Tuesday, May 5, 2020
Call for Authors
Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Criminal Law Opinions
The U.S. Feminist Judgments Project seeks contributors of rewritten judicial opinions and commentary on those opinions for an edited collection entitled Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Criminal Law Opinions. This edited volume is part of a collaborative project among law professors and others to rewrite, from a feminist perspective, key judicial decisions. The initial volume, Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court, edited by Kathryn M. Stanchi, Linda L. Berger, and Bridget J. Crawford, was published in 2016 by Cambridge University Press. Subsequent volumes in the series have focused on different courts and different subjects. This call is for contributions to a volume of criminal law decisions rewritten from a feminist perspective.
Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Criminal Law Opinion editors Sarah Deer, Corey Rayburn Yung, and Bennett Capers seek prospective authors to rewrite criminal law opinions covering a range of topics. With the help of an Advisory Committee, the editors have chosen a list of cases to be rewritten (as noted below). Potential authors are welcome to suggest other cases, though certain constraints (including a preference for avoiding cases that have already been or soon will be rewritten for other volumes in this series) may preclude their addition to the volume. We also seek authors to provide brief commentary on the original and rewritten cases.
Rewritten opinions may be reimagined majority opinions, dissents, or concurrences, as appropriate to the court. Feminist judgment writers will be bound by law and precedent in effect at the time of the original decision (with a 10,000-word maximum for the rewritten judgment). Commentators will explain the original court decision, how the feminist judgment differs from the original judgment, and what difference the feminist judgment might have made going forward (4,000-word maximum for the commentary). The volume editors conceive of feminism broadly and invite applications that seek to advance, complicate, or critique feminist ideas and advocacy. We are “big tent” and welcome all types of feminism, from liberal feminism to abolitionist feminism. We certainly welcome an intersectional analysis of cases where sex or gender played a role alongside racism, ableism, classism, and other concerns.
Those who are interested in rewriting an opinion or providing the commentary on one of the rewritten criminal law cases should email the volume editors (email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, and email@example.com) and put “Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Criminal Law Opinions” in the subject line. In the body of the email, please indicate whether you are interested in writing an opinion or providing a commentary, and specify one or more of the cases from the list below that you would like to rewrite or comment on. You are also free to suggest a case not listed.
Please note that the editors are committed to diversity in all of its forms, and committed to including a diverse group of authors in this volume. If you feel an aspect of your personal identity is important to your participation in this volume, please feel free to include that in your expression of interest.
Applications are due by June 1, 2020. The editors expect to notify accepted authors and commentators no later than July 1, 2020. First drafts of rewritten opinions will be due on October 1, 2020. First drafts of commentaries will be due on November 1, 2020.
List of cases:
- Oliphant v. Suquamish, 435 U.S. 191 (1978) (tribal criminal jurisdiction)
- Winnebago v. BigFire, 25 Indian L. Rptr 6229 (1998) (strict scrutiny for gender cases)
- Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. 723 (2015) (threatening communications case)
- U.S. v. Nwoye, 824 F.3d 1129 (2016) (domestic violence/duress)
- Keeler v. Superior Ct of Amador Cnty, 470 P.2d 617 (Cal. 1970) (killing of fetus)
- Whitner v. State, 492 S.E.2d 777 (1977) (criminalizing prenatal activity)
- Coker v. Georgia, 433 US. 584 (1977) (death penalty and rape)
- McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) (death penalty and race)
- People v. Berry, 556 P.2d 777 (1976) (provocation)
- Girouard v. State, 583 A.2d 718 (Md. 1991) (provocation)
- People v. Helen Wu, 286 Cal. Rptr. 868 (1991) (cultural defense)
- State v. Norman, 324 N.C. 253 (1989) (self-defense)
- State v. Rusk, 424 A.2d 720 (1981) (acquaintance rape)
- Massachusetts v. Blache, 880 N.E.2d 736 (Mass. 2008) (rape/intoxication)
- McQuirter v. State, 36 Ala. 707 (1953) (rape/race)
- State re M.T.S., 609 A.2d 1266 (N.J. 1992) (juveniles/rape)