Tort Law

Print
Comment
Reimagining National Security
Adjusting Immunity for Unconstitutional Torts
Liam Grah
B.A., University of California, Berkeley, 2021; J.D. Candidate, The University of Chicago Law School, 2025.

I would like to thank Professor John Rappaport for his invaluable help refining this Comment and the incredible work of the Legal Forum staff.

Sovereign immunity protects the government from liability arising in suits brought against it by citizens. The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) broadly waives sovereign immunity for tort claims against the United States. The discretionary function exception maintains immunity for tortious acts committed by employees acting within the valid bounds of their discretion. There is a circuit split about whether the discretionary function exception immunizes tortious conduct that is also unconstitutional.
This Comment argues that the discretionary function exception should only immunize unconstitutional tortious conduct when the actions do not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable officer would have known.

Print
Comment
Reimagining National Security
How Civil Aiding and Abetting Liability for Terrorist Activities Applies to Social Media Companies—And How it Does Not
Nathaniel Parr
B.S., Georgia Institute of Technology, 2018; M.S., Georgia Institute of Technology, 2019; J.D. Candidate, The University of Chicago Law School, 2025.

I am deeply grateful for the guidance and wisdom imparted by Professor Genevieve Lakier which made this Comment possible. I also thank Caroline Kelly, whose mentorship has been instrumental during my time studying law.

The 2023 Supreme Court case Twitter v. Taamneh found that defendant social media companies were not liable for aiding and abetting a terrorist attack overseas. The Court alluded to the existence of an alternative set of facts that might alter their analysis or produce a different outcome. This Comment explores those “other contexts” and seeks to identify what factors could produce a successful Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) aiding and abetting claim against a social media company for an act of terrorism overseas. Ultimately, this Comment concludes that it would take an extraordinary set of facts to find social media companies secondarily liable for an act of terrorism. This Comment then suggests other avenues to encourage social media companies to heighten their detection of Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) activity and prevent future attacks.

Print
Article
Law for the Next Pandemic
The Need for Tort Law Necessity Defense in Intellectual Property Law
Yaniv Heled
Associate Professor, Georgia State University College of Law; J.S.D. 2011, LL.M. 2004 Columbia Law School; LL.B. 2000, Undergraduate Diploma in Biology 2000 Tel Aviv University.
Ana Santos Rutschman
Assistant Professor of Law, Saint Louis University School of Law, Center for Health Law Studies and Center for Comparative and International Law. S.J.D., LL.M., Duke Law School.
Liza Vertinsky
Associate Professor, Emory Law School; Ph.D. (econ.) 1997, J.D. 1997 Harvard University; M.A. (econ.) 1992 University of British Columbia; B.A. 1991 Oxford University.

We are grateful to Timothy Lytton for comments on an earlier version of the essay. We also thank Cynthia Ho, Christa Laser, Rachel Sachs, Sean Tu, Ofer Tur-Sinai and participants at the 2021 WIPIP Conference for their comments and suggestions. We are also grateful to Lane McKell and Alessandra Palazzolo for their assistance with research for this essay.

The COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare inherent tensions between the protection of intellectual property (IP) and the health of individuals touched by life-threatening medical conditions. Instead of looking for solutions that would entail legislative action, a stretch of emergency powers, or vague private commitments, we suggest that the law already provides a mechanism for addressing this tension in the form of the age-old common tort law doctrine of necessity.