Today, President Biden signed an Executive Order on Enhancing Safeguards for United States Signals Intelligence Activities (EO) directing the steps that the United States will take to implement the US commitments under the European Union-US Data Privacy Framework (EU-US DPF) announced by President Biden and European Commission President von der Leyen in March of 2022.

Transatlantic data flows are critical to enabling the $7.1 trillion EU-US economic relationship. The EU-US DPF will restore an important legal basis for transatlantic data flows by addressing concerns that the Court of Justice of the European Union raised in striking down the prior EU-US Privacy Shield framework as a valid data transfer mechanism under EU law.

The Executive Order bolsters an already rigorous array of privacy and civil liberties safeguards for US signals intelligence activities. It also creates an independent and binding mechanism enabling individuals in qualifying states and regional economic integration organizations, as

Read More

By Marcelo Rodríguez

During this academic semester, I have told my students several times, whatever situations, phenomena or topics you choose for your research and countries/jurisdictions or institutions for your comparative legal research, please always keep in mind that they are not frozen in time. Perhaps for the purpose of your research, you might have chosen a particular period of time as a very specific boundary for your research project. However, I’d argue that current developments within a jurisdiction may have some major impact in delineated historical or previous events in terms of our understanding and analysis of those same events and phenomena. This does not mean we shouldn’t strive for specific time frames in research. It just means that a good grasp of current events related to the research topic, institutions and jurisdictions of your choice is crucial no matter the time frame you have selected for your research.

Read More

Sometimes I think of March 2, 2016, the day of the Supreme Court oral argument in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedtas the last truly great day for women and the legal system in America.

There are, to be sure, many such glorious moments to choose from, both before and after the election of President Donald Trump, but as a professional Court watcher, I had a front-row seat to this story, one that offered a sense that women in the United States had achieved some milestones that would never be reversed. Whole Woman’s Health represented the first time in American history that a historic abortion case was being heard by a Supreme Court with three female justices. Twenty-four years earlier, when the last momentous abortion case—Planned Parenthood v. Casey—had come before the Supreme Court, only one woman, Sandra Day O’Connor, sat on the bench. Go back a bit

Read More

2022 Mootcourt Spain

The Notre Dame Law School Moot Court Board started off the academic year strong with victories at the International Moot Court Competition in Law and Religion, hosted by the International Consortium for Law and Religion Studies. The competition took place at Córdoba Law School in Córdoba, Spain, on September 16 and 17, and served as the kickoff event to the 6th ICLARS Conference, which centered on the theme “Human Dignity, Law, and Religious Diversity: Designing the Future of Inter-Cultural Societies.”

The participating Moot Court Board members included Matt Delfino, Shannon Moore, Leo O’Malley, Michael Snyder, and Taylor Wewers. Oralists were split into two teams: Delfino and O’Malley argued a case as though it were before the United States Supreme Court, while Snyder and Wewers argued a case in front of the European Court of Human Rights. Moore served as a brief writer, while the Moot Court Board faculty advisor, Professor

Read More

What to do when your law firm won’t embrace technology

Many legal professionals face the frustration of working at a firm that will not embrace technology. If you’re feeling stuck at a firm that insists on doing things manually, you’re not alone.

A large factor in this dynamic is the generational gap. Older partners may be dead set against drastic changes, while junior attorneys and other legal professionals know how digital technology can positively transform their workplace.

So is the answer to just accept working at a Luddite law firm?

We say no.

Instead, seek out ways of encouraging tech adoption at your firm, even if you are not the ultimate decision-maker on the issue. Then you can work to make some major shifts in the firm’s culture around innovation — or, if your efforts really are wasted, transition to a firm that already has the right

Read More