Reposted by Lynette Martins
It's time for the Supreme Court to use AI to decide what cases it will hear!
"CertiorarAI," forthcoming in the Washburn Law Review (coauthored with @alexklein.bsky.social). papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Lynette Martins
@lynettemartins.bsky.social
790 followers 740 following 555 posts
Jaharis Faculty Fellow in Health Law, DePaul University College of Law. Adjunct @Georgetown Law ; LLM Georgetown Law; Penn Bioethics; Univ of Man. Pop Health Evidence; Univ of Huddersfield 🇧🇸🇵🇹Health Law, Tech & Bioethics
![Law and the Supernatural
Mini-Seminar
Prof. Hannah Walser
Fall 2026
Course Description
What happens when purported spiritual, religious, or otherwise otherworldly experiences run up against standards of legal proof and liability? In this mini-seminar, we will trace glimmers of the supernatural through legal history to see what they can teach us about law's own quasi-magic powers. Topics include religious and spiritual fraud; the insanity defense and "religious delusion"; authorship and copyright from beyond the grave; the enforceability of contracts with the devil; and the evidentiary challenges of proving the ineffable. In addition to judicial opinions and other case documents, we will discuss historical and journalistic accounts, scholarly articles, and fictional narratives.
Schedule
September 17: Is Law Magic?
- Jessie Allen, Magical Realisms, in LAW AND MAGIC: A COLLECTION OF ESSAYS 195 (Christine A. Corcos ed., 2010)
October 1: Spiritual Fraud and Sincere Belief
- United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78(1944)
- CHARLES MCCRARY, SINCERELY HELD: AMERICAN SECULARISM AND ITS BELIEVERS
(2022) [excerpts: 1-5, 12-20]
- Optional: MCCRARY, 88-101
October 8: "Deific Decrees" and the Insanity Defense
- JON KRAKAUER, UNDER THE BANNER OF HEAVEN: A STORY OF VIOLENT FAITH (2003)
[excerpts: xi-xxili, 87-93, 136-43, 157-72, 291-321]
- L. Joe Dunman, Testing Religious Insanity, 70 Wayne L. Rev. 415(2025) [excerpts: 416-
23, 436-4491
- Optional: Read the whole article](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:pwlygq4vcnwe4wzqxgczcv5u/bafkreiedh4mytpfam2cudlrjudmvxopaw3zvqeubmykvjucth4xooura3a)
![October 29: Contracting with the Devil
- HANS PETER BROEDEL, THE MALLEUS MALEFICARUM AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF WITCHCRAFT: THEOLOGY AND POPULAR BELIEF (2003) [excerpt: 20-24]
- Soili-Maria Olli, The Devil's Pact: A Male Strategy, in BEYOND THE WITCH TRIALS:
WITCHCRAFT AND MAGIC IN ENLIGHTENMENT EUROPE 100 (Owen Davies and Willem De Blecourt, eds., 2004)
- Stephen Vincent Benét, The Devil and Daniel Webster, THE SATURDAY EVENING POST,
Oct. 24 1936.
- Optional: THE SIMPSONS: Treehouse of Horror IV [excerpt: "The Devil and Homer
Simpson"]
November 5: Witches in Evidence
- Trace M. Maddox, The Lawyer, the Witch, and the Witness: Proving Witchcraft in the English Courts, 35 YALEJ.L. & HUMAN. 666(2024) [excerpts: 666-69, 675-80, 698-709]
- Optional: Read the whole article
- INCREASE MATHER, A FURTHER ACCOUNT OF THE TRYALS OF THE NEW-ENGLAND WITCHES (John Russell Smith, 1862) (1693) [excerpt: 269-84]
November 12: The Afterlife of the Author
- Christine A. Corcos, "Ghostwriters": Spiritualists, Copyright Infringement, and Rights of Publicity, in LAW AND MAGIC 79
- Optional: Emily Grant Hutchings, The Coming of "Jap Herron", in JAP HERRON: A NOVEL WRITTEN AT THE OUIJA BOARD (1917)](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:pwlygq4vcnwe4wzqxgczcv5u/bafkreihn6pbtzwk3qvoriuetdezv5t2p2szhwpmcjdkdipksge66vkky4e)
![TEXTUAL (IN)DIFFERENCE IN STATE SEARCHAND-SEIZURE PROVISIONS
Quinn Yeargain
ABSTRACT—Over the past 250 years, state constitutional drafters have refined the scope of rights and liberties protected by their constitutions’ texts. Today, all state constitutions include a search-and-seizure provision—and though only a minority follow the layout, text, and context of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, most of them bear a striking resemblance to it. However, textual variations abound. Some of them may seem minor, like using the word “possessions” instead of “effects,” or mandating that warrants describe their intended targets “as nearly as may be” instead of requiring that they “particularly describ[e]” them. But others, like the addition of “electronic data and communications,” are far more significant. Yet regardless of the nature of the addition, most courts do not seem to view these linguistic changes as legally significant. While there are some exceptions, most state courts effectively gloss over the textual differences when interpreting the scope of their searchand-seizure provisions.
In this Essay, I argue that these textual differences could alter the applicability of several doctrines from federal criminal procedure jurisprudence—and that they should not be read out of state constitutions. Relying on an original database of state constitutions and proposed amendments, I chart out the textual changes to state constitutions’ search-and-seizure provisions from 1776 to present, survey case law interpreting these provisions, and conclude that while courts have largely not treated these differences as relevant, they should.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:q3dycka5ce2gybcbau5gfehd/bafkreicqgcrigwgxvhobnftdhagc33znvle5a4a44brqhau7c7avrbqrum)