticut’s hate crime laws. You can find the recording and written testimony online.

Professor Richard Pomp has been extensivelly involved and quoted in several articles involving Smithfield Foods Inc. v. California Franchise Tax Board, a California tax case. The case deals with apportionment of out-of-state operations and income for a California business. Pomp argued that there must be a rational relationship between the income being taxed and the values created within the taxing state and that the Franchise Tax Board was overreaching by trying to tax income that was economically discrete from Smithfield’s California activities. The Court appears to have now sided with this analysis. The articles can be found in Law360 and Tax Notes (1)(2).