Latest news with #UniversityofChicagoLawSchool
Time Business News
04-08-2025
- Business
- Time Business News
How Force Majeure Clauses Are Reshaping Business Contracts in a Post-Pandemic Economy
Force majeure clauses have become a focal point of contract negotiations after the COVID-19 pandemic exposed their weaknesses. This article explains why these clauses matter now more than ever, what makes them enforceable, how courts interpret them, and how businesses can draft better provisions to avoid liability in future disruptions. This legal shift reflects a broader demand for more resilient contractual protections in unpredictable times. Force majeure clauses are more relevant in 2025 because courts and businesses have reevaluated their significance following global disruptions. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted their flaws, particularly vague wording that left businesses exposed. In a study by the University of Chicago Law School published in June 2024, 78% of contract disputes involved force majeure disagreements, up from 23% pre-2020. Businesses now prioritize force majeure clauses as essential safeguards, not boilerplate text. Industries such as hospitality, logistics, and manufacturing—examples include global hotel chains and freight companies—have updated their contract templates to reflect stricter requirements for enforceability and clarity. The key elements that make a force majeure clause enforceable are specificity, foreseeability, and causation. A clause must list specific events such as natural disasters, government shutdowns, pandemics, or labor strikes. According to Stanford Law Review (2023), 64% of clauses that used general terms like 'acts of God' or 'unforeseen circumstances' failed to hold up in court. Courts require a direct causal link between the event and the inability to perform contractual obligations. For example, in Pacific Energy v. Harbor Tech (2023), the court ruled the clause unenforceable because the party could not prove the pandemic directly caused their breach. The clearer the language, the higher the enforceability rate. No, force majeure clauses generally do not apply to economic hardship or inflation unless explicitly stated. Economic downturns are considered commercial risks, not uncontrollable events. The Supreme Court of New York ruled in Axelrod Partners LLC v. Glenco Motors (2022) that inflation was foreseeable and therefore not a valid excuse under the force majeure clause. According to Columbia Business School's Legal Research Department (2024), only 9% of force majeure clauses in reviewed contracts specifically addressed 'economic conditions' or 'price instability.' To apply force majeure to such scenarios, the contract must clearly state that such financial shifts qualify as triggering events. Businesses must review and revise their force majeure language accordingly. Businesses can rewrite outdated force majeure clauses by including pandemic-specific language, government orders, cybersecurity events, and global supply chain failures. Legal experts from Yale Law School's Business Law Center (2023) recommend five key revisions: Include clear event definitions such as 'pandemic,' 'government-imposed lockdown,' or 'cyber-attack.' Add a duty-to-mitigate clause to show efforts to minimize impact. State whether partial performance excuses the entire contract. Require timely notice obligations with strict deadlines. Specify jurisdictions and laws governing interpretation. For example, a revised clause in a contract between two e-commerce platforms included ransomware attacks and port closures as qualifying force majeure events. These updates align the clause with current risks while satisfying legal scrutiny. Yes, jurisdiction affects how courts interpret force majeure clauses because legal standards vary by state and country. In the U.S., New York courts interpret clauses narrowly, requiring proof that the event was entirely unforeseeable. In contrast, California courts apply a more liberal view, focusing on equitable relief. The University of Michigan Law School's 2024 study shows a 45% higher enforceability rate for pandemic-related force majeure claims in California than in New York. Internationally, civil law countries such as France allow broader interpretations under their legal codes, while common law countries like the UK demand strict adherence to contract language. Businesses operating in multiple regions must tailor clauses to local legal frameworks. Businesses can learn how to draft enforceable clauses for 2025 by consulting legal writing platforms, university law reviews, and contract law training courses. One recommended approach is to analyze court rulings from the past three years to understand evolving interpretations. Legal Drafting Services now offer updated clause templates based on 2020–2024 jurisprudence. Internal legal teams or external counsel should test each clause against real-world hypotheticals to confirm its resilience. For example, simulation-based reviews by compliance teams can expose gaps before contract execution. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Yahoo
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bucking policy trend, public access to video of CPD Officer Krystal Rivera's fatal shooting is delayed
