Skip to main content, skip to search, or skip to the top of the page.

Michigan State University College of Law

Skip to main content, skip to search, or skip to the top of the page.

Persuasion and Ideology

Persuasion and Ideology: Politically Divisive Cases in Appellate Courts

7th Annual
MSU Indigenous Law Conference
October 8-9, 2010 at MSU College of Law

Why does a judge like Justice O'Connor vote to uphold the University of Michigan Law School's affirmative action policy in Grutter v. Bollinger? Why does a judge like Justice Breyer vote to allow the Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol in Van Orden v. Perry? Why does a judge like Justice Kennedy vote to strike down the Military Commissions Act of 2007 in Boumediene v. Bush? Why does a judge like Justice Stevens vote to uphold Michigan's economic discrimination against out-of-state wine producers in Granholm v. Heald?

We invite you to join us in discussing not the substantive merits of politically divisive cases, but instead to talk about the nuts-and-bolts of how they are litigated by lawyers, and decided by judges.

Confirmed Speakers Include:

Keynote Speaker: Judge William Thorne (Utah Court of Appeals)
Hon. Raymond Austin (Arizona)
Jeannine Bell (Indiana-Bloomington)
Sarah Deer (William Mitchell)
Paul Finkelman (Albany)
Catherine Grosso (Michigan State)
Ann Juliano (Villanova)
Douglas Laycock (Michigan; soon to be Virginia)
Kevin Noble Maillard (Syracuse; visiting Hofstra)
Melody McCoy (Native American Rights Fund)
Frank Ravitch (Michigan State)
Hon. Cruz Reynoso (U.C. Davis)
Pat Sekaquaptewa (The Nakwatsvewat Institute)
Alexander Skibine (Utah)
Ann Tweedy (Cal. Western)
Alfred Urbina (Pascua Yaqui Tribe)

Skip to main content, skip to search, or skip to the top of the page.

Skip to main content, skip to search, or skip to the top of the page.