Clinical and Pro Bono Programs

Providing clinical and pro bono opportunities to Harvard Law School students

Category: Clinical Spotlight (page 2 of 19)

Project on Predatory Student Lending releases report on Veterans complaints about Kaplan Schools

December 18, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Project on Predatory Student Lending 

For-profit colleges have exploited the promise of higher education by deceiving tens of thousands of students seeking a better life. One of the groups the for-profit industry has particularly targeted are veterans and servicemembers.

That is why the Project on Predatory Lending represented the Veterans Education Success organization to prepare a new report outlining the predatory actions of one for-profit institution, Kaplan Colleges and University, against veterans and servicemembers.

VES collected complaints from nearly 100 veterans who attended Kaplan-owned programs. Their complaints include things like:

  • Raising the costs on veterans once they enroll and failing to inform them of additional fees;
  • Misleading veterans about their military benefits covering the tuition costs, resulting in unexpected and burdensome debt; and
  • Borrowing money on behalf of veterans without their consent.

Unlike the for-profits colleges that are forced to shut down when their fraudulent behavior is exposed, Kaplan is still an active and functioning college. In fact, Kaplan University was just purchased by Purdue, a public university in Indiana, to conduct its online programs. And the Department of Education just approved this transaction, which will remove some of the protections for borrowers and taxpayers that apply only to for-profit schools not conducting business under the auspices of public entities.

We hope you will read the full report to understand the extent of the predatory behavior by Kaplan.

Click here to read the report.

Military servicemembers and veterans deserve our respect and gratitude. And, like all students, they deserve to seek higher education without facing fraudulent and unscrupulous companies trying to extract federal funds. Kaplan’s actions run directly counter to that. It’s time for the government to step in to help, or they too will have failed in their duty to support veterans who have sacrificed so much for us all.

My time at the International Human Rights Clinic

December 8, 2017 / / 0 Comments
Photo of Salomé Gómez Upegui LL.M. '18 sitting at a desk

Salomé Gómez Upegui LL.M. ’18

By Salomé Gómez Upegui LL.M. ’18

I believe in law as an instrument for social change, and I came to Harvard interested in focusing on that. A year is not much time, and as any LL.M. student can confirm, we all suffer from “fear of missing out”.  I’m happy to say the International Human Rights Clinic, was perfect to curb this fear. In a short time I was able to do so much more than I expected. It was a unique opportunity for hands-on learning, while engaging in public service, and making a difference.

Women’s rights are something I particularly care about, and when I got into this clinic I was eager to learn more about how International Human Rights Law is relevant to feminism. Thankfully, I joined Salma Waheedi’s team for a project on this subject, and my expectations were exceeded. We worked in coordination with Musawah, an NGO advocating for equality of Muslim women. In this project, creative thinking was at the center; using comparative law, alternative interpretations of Islamic law, and human rights standards, we drafted thematic shadow reports on women’s rights for the Committee of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. I had the opportunity to travel to Geneva and participate in the 68th CEDAW Session at the United Nations, where the reports we drafted where presented. This trip was a rare chance to network and learn first-hand how international institutions, governments, and NGOs serve to advance (or sometimes set-back) feminist agendas.

The International Human Rights Clinic allowed me to strengthen fundamental lawyering skills. I especially enjoyed learning innovative advocacy strategies, and I have to say I was happily surprised by the people I met. Working alongside individuals with such passion and dedication to human rights was the highlight of this experience. I felt part of something meaningful from day one, there is a real sense of community, and the value of teamwork is constantly stressed. In a world where individuality is the rule, this was an exceptionally wonderful learning environment, and I’m so grateful to have been part of it.

Advancing human rights in the Middle East

December 8, 2017 / / 0 Comments
Portrait photo of Zeineb Bouraoui LL.M. '18

Zeineb Bouraoui LL.M. ’18

By Zeineb Bouraoui LL.M. ’18

Following the escalation of the Syrian Civil War in 2012, I began working for the Syrian American Medical Society in Washington DC, assisting Syrian refugees in emigrating to the United States, mainly through public policy initiatives. This experience greatly influenced my desire to apply to law school. I was craving the opportunity to acquire effective tools that would allow me to fight back against the injustices that outraged me and to advance economic and social equality in my native region, the Middle East and North Africa.

At Sciences Po Law School, I focused my studies on international investment law and economic development, and graduated in 2016 with a masters’ degree in Economic Law and Global Business Law and Governance.  I then started working at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris, working on policy coordination efforts in order to help governments resist protectionist pressures and develop effective policies to respond to legal concerns raised by international investment.

It was especially important to me to pursue my commitment to advance human rights in the MENA region at Harvard Law School, leveraging the numerous tools that the university provides to its students, in order to conduct the most effective research, and hope to have the most effective impact on the region. 

At the International Human Rights Clinic, I am working on the Yemen project. My team, led by Salma Waheedi, is contributing to a Human Rights Watch report on the growth of the missing file in Yemen. Since 2014, Yemen has become home to one of the most violent non-international armed conflicts in the world. Egregious human rights violations are being committed there on a daily basis. My team focuses mainly on investigating detention-related abuses currently being carried out by all sides to the conflict. We are in the process of mapping the network of secret prisons, and outlining the human rights abuses committed in them. We will then determine the international legal obligations of state and non-state actors involved in the conflict, and investigate enforced disappearances and extra-judicial killings.

The Clinic constituted an eye-opening experience to me, allowing me to understand firsthand the challenges that human rights lawyers and activists are routinely facing with funding, media outreach and advocacy, or even the simple act of gathering accurate and reliable information. It was particularly challenging to work on a non-international armed conflict, as raising awareness on a conflict happening on the other side of the world, with very little interest for the United States can be at times frustrating.

I particularly enjoyed conducting in-depth factual research and interacting with local Yemeni NGOs such as Mwatana, which are doing an incredible job in producing exhaustive accounts of the human rights violations committed throughout the course of the civil war, often at the peril of their lives.

My Experiences in the Cyberlaw Clinic: Expectations Met and Exceeded

December 7, 2017 / / 0 Comments

By Niklas Andree LL.M. ’18

Participating in the Cyberlaw Clinic was one of the great opportunities that attracted me to pursue my LL.M. degree here at HLS. Upon finishing law school in my home country of Germany, I figured the best way to enhance my academic experience abroad would be to not only focus on the areas of law that I am most interested in — legal education in Germany follows a very broad approach, with wide-ranging basic knowledge being taught rather than specializations in certain fields — but also gain practical real-world experience. The Cyberlaw Clinic promised to offer exactly that, the chance to work on cutting-edge legal matters related to the Internet and technology, as well as learn about today’s major issues of tech advocacy and policy in the accompanying seminar.

The projects I worked on range from very specific questions of copyright law to contributions in a large-scale undertaking of software preservation. As a result, I’ve learned about problems people face in today’s digital age that I had never heard of before. For example, librarians, archivists and academics are being confronted with the issue that their valued digital records may be inaccessible because of outdated software programs, raising the need to preserve such software for future generations. In this project, I had the opportunity to contribute my own ideas and solutions and play a part in an important initiative.

Working in the Cyberlaw Clinic has been a fun and interesting experience. Through my involvement in projects I’ve been able to gain deeper insights into the substantive areas of the law and develop new skills, not only by collaborating and communicating with my team but also by managing tasks independently.  Being self-reliant and able to schedule working hours and deadlines independently is important and something I expected to hone during the semester. Beyond that, the most valuable skill I’ve gained is handling projects and clients on my own. The Cyberlaw Clinic gave me the opportunity to take increasingly more responsibilities in the development of the case/project. This is true for all clinic students: after working closely with supervisors at the beginning, they soon get to communicate with clients and later set up meetings and lead discussions with clients by themselves – valuable opportunities certainly not many internships or even first-year contracts would offer.

HIRC files amicus briefs on travel ban 3.0

December 4, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program

Last week, the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program filed two amicus briefs in the Fourth and Ninth Circuits to challenge President Trump’s most recent iteration of the travel ban. The briefs were written in collaboration with Fatma Marouf (HLS ’02), Professor of Law and Director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic at Texas A&M University School of Law, Nate MacKenzie (HLS ’17),  and current HLS students Dalia Deak (HLS ’19) and Niku Jafarnia (HLS ’19).

Read the full amicus briefs: Fourth Circuit, Ninth Circuit.

Clinic Releases Report on Sampling Household Tap Water for Lead Contamination

December 4, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Emmett Environmental Law and Policy Clinic

The Emmett Environmental Law & Policy Clinic has released its new report, “Detecting Lead In Household Tap Water: Sampling Procedures for Water Utilities,” which makes recommendations for how water utilities should sample household tap water to monitor the level of lead in their customers’ drinking water. The paper primarily focuses on sampling carried out by utilities for purposes of Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) compliance.

The details of when and how utilities collect water samples can dramatically influence the levels of lead that those samples contain. Some sampling methods risk significantly underestimating the lead levels to which customers may be exposed.

The Clinic provides a series of recommendations covering all stages of the sampling process, including ensuring that sampling sites represent at-risk homes; determining the best time of year for sampling; instituting a minimum nine-hour stagnation period; instructing residents not to remove aerators and to use high flow rate when collecting samples; and collecting additional and sequential samples.

The paper was authored by Clinic student Joshua Kestin, JD ’18 and Deputy Director Shaun Goho.

Emmett Clinic Files Brief Urging Public Disclosure of Agency Science Documents

December 4, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Emmett Environmental Law and Policy Clinic

On November 20, 2017, the Emmett Environmental Law and Policy Clinic filed a brief in the Ninth Circuit supporting the release of important agency scientific documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Clinic filed the amicus brief on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists in a case involving draft Endangered Species Act (ESA) documents prepared by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (the Services) to assess the impact of a proposed Clean Water Act regulation on endangered and threatened species.

In December 2013, the Services prepared draft biological opinions concluding that the proposed regulation, which applied to power plant cooling water intake structures, would jeopardize the continued existence of some listed species. When the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized the regulation the following year, the Services released a joint biological opinion concluding that the regulation would not cause such jeopardy.

The Sierra Club filed FOIA requests, asking the Services to release the draft biological opinions and other draft ESA consultation documents. When the Services refused, invoking a doctrine known as the deliberative process privilege, the Sierra Club sued to gain access to the documents. The district court ruled in favor of the Sierra Club, ordering the Services to release the documents. The Services have appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Clinic’s brief argues that the deliberative process privilege should rarely apply to scientific documents such as biological opinions. Keeping such documents secret undermines government transparency and accountability. In science-driven processes like ESA consultation, it is important for the public and courts to be able to know that agencies have followed the expert advice of their scientists and that such analyses have not been undermined by political considerations.  Moreover, withholding these scientific documents does little to advance the purpose of the deliberative process privilege, which is to promote candid deliberations on sensitive policy matters. The brief therefore argues that the Ninth Circuit should adopt a presumption that the deliberative process privilege does not apply to ESA consultation documents.

Informed Imbibing: Closing the Regulatory Gap in Nutrition and Ingredient Information Labeling for Alcoholic Beverages

December 4, 2017 / / 0 Comments

By Tammuz Huberman J.D. ’19, student in the Food Law and Policy Clinic

Let’s say you’re a health-conscious consumer at the grocery store deciding on a beverage to purchase. Maybe you glance at the familiar “Nutrition Fact” panels on food and beverage packages to help you decide what to buy. Bottled water displays zero calories, a can of Coke shows 150 calories, and the average protein shake about 250 calories. Wine? Beer? You’re out of luck: most alcoholic beverages are not required to display nutrition or ingredient information. This makes them virtually the only ingestible consumer products not required to disclose comprehensive product identity or quality information.

While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) instated mandatory labeling rules requiring use of a standard Nutrition Facts Panel and ingredient list, among other things, following the passage of the National Labeling and Education Act of 1990, alcohol is strangely regulated by a different agency – the Department of Treasury’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). TTB oversight of alcohol traces back to the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, passed by Congress in 1935 following the end of the Prohibition Era. Recognizing the tax revenue potential of alcoholic beverages, Congress assigned their regulation to the Treasury Department rather than the FDA. TTB has not adopted a comprehensive labeling regime akin to the FDA’s; as a result, alcoholic beverages fail to provide much in the way of product identity or quality information beyond alcohol content disclosures.

Continue reading

Clinic and HRW Document Use of Incendiary Weapons by Coalition of Syrian Government and Russian Forces

November 21, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via International Human Rights Clinic

(Geneva, November 20, 2017) – Countries should respond to reports of new use of incendiary weapons in Syria by working to strengthen the international law governing these exceptionally cruel weapons, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.

The 28-page report, “An Overdue Review: Addressing Incendiary Weapons in the Contemporary Context,” documents use of incendiary weapons by the coalition of Syrian government and Russian forces in 2017. It urges countries at a UN disarmament meeting, held in Geneva from November 22 to 24, 2017, to initiate a review of Protocol III of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW). This protocol, which regulates incendiary weapons, has failed to prevent their ongoing use, endangering civilians.

“Countries should react to the threat posed by incendiary weapons by closing the loopholes in outdated international law,” said Bonnie Docherty, associate director of armed conflict and civilian protection at Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic, which co-published the report. “Stronger law would mean stronger protections for civilians.”

Docherty, who is also senior arms researcher at Human Rights Watch, presented the report’s findings at a side event at the United Nations in Geneva today.

Incendiary weapons produce heat and fire through the chemical reaction of a flammable substance. They can be designed for marking and signaling or to burn materiel, penetrate plate metal, or produce smokescreens. Incendiary weapons cause excruciating burns, disfigurement, and psychological trauma, and they start fires that destroy civilian objects and infrastructure.

For the first time in nearly four decades, countries that are parties to the 1980 treaty have devoted a specific session at their annual meeting to Protocol III. The meeting will also address fully autonomous weapons, or “killer robots.”

Continue reading

Phil Torrey’s article “Jennings v. Rodriguez and the Future of Immigration Detention” published in Harvard Latinx Law Review

November 21, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program

Managing Attorney of the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, Philip L. Torrey, recently published an article, “Jennings v. Rodriguez and the Future of Immigration Detention”, in the Harvard Latinx Law Review. The article explores the possible implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s pending decision in the Jennings v. Rodriguez case.

Immigration detention will likely play a central role in the Trump administration’s efforts to increase deportations. Despite the President’s broad authority to detain, the U.S. Supreme Court will have an opportunity this term to limit that authority. In Jennings, the Court will consider both statutory and constitutional challenges to the government’s ability to detain certain individuals without providing them the opportunity to be released on bond. Not only does the Court’s decision in Jennings have the potential to restrict the government’s use of immigration detention, but it could simultaneously chip away at the plenary power doctrine, which traditionally accords Congress and the President broad authority to enact, administer, and enforce immigration law without judicial oversight.

Project on Predatory Student Lending’s Director of Litigation, Eileen Connor, selected for the 2017 “Rising Star” award from the National Consumer Law Center

November 21, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Legal Services Center

The Project on Predatory Student Lending’s Director of Litigation, Eileen Connor, has been selected for the 2017 “Rising Star” award from the National Consumer Law Center for her significant contributions to consumer law. Eileen’s award comes as a result of her Second Circuit victory in the case Salazar v. King. Her clients were defrauded by the predatory practices of the now-defunct Wilfred Beauty Academy.

Wilfred, a for-profit chain of cosmetology and business trade schools, came under government investigation in the 1980s for the misuse of student aid funds and the falsification of loan applications. The result of the investigation was an overwhelming amount of evidence proving Wilfred’s fraud in certifying students’ eligibility for loans. In 1996, the Department of Education found that Wilfred’s fraudulent practices were widespread and recommended that all Wilfred students who were improperly enrolled receive a loan discharge, reimbursement for money they had paid, and a restoration of their credit. Despite its own recommendation, the Department continued to collect on these loans, including through involuntary collection methods such as seizing tax refunds and garnishing wages.

Continue reading

Native leader, legal beacon

November 20, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Harvard Gazette

Julian SpearChief-Morris is the first indigenous student to head Harvard Law School’s venerable Legal Aid Bureau

Portrait photo of Julian SpearChief-Morris

Jon Chase/Harvard Staff Photographer
Julian SpearChief-Morris is the first indigenous president of the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau, the country’s oldest student-run organization providing free legal services, in its 104 years.

Growing up in the mostly white city of Lethbridge in southern Alberta, Canada, Julian SpearChief-Morris often felt out of place.

With an African-American father from Los Angeles and a Canadian mother from the Blood reserve, one of the four indigenous nations that make up the Blackfoot Confederacy, SpearChief-Morris found it hard to feel completely at home either at the reserve or in the city where he was raised.

“It was pretty difficult, especially in high school, because there weren’t many people who looked like me, or came from a background like mine,” he recalled. “I often felt I didn’t fit in.”

But after graduating from a local college and coming to Harvard Law School(HLS), with its diverse student body, SpearChief-Morris felt right at home. And when he was admitted to the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau, one of the three honor societies at the School, he found a family. It’s a place that SpearChief-Morris has made his own.

In his last year at the School, SpearChief-Morris has left a mark in the storied history of the organization, which was founded in 1913 to provide legal services to low-income clients in the Boston area.

He is the first indigenous student to lead the bureau.

Like the Harvard Law Review and the Bureau of Student Advisers, the bureau is a highly selective organization that has featured among its members former first lady Michelle Obama, J.D. ’88, former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick ’78, J.D. ’82, and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch ’81, J.D. ’84, all of whom represented low-income clients before the courts.

Continue reading

Clinic Releases Joint Report on Challenges and Significance of Documentation for Refugees in Nairobi

November 17, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via International Human Rights Clinic

The International Human Rights Clinic and the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) Kenya released a report today in Kenya detailing the challenges refugees in Nairobi face in obtaining the official documentation needed to secure their status and identity, as well as the significance of documentation to their daily lives. Most of the nearly half a million refugees in Kenya live in refugee camps, but approximately 64,000 live outside the camps, in Nairobi.

report coverThe report, “Recognising Nairobi’s Refugees,” highlights refugees’ experiences in Nairobi with registration and refugee status determination – processes that lead to documentation. The challenges refugees described included stalled or suspended processes; inconsistency in requirements and information; substantial delays in receiving documentation; and confusion about the next steps to take in a process. The report relies on interviews with more than 30 refugees living in Nairobi, as well as with representatives of local and international non-governmental organizations; the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; and the Kenyan government’s Refugee Affairs Secretariat.

In interviews, refugees described the critical importance of documentation to establishing a sense of security in the lives, as well as to proving their identity in official and informal settings. Without documentation, many reported frustration, stress, and even a feeling of hopelessness. Refugees lacking documentation also reported problems with police, such as harassment, which in turn led them to restrict their movements.

In their joint report, the Clinic and NRC recommend that, among other things, the Government of Kenya should continue to register refugees living outside camps; recognize refugees’ right to freedom of movement within the country; produce and widely disseminate clear guidance on registration and refugee status determination procedures; and undertake measures, such as training of relevant officials, to ensure refugees can live without fear or restriction in the city.

Today’s report is part of the Clinic’s ongoing focus on legal identity and refugee documentation. In previous years, the Clinic has collaborated with NRC to examine the challenges and significance of documentation – such as birth certificates and ID cards – for Syrian refugees living in Jordan.

Is VA Wrongfully Excluding Hundreds of Thousands of Veterans from Needed Care

November 17, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Veterans Legal Clinic

In a publication of the Penn State Law Review, Dana Montalto of the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School, along with colleague Bradford Adams of Swords to Plowshares, provides a legal history and analysis of how the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines who is eligible for basic health care and support services – and who should be excluded.  Although the 1944 GI Bill of Rights makes clear that only those veterans who “engaged in severe or repeated misconduct without explanation” should be barred from receiving benefits, Montalto and Adams argue that the VA incorrectly interprets the law, thereby unfairly preventing hundreds of thousands of former service members from receiving needed benefits.

Since World War II, the VA has been required to provide veterans’ benefits to all service members who left under conditions classified as “other than dishonorable,” so that only those who received or should have received a “dishonorable discharge” should be barred.  Service members who engaged in less severe misconduct, who were experiencing mental illness, or who suffered from other hardships should still be eligible for benefits.  Montalto explains that the VA has improperly implemented Congress’s statutory standard, excluding former service members for minor disciplinary problems during service and failing to consider extenuating or mitigating circumstances.

Montalto and Adams propose that the VA adopt a more holistic approach when determining whether a veteran is eligible for benefits.  Some changes to the VA’s eligibility review procedure could include starting with a presumption of eligibility instead of ineligibility for former service members, including a consideration of positive or mitigating factors in each eligibility case, and providing access to basic healthcare while eligibility reviews are pending.

Read the entire article

For more information regarding the Veterans Legal Clinic’s advocacy on behalf of veterans with bad paper discharges, read the following publications:

Underserved

Petition to amend regulations restricting eligibility for VA benefits based on conduct in service

VA Secretary Shulkin Discusses Needs of Disabled Veterans During Visit to Harvard Law School & Veterans Legal Clinic

November 13, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Veterans Legal Clinic

For the fourth year in a row, the Veterans Legal Clinic of the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School gathered together veterans, veterans service organizations, government officials. community providers, veterans advocates and lawyers, and law students for an event focused on the needs of disabled veterans. On Thursday, November 2, 2017, Dr. David Shulkin, the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, delivered the 2017 DAV Distinguished Speaker Lecture at Harvard Law School. The event was co-hosted by the Veterans Legal Clinic and Harvard Law School’s Armed Forced Association.

Alan Bowers, former National Commander of DAV, introducing VA Secretary Shulkin at HLS

Introductory remarks were given by former National Commander of DAV, Alan Bowers, a disabled combat veteran of the Vietnam War. Mr. Bowers described the community’s shared goal to care for veterans who are injured or ill as a result of their military service. “May the work of Harvard Law, the DAV, and the VA keep the promises that we make to the men and women who enlist in our armed forces of the United States of America, past and present. Keep the promise.”

Secretary Shulkin spoke about the challenges facing the VA, the VA’s efforts to serve the current needs of veterans, and his approach to leading the second largest federal agency.  Among other topics, he discussed veteran suicide, the needs of veterans with less-than-honorable discharges, innovations in the delivery of healthcare for veterans, and benefits appeal system reform. Speaking about the 2014 VA healthcare waitlist crisis, Shulkin said, “Our success is the trust of the veterans we serve and we clearly lost that trust.” Describing his approach when he took over as Secretary, he explained, “The only way I know how to go about regaining that trust is by being open and transparent about problems and as you’re fixing problems letting people know.”

Continue reading

The Intersection of Food, Health, and Science at the 5th Food is Medicine Symposium

November 6, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Food Law and Policy Clinic

Emily Broad Leib from Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic; Robert Greenwald from the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation; Congressman Jim McGovern, the first recipient of the Food is Medicine Advocacy Champion Award; and David Waters of Community Servings.

Emily Broad Leib from Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic; Robert Greenwald from the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation; Congressman Jim McGovern, the first recipient of the Food is Medicine Advocacy Champion Award; and David Waters of Community Servings.

At Harvard Law School’s 5th Annual Food Is Medicine Symposium, one woman was especially prepared for the occasion: she wore scrubs adorned with fruits and vegetables and broccoli earrings. She, along with a captive audience of dozens of people, came to hear about how community groups, food banks, scientists, and policymakers are coming together to help low-income individuals with chronic diseases get access to healthy and medically appropriate food.

The Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation of Harvard Law School co-hosted the event with longtime partner Community Servings, a nonprofit nutrition program in Massachusetts. They brought together a fascinating and compelling roster of speakers that, despite their different backgrounds and organizations, all surprisingly touched on a similar theme: Food Is Medicine makes good business sense.

Continue reading

Announcing CHLPI’s QHP Assessment Project for 2018

November 3, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation

The Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation (CHLPI) has monitored trends in state Marketplaces for the past three years of open enrollment. CHLPI has been concerned by lower rates of coverage and higher cost-sharing for necessary HIV and HCV treatment regimens, particularly in the Silver Qualified Health Plans (QHPs) offered across the nation. This is alarming because Silver QHP are meant to be the most cost-effective plan for low- and moderate-income individuals. These failures to meet the needs of people living with HIV/HCV means that these individuals cannot fully realize the promises of the Affordable Care Act.

CHLPI is continuing this effort today with the start of open enrollment with a dual purpose. First, CHLPI, alongside sixteen state partners conducting plan assessments, hope that the information gathered can be useful as people living with HIV, Hepatitis C, and other chronic illnesses seek to enroll or renew their plans during the shortened Open Enrollment and select the plans that offer the best coverage and lowest cost-sharing for them. Second, CHLPI will hold insurers accountable for any discriminatory practices discovered, including inadequate coverage of HIV/HCV medications as well as disproportionately high cost-sharing imposed on HIV/HCV treatment regimens. CHLPI will work with its state partners to spur both state and federal regulators to action and hold insurers accountable for their discriminatory practices.

Beyond the Nobel Peace Prize

November 3, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Harvard Gazette

Law School affiliates boost international treaty to ban nuclear weapons

Photo of Bonnie Docherty and students at the UN

Photo by Ralf Schlesenger
Two Harvard Law clinicians and four students took part in negotiating the treaty banning nuclear weapons as partners of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, which recently received the Nobel Peace Prize.

When a Norwegian committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) for its work behind a treaty to ban nuclear weapons, 3,500 miles away six people at Harvard cheered loudly.

They had reason to celebrate.

Bonnie Docherty, associate director of armed conflict and civilian protection, and clinical instructor Anna Crowe, who teach at the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School (HLS), and four law students had taken part in the treaty negotiations spearheaded by ICAN, a Geneva-based international coalition of organizations from more than 100 countries.

Supported by 122 countries at the United Nations in July, the treaty is the first to prohibit the use of nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped the atomic bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II.

For Docherty, who is also a senior researcher in the arms division of Human Rights Watch, last month’s Peace Prize brought attention to the treaty, reached amid increasing threats of a nuclear confrontation between the United States and North Korea.

“The negotiations were timely and urgent,” said Docherty. “It reminded the world of the need to take tangible steps for nuclear disarmament. The treaty banning nuclear weapons will make a real difference in the world.”

The agreement prohibits countries from developing, testing, producing, manufacturing, acquiring, possessing, or stockpiling nuclear weapons, but it needs to be ratified by 50 states before it can become international law. Complicating matters is the fact that the treaty has been boycotted by the world’s nine nuclear powers: the U.S., Russia, Israel, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea.

Students Carina Bentata Gryting, J.D. ’18, Molly Doggett, J.D. ’17, Alice Osman LL.M. ’17, and Lan Mei, J.D. ’17 took part in the negotiations and advocated for the inclusion of Articles 6 and 7, which included provisions to assist victims of nuclear use or testing and remediate the environment harmed, in the text of the treaty.

Continue reading

Shulkin seeks to increase service and accountability at Veterans Affairs

November 1, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Harvard Law Today

On Thursday, Nov. 2, Dr. David Shulkin, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, will deliver the 2017 Disabled American Veterans (DAV) Distinguished Lecture at Harvard Law School. This is the fourth annual event in the DAV Distinguished Speaker Series, which provides a forum for national leaders to address the critical issues facing our nation’s disabled veterans and to engage in conversation with the local community. The series is co-hosted by the Veterans Legal Clinic at the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School and the Harvard Law School Armed Forces Association.

In advance of his visit to the law school, Secretary Shulkin answered a few questions about the Department of Veterans Affairs and its service to veterans:

Dr. David Shulkin, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

Credit: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Dr. David Shulkin, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

A VA study found that 20 veterans commit suicide each day. What is the Department of Veterans Affairs doing to increase the availability of mental health services for all our veterans? And what is being done to increase the availability of these services for individuals who — due to PTSD or other mental health issues developed while in service — may have left the military with less than honorable discharges and are therefore may not be eligible for existing veterans benefits?

Nothing is more important to me than making sure that we don’t lose any veterans to suicide. Twenty veterans a day dying by suicide should be unacceptable to all of us. This is a national public health crisis and it requires solutions that not only VA will work on but all of government and other partnerships in the private sector, nonprofit organizations.

Within weeks of becoming Secretary, I authorized emergency mental health services for those who were less than honorably discharged. That  population of veterans is at very high risk for suicide. Under this initiative, former service members with an OTH (Other Than Honorable) administrative discharge may receive care for their mental health emergency for an initial period of up to 90 days, which can include inpatient, residential or outpatient care. During this time, VHA and the Veterans Benefits Administration will work together to determine if the mental health condition is a result of a service-related injury, making the service member eligible for ongoing coverage for that condition.

Continue reading

Staff Reflection: Remembering Someone I Never Knew

October 30, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via International Human Rights Clinic

By Bonnie Docherty

Carl Thorne-Thomsen with high school friend Linda Jones Docherty, mother of the author. Photo from the 1964 Lake Forest High School yearbook, courtesy of Linda Docherty.

Carl Thorne-Thomsen with high school friend Linda Jones Docherty, mother of the author. Photo from the 1964 Lake Forest High School yearbook, courtesy of Linda Docherty.

Although I never met Carl Thorne-Thomsen, I’ve known about him for as long as I can remember.

I distinctly recall driving down the road to my grandparents’ home in Lake Forest, IL, as my mother told me about her close high school friend who had died in Vietnam. Carl had opposed the war, she explained, but he felt it was unjust for him to be sheltered from the draft while others with less privilege were sent to fight in Southeast Asia. In a quiet act of protest, he withdrew from Harvard College during his junior year and was drafted in April 1967. Two months after arriving in Vietnam, and 50 years ago this week, he was killed in combat.

Although I was in elementary school at the time of this conversation, Carl’s decision to live—and die—by his principles made a vivid impression on me. Decades later, having spent most of my career on issues of armed conflict, I still find myself compelled. The 50th anniversary of his death motivated me to track down more information through archives and interviews and to write a Vita for Harvard Magazine’s September/October issue.

Continue reading

Update on the 2018 Triennial 1201 Rule-Making

October 25, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Cyberlaw Clinic

The Copyright Office has once again opened its triennial rulemaking proceedings for exemptions to the anti-circumvention clauses of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). This will be the seventh iteration of the rulemaking proceedings for the Copyright Office since Congress enacted 17 U.S.C. § 1201 in 1998 to reinforce copyright protection against an envisioned increase in piracy due to technological advancement. The anti-circumvention law prohibits the use of technology to bypass technology protection measures (“TPM”) that copyright owners implement, such as encryption tools that prevent consumers from copying movies or songs off a disk or simple password systems for website content or software “locking” mechanisms that prevent copying. Unfortunately, the broad reach of 17 U.S.C. § 1201 also jeopardized many otherwise non-infringing and publicly-beneficial activities that may require circumventing TPMs.

St Jude Medical pacemaker in hand

An artificial pacemaker (serial number 1723182) from St. Jude Medical, with electrode. By Steven Fruitsmaak, via Wikimedia Commons.

In an effort to rescue circumvention for lawful purposes, Congress identified certain classes of permanent exemptions to the anti-circumvention law, allowing, for example, reverse engineering research and security testing to be valid reasons for circumventing technological protections measures. In addition to the permanent exemptions, Congress also created the triennial rulemaking mechanism which creates 3-year temporary exemptions as a catch-all to prevent the anti-circumvention law from prohibiting lawful practices.

For the upcoming 2018 rulemaking proceedings, the Cyberlaw Clinic has submitted an anti-circumvention exemption request on behalf of the Software Preservation Network (“SPN”) and a renewal request on behalf of a coalition of medical device patients and researchers (“Medical Device Coalition”) for the Copyright Office’s seventh triennial rulemaking proceedings for anti-circumvention exemptions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). SPN seeks an exemption for libraries and archival institutions to circumvent technology protection mechanisms for the preservation of software for future research or usage. The Medical Device Coalition seeks a renewal for an exemption that the Cyberlaw Clinic successfully helped to secure in the 2015 rulemaking proceedings, which permits patients and security researchers to circumvent technological measures in medical devices to access output data. The SPN petition and medical device renewal request join 22 other new exemption petitions and 38 other exemption renewal requests submitted for the 2018 rulemaking proceedings.

Continue reading

FLPC Releases Food Recovery in the District of Columbia: A Legal Guide

October 25, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Food Law and Policy Clinic

Today, the Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic (FLPC) releases Food Recovery in the District of Columbia: A Legal Guide. This guide addresses common legal questions that businesses, schools, and nonprofits often have about food donation in the District. It was commissioned by the DC Food Recovery Working Group, a group created to support food recovery efforts in Washington D.C. and the surrounding area.

This guide explains both federal and D.C. laws and regulations that impact food recovery, including:

  • tax incentives for food donation
  • liability protection for food donors
  • date labeling requirements for food packaging
  • food safety guidance for food donation
  • donation by K-12 schools.

By helping businesses, schools, and food recovery organizations to better understand and navigate these laws, this guide aims to encourage the growth of food donation and food recovery in Washington D.C.

Read Food Recovery in the District of Columbia: A Legal Guide.

Women refugees and why law matters

October 24, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Harvard Law Today

In many ways, Jane’s life in Kenya was idyllic. She was an educated, confident professional woman with a flourishing career. She owned her own perfume business, and was four months into a prestigious new job in the banking sector. She was an active member of a close-knit church community, and she was raising a daughter she dearly loved, whom she had named “Angel” after her miraculous recovery from infant health problems.

There was only one problem in her life: her husband. In the privacy of their home, he had become increasingly violent and abusive.

When her husband deliberately burned their four-year-old daughter’s hand, and then brutally beat Jane and tried to strangle her, she realized that he was truly capable of killing her. She knew that he had powerful connections, and could find her anywhere in Kenya. Using a tourist visa she had obtained to visit her brother in the U.S. later in the year, she and her daughter quickly booked a flight to Boston, with no long-term plan.

After landing, Jane took her daughter directly to the Boston Children’s Hospital to have the dressing changed on her burned hand. There, a social worker put her in touch with Greater Boston Legal Services.

Continue reading

HIRC requests hearing on Canada’s treatment of refugees from Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

October 19, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program

On October 4, 2017, the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program (HIRC) filed a request for a hearing with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) to discuss the human rights situation of refugee claimants under the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) between Canada and the United States.

Under the agreement, Canada bars refugee claimants attempting to enter the country from the United States at border ports of entry on the premise that the United States is a “safe” country for refugees, with certain limited exceptions. But as HIRC made clear in its hearing request sent to the Commission, “the United States is not a safe country of asylum for persons fleeing persecution and violence.”

In the nine months since President Donald Trump’s executive orders on interior and border enforcement took effect, human rights conditions for refugee claimants in the United States have deteriorated drastically. HIRC analyzed the effects of these orders in detail in a report issued in February 2017. Refugee claimants who are returned to the United States are now more likely to face prolonged and indefinite detention; expedited removal proceedings without due process; a more stringent credible fear interview process; increased and aggressive criminal prosecution for immigration-related crimes; and return to their home countries in violation of the obligation of non-refoulement under the UN Refugee Convention and Protocol to the Convention, as well as under domestic law incorporating those obligations.

Continue reading

Emmett Clinic Hosts Workshop on Citizen Science

October 19, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Emmett Environmental Law and Policy Clinic

The Emmett Clinic released its Manual for Citizen Scientists Starting or Participating in Data Collection and Environmental Monitoring Projects in September, 2017. Building on this work, on October 13, 2017, the Clinic, together with the Environmental Defense Fund and the Environmental Law Institute convened a workshop called “Citizen Science and Environmental Protection.”

The workshop brought together representatives from federal, state, and local governments; citizen science organizations; environmental organizations; community groups; and academia. The keynote speaker was Bob Perciasepe, President of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) and former Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Participants discussed the role of citizen science in environmental monitoring and enforcement, case studies of successful projects, legal and practical barriers for citizen scientists, and strategies for promoting citizen science in the coming years.  Based in part on the ideas generated in this workshop, the Clinic will be developing new citizen science-related student projects for future semesters.

Massachusetts Considers Digital Right to Repair

October 17, 2017 / / 0 Comments

By Alex Noonan J.D. ’19

Via Cyberlaw Clinic

On September 26, 2017, the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure heard testimony on proposed digital “right to repair” bills H.143 and S.96. The two proposed bills would require manufacturers of digital devices to provide diagnostic, repair, and service information to independent technicians and owners of devices, information that is currently only available to technicians selected and authorized by the manufacturers. The bills would further require manufacturers allow independent technicians and owners to purchase replacement parts and service tools at a reasonable price. The bills by their terms relieve manufacturers of the obligation to reveal any trade secret; however, they do not address the practicality of providing service manuals and diagnostic information without exposing trade secrets, particularly for manufacturers who rely heavily on trade secret protection.

Massachusetts has tackled right to repair before. In 2012, Massachusetts became the first state to pass right to repair legislation for motor vehicles. Rather than face future legislation from other states, auto manufacturers agreed to make the Massachusetts law their national standard.

Continue reading

 

About Political Dialogue in a Confrontational Culture

October 12, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Harvard Negotiation and Mediation Clinical Program 

Portrait photo of Oriol Valentí

Oriol Valentí i Vidal ‘17

Last week, images of the Spanish police brutally cracking down on voters in Catalonia’s illegal referendum on secession popped up on computer screens around the world, bringing with them a wave of international attention and unprecedented internal anxiety. 42.34% of eligible voters cast their vote, the majority of whom (90%) supported secession from Spain. Aside from the failed coup d’état in 1981, this represents Spain’s most profound constitutional crisis since democracy was restored in 1978, and remains a hot debate in Catalonia.

After finishing my LL.M. at Harvard Law School a few months ago, I came back to Spain: first to Madrid, and then—coinciding with the referendum for the independence of Catalonia—to Barcelona. However, as much as I was excited to be back home, viewing such extreme polarization first-hand worried me. Although Spanish political culture tends to be confrontational, the current level of social tension has seemed, at least to me, unparalleled.

Continue reading

Helping low-income clients navigate the IRS

October 10, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Tax Clinic students fight for clients’ rights, file potentially precedent-setting appeals

Via Harvard Law Today

The client worked at a minimum wage retail job earning $13,000 a year and was the family’s sole breadwinner. Because she and her aging mother had agreed to foster a relative’s child whose parents had been incarcerated, she filed a federal tax return claiming the earned income tax credit and advanced child tax credit, both of which are designed to benefit low-income households.

Then an IRS audit ruled her ineligible for those benefits – which would have brought an additional $5,000 into the household – saying the child’s foster care status did not qualify her as a dependent for purposes of these credits. But thanks to tenacious legal research and petition-filing by a Harvard Law School student working in the Tax Clinic of the Legal Services Center at HLS, the IRS ruling was overturned and the client received much needed additional income.

Leveling the playing field

Low-income clients come to Harvard’s Tax Clinic because they need an advocate to fight for their legal rights – rights that are meaningless if clients lack access to a lawyer to stand up for them.

Tax debt and the liens which the IRS files can prevent clients from getting jobs, while fixing tax problems allows them to reenter the job market and has a positive impact on their credit ratings.

Tax Clinic clients are military veterans, immigrants, or survivors of domestic violence. They find themselves under audit or in Tax Court because they have been victimized by scoundrel fly-by-night tax preparers who submit faulty returns on their behalf. Or they have survived abusive domestic relationships only to discover that spouses kept them in the dark about nefarious, unreported financial dealings that have potentially devastating tax consequences. Still others are vets who fail to file tax returns after losing jobs or businesses because they suffer from service-related post-traumatic stress disorder.

Continue reading

IHRC’s partner in negotiations of Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty wins Nobel Peace Prize

October 10, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via Harvard Law Today

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), with which Harvard’s International Human Rights Clinic collaborated during the negotiations of a nuclear weapons ban treaty, received the Nobel Peace Prize today. The honor reflects international recognition of the humanitarian approach to disarmament, a movement that strives to minimize civilian suffering from inhumane weapons.

Members of the Harvard team (second to right), including Bonnie Docherty, Anna Crowe, and Lan Mei ’17, in a negotiating session of the new treaty to ban nuclear weapons.

Credit: Ralf Schlesener
Members of the Harvard team (second to right), including Bonnie Docherty, Anna Crowe, and Lan Mei ’17, in a negotiating session of the new treaty to ban nuclear weapons.

Over the past decade, ICAN has changed the course of nuclear disarmament by shifting the focus from national security to the catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences these weapons cause.  Their work and the invaluable advocacy of survivors of nuclear weapons used in conflict and testing helped lead to an international ban on the weapons this summer.

Continue reading

Clinic’s Partner in Negotiations of Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty Wins Nobel Peace Prize

October 6, 2017 / / 0 Comments

Via International Human Rights Clinic

The “positive obligations” advocacy team, including IHRC students and supervisors, moments after adoption of the nuclear weapon ban treaty on July 7, 2017.

We are thrilled to announce that the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), with which we collaborated during the negotiations of a nuclear weapon ban treaty, received the Nobel Peace Prize today. The honor reflects international recognition of the humanitarian approach to disarmament, a movement that strives to minimize civilian suffering from inhumane weapons.

Over the past decade, ICAN has changed the course of nuclear disarmament by shifting the focus from national security to the catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences these weapons cause.  Their work and the invaluable advocacy of survivors of nuclear weapons use in conflict and testing helped lead to an international ban on the weapons this summer.

The International Human Rights Clinic joined ICAN and UK-based disarmament organization Article 36 in the efforts for the new Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.  Supervisors Bonnie Docherty and Anna Crowe, along with a team of four students, provided legal support to the campaign during the treaty negotiations at the United Nations in New York.  They also advocated successfully for the inclusion of obligations to assist victims and remediate the environment harmed.

More than 120 countries adopted the treaty in July. Fifty-three have signed the treaty since it opened for signature last month. In so doing, those countries have committed to abiding by the object and purpose of the instrument.

Continue reading

Older posts Newer posts

© 2018 Clinical and Pro Bono Programs

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