A judge has barred the release of video and other materials related to the investigation into the friendly fire shooting death of Chicago police Officer Krystal Rivera, a move that came after the Cook County state's attorney's office asked that the information be shielded from public records requests. Rivera, 36, a four-year veteran of the department, was mistakenly shot and killed by a fellow officer on June 5 after a confrontation with an armed suspect. The tragic slaying of the officer, who will be laid to rest on Wednesday, happened amid long-brewing debates about the safety of foot pursuits and is sure to raise questions about training and officer safety in general. But the court order, signed June 13 by Judge Deidre Dyer, delays the public's access to critical information about the matter, even though long-held public policy since the 2014 fatal shooting of Laquan McDonald favors timely access to video that can shed light on officer-involved shootings. Though it's not uncommon for video to be restricted from public view while an investigation or prosecution is proceeding, legal experts and advocates for transparency raised concerns about the move, especially if such orders are being sought by the state and granted by judges without a thorough examination of balance between the integrity of the case and the public's right to know how their government is functioning. Multiple legal experts noted that the motion, filed by the prosecutor's office on June 13, referenced federal exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act rather than the state's companion law that would govern it. 'There is a big picture concern that the default role of transparency is being flipped on its head whenever there is a criminal case,' said Craig Futterman, a clinical professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School. 'I have a fear that these motions are being filed and orders are being entered without a particularized interrogation that was envisioned under the FOIA statute.' In response to questions from the Tribune, a spokesperson for the state's attorney's office said it does not comment on pending litigation. Requests for comment from the city were not returned by deadline. Throughout the past decade, video from police body-worn cameras and other sources has become a critical check on official narratives about police shootings after the release of such material became policy following the murder of 17-year-old McDonald at the hands of former Chicago police Officer Jason Van Dyke. The dashcam video of the shooting captured Van Dyke, who served a little more than three years in prison, shooting the teenager 16 times as he walked away. The video contradicted the accounts of police and led to a rare murder charge against Van Dyke. With the fight over the release of the dashcam video still fresh in the city's mind, the newly formulated Civilian Office of Police Accountability instituted a policy to publish CPD body-worn camera footage and related police records within 60 days of a police shooting. The agency replaced the Independent Police Review Authority after the McDonald video was released in 2015. COPA's policy, though, has exceptions and cannot supersede a judge's order. Experts said they believe the policy to release videos has rebuilt some public trust, but raised concerns about it backsliding if videos are routinely shielded by judges. 'We would be back to the days of pre-Laquan McDonald,' said Matt Topic, a partner at the civil rights firm Loevy and Loevy who litigated for the release of the dashcam video of McDonald's shooting. 'We would be back to not knowing if what police are telling us is true or not.' In a criminal case related to Rivera's death, Adrian Rucker, 25, is charged with armed violence and other felonies. Prosecutors alleged that Rucker pointed an AR-style pistol after Rivera and her partner followed another suspect into the apartment. Prosecutors later charged a second man, Jaylin Arnold, 27. In the motion to withhold release of the video and other materials filed in Rucker's case, Cook County prosecutors argued that the release could interfere with enforcement proceedings and a defendant's right to a fair trial. Futterman pointed out that usually defense attorneys would be the party that makes arguments about their clients' due process rights. The judge's order bars release until 'further order of the court.' In a statement, a COPA spokesperson said: 'The materials will be available under FOIA once the court order is lifted. Until then, COPA is prohibited from releasing them.' It's not clear, though, when and how the order may be lifted. 'Someone would have to incur the time and expense to vacate that order unless we think the state's attorney would move to vacate,' Topic said. Stephanie Holmes Didwania, an associate professor of law at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, said federal and state Freedom of Information laws have 'a strong preference for disclosure.' 'It's designed to allow the public to be adequately informed about what their government is doing,' she said. Holmes Didwania noted, though, that the laws have exceptions, and that law enforcement can have legitimate interests in keeping investigations confidential. She said prosecutors could be concerned about issues like the video shaping the accounts of witnesses who have yet to be interviewed. 'The statute itself is trying to balance these two competing interests,' she said, though she added that Illinois' FOIA statute requires the government to provide clear and convincing evidence to support an exemption from the law. Loren Jones, director of the Criminal Legal Systems Program at Impact for Equity, said that the government should be held to a high standard in overcoming public access laws related to police shootings. 'When there is a case that is as complicated and tragic as this case, I think the standard for the balance that we have to take into account here and overcome is really high,' she said. 'It's important to keep our foot on the pedal as far as ensuring that … our government is being transparent as possible in these situations.'
