2005-2006 Sullivan Lecturer
Erwin Chemerinsky
Alston & Bird Professor of Law
Duke University

Erwin Chemerinsky presented on Fri., Oct. 14.

Before becoming the Alston & Bird Professor of Law at Duke University, Professor Chemerinsky taught at the University of Southern California Law School. Chemerinsky was also formerly an attorney at the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., and he previously worked at Dobrovir, Oakes, and Gebhardt, a law firm in Washington, D.C. Professor Chemerinsky has received degrees from both Northwestern University and Harvard Law School.

Professor Chemerinsky is the author of the following four publications: Federal Jurisdiction (Aspen Law & Business 4th ed. 2003); Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (Aspen Law & Business 2d ed. 2002); Constitutional Law (Aspen Law & Business 2001); Interpreting the Constitution (Praeger 1987). He also has written more than one hundred law review articles that have appeared in publications such as Harvard Law Review, Northwestern Law Review, Stanford Law Review and Yale Law Journal. Professor Chemerinsky has agreed to publish an article with the Capital University Law Review.

Professor Chemerinsky frequently argues appellate cases before the United States Supreme Court and the United States Courts of Appeals. In fact, he recently argued before the United States Supreme Court in the case Lockyer v. Andrade, a case in which the court considered a challenge to the application of California's three strikes law.

Just prior to the Sullivan Lecture, Chemerinsky made two oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court. On March 2, Chemerinsky will argue before the Court in the case Van Orden v. Perry (the Governor of Texas); at issue is whether a large monument presenting the Ten Commandments, located on government property between the Texas State Capitol and the Texas Supreme Court, is an impermissible establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment. On March 22, he will argue for the petitioner in Tory v. Cochran (former counsel to O.J. Simpson) as to whether a permanent injunction as a remedy in a defamation action, preventing future speech about an admitted public figure, violates the First Amendment.