IU McKinney Faculty Offer Commentary on Latest News Events in Statewide Media
Faculty members of the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law are often called upon to offer commentary on news events with a legal angle. Among those offering their expertise and insights lately to media statewide are:
Professor Shawn Boyne agreed that the case of national security officials reading Indiana University instructor Christine Von Der Haar’s email is troubling. Boyne was quoted in the Indianapolis Star February 20 in a story about Von Der Haar’s questioning by agents of the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol regarding Von Der Haar’s friendship with a foreign national.
Professor Jeff Cooper spoke with WRTV Channel 6 news on February 19 for a news story about a man accused of shooting his ex-wife in front of a west-side day care center. The shooting is believed to be the result of a child custody dispute, and Cooper talked about the timing of the judge’s ruling in the case.
Professor Robert Katz was quoted in the Indianapolis Star for a story published February 25 on legislation that had been proposed in the Indiana House of Representatives, but was scrapped. The measure would have allowed any school, college, or religious institution affiliated with a church to make employment decisions based on religion, even if those organizations have a contract with the state. Katz said the move would have created a right to discriminate on the basis of religion for any purpose, “even if it has nothing to do with the organization's religious mission.”
Professor David Orentlicher’s column in the Indianapolis Star published February 20 concerns rising health care costs. Orentlicher advocates working for incentives for physicians and hospitals to keep such costs down.
Professor Carlton Waterhouse talked with WIBC radio for a story that aired on February 24 about the case Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, which was argued in the United States Supreme Court on February 24. Indiana is one of the states arguing that the EPA exceeded its authority when it used the Clean Air Act to limit carbon dioxide emissions and crafted its own limits instead of using the limits the law sets for other pollutants. Waterhouse said the case poses a straightforward question of how the act should be interpreted.