Chicago Tribune
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Bucking policy trend, public access to video of CPD Officer Krystal Rivera's fatal shooting is delayed
A judge has barred the release of video and other materials related to the investigation into the friendly fire shooting death of Chicago police Officer Krystal Rivera, a move that came after the Cook County state's attorney's office asked that the information be shielded from public records requests. Rivera, 36, a four-year veteran of the department, was mistakenly shot and killed by a fellow officer on June 5 after a confrontation with an armed suspect. The tragic slaying of the officer, who will be laid to rest on Wednesday, happened amid long-brewing debates about the safety of foot pursuits and is sure to raise questions about training and officer safety in general. But the court order, signed June 13 by Judge Deidre Dyer, delays the public's access to critical information about the matter, even though long-held public policy since the 2014 fatal shooting of Laquan McDonald favors timely access to video that can shed light on officer-involved shootings. Though it's not uncommon for video to be restricted from public view while an investigation or prosecution is proceeding, legal experts and advocates for transparency raised concerns about the move, especially if such orders are being sought by the state and granted by judges without a thorough examination of balance between the integrity of the case and the public's right to know how their government is functioning. Multiple legal experts noted that the motion, filed by the prosecutor's office on June 13, referenced federal exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act rather than the state's companion law that would govern it. 'There is a big picture concern that the default role of transparency is being flipped on its head whenever there is a criminal case,' said Craig Futterman, a clinical professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School. 'I have a fear that these motions are being filed and orders are being entered without a particularized interrogation that was envisioned under the FOIA statute.' In response to questions from the Tribune, a spokesperson for the state's attorney's office said it does not comment on pending litigation. Requests for comment from the city were not returned by deadline. Throughout the past decade, video from police body-worn cameras and other sources has become a critical check on official narratives about police shootings after the release of such material became policy following the murder of 17-year-old McDonald at the hands of former Chicago police Officer Jason Van Dyke. The dashcam video of the shooting captured Van Dyke, who served a little more than three years in prison, shooting the teenager 16 times as he walked away. The video contradicted the accounts of police and led to a rare murder charge against Van Dyke. With the fight over the release of the dashcam video still fresh in the city's mind, the newly formulated Civilian Office of Police Accountability instituted a policy to publish CPD body-worn camera footage and related police records within 60 days of a police shooting. The agency replaced the Independent Police Review Authority after the McDonald video was released in 2015. COPA's policy, though, has exceptions and cannot supersede a judge's order. Experts said they believe the policy to release videos has rebuilt some public trust, but raised concerns about it backsliding if videos are routinely shielded by judges. 'We would be back to the days of pre-Laquan McDonald,' said Matt Topic, a partner at the civil rights firm Loevy and Loevy who litigated for the release of the dashcam video of McDonald's shooting. 'We would be back to not knowing if what police are telling us is true or not.' In a criminal case related to Rivera's death, Adrian Rucker, 25, is charged with armed violence and other felonies. Prosecutors alleged that Rucker pointed an AR-style pistol after Rivera and her partner followed another suspect into the apartment. Prosecutors later charged a second man, Jaylin Arnold, 27. In the motion to withhold release of the video and other materials filed in Rucker's case, Cook County prosecutors argued that the release could interfere with enforcement proceedings and a defendant's right to a fair trial. Futterman pointed out that usually defense attorneys would be the party that makes arguments about their clients' due process rights. The judge's order bars release until 'further order of the court.' In a statement, a COPA spokesperson said: 'The materials will be available under FOIA once the court order is lifted. Until then, COPA is prohibited from releasing them.' It's not clear, though, when and how the order may be lifted. 'Someone would have to incur the time and expense to vacate that order unless we think the state's attorney would move to vacate,' Topic said. Stephanie Holmes Didwania, an associate professor of law at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, said federal and state Freedom of Information laws have 'a strong preference for disclosure.' 'It's designed to allow the public to be adequately informed about what their government is doing,' she said. Holmes Didwania noted, though, that the laws have exceptions, and that law enforcement can have legitimate interests in keeping investigations confidential. She said prosecutors could be concerned about issues like the video shaping the accounts of witnesses who have yet to be interviewed. 'The statute itself is trying to balance these two competing interests,' she said, though she added that Illinois' FOIA statute requires the government to provide clear and convincing evidence to support an exemption from the law. Loren Jones, director of the Criminal Legal Systems Program at Impact for Equity, said that the government should be held to a high standard in overcoming public access laws related to police shootings. 'When there is a case that is as complicated and tragic as this case, I think the standard for the balance that we have to take into account here and overcome is really high,' she said. 'It's important to keep our foot on the pedal as far as ensuring that … our government is being transparent as possible in these situations.'
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Contributor: Lower-court judges have no business setting the law of the land
On Thursday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Trump vs. CASA Inc. Though the case arises out of President Trump's January executive order on birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment, Thursday's oral argument had very little to do with whether everyone born in the U.S. is automatically a U.S. citizen. Instead, the argument mostly focused on a procedural legal issue that is just as important: whether lower-court federal judges possess the legitimate power to issue nationwide injunctions to bring laws or executive orders to a halt beyond their districts. There is a very straightforward answer to this question: No, they don't. And it is imperative for American constitutionalism and republican sef-governance that the justices clearly affirm that. Let's start with the text. Article III of the Constitution establishes the 'judicial Power' of the United States, which University of Chicago Law School professor Will Baude argued in a 2008 law review article 'is the power to issue binding judgments and to settle legal disputes within the court's jurisdiction.' If the federal courts can bind certain parties, the crucial question is: Who is bound by a federal court issuing an injunction? In our system of governance, it is only the named parties to a given lawsuit that can truly be bound by a lower court's judgment. As the brilliant then-Stanford Law School professor Jonathan Mitchell put it in an influential 2018 law review article, an 'injunction is nothing more than a judicially imposed non-enforcement policy' that 'forbids the named defendants to enforce the statute' — or executive order — 'while the court's order remains in place.' Fundamentally, as Samuel L. Bray observed in another significant 2017 law review article, a federal court's injunction binds only 'the defendant's conduct … with respect to the plaintiff.' If other courts in other districts face a similar case, those judges might consider their peer's decision and follow it, but they are not strictly required to do so. (For truly nationwide legal issues, the proper recourse is filing a class-action lawsuit, as authorized by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.) One need not be a legal scholar to understand this commonsense point. Americans are a self-governing people; it is we the people, according to the Constitution's Preamble, who are sovereign in the United States. And while the judiciary serves as an important check on congressional or executive overreach in specific cases or controversies that come before it (as Article III puts it), there is no broader ability for lower-court judges to decide the law of the land by striking down a law or order for all of the American people. As President Lincoln warned in his first inaugural address: 'The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by' the judiciary, 'the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.' Simply put, the patriots of 1776 did not rebel against the tyranny of King George III only to subject themselves, many generations later, to the black-robed tyranny of today. They fought for the ability to live freely and self-govern, and to thereby control their own fates and destinies. Judicial supremacy and the concomitant misguided practice of nationwide injunctions necessarily deprive a free people of the ability to do exactly that. It is true that Chief Justice John Marshall's landmark 1803 ruling in Marbury vs. Madison established that 'it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.' But it is also true, as Marshall noted in the less frequently quoted sentence directly following that assertion: 'Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule.' Note the all-important qualifier of 'apply the rule to particular cases.' Marbury is often erroneously invoked to support judicial supremacy, but the modest case- and litigant-specific judicial review that Marshall established has nothing to do with the modern judicial supremacy and nationwide injunctions that proliferate today. It is that fallacious conception of judicial supremacy that was argued Thursday at the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., one of the swing votes in CASA, is not always known for judicial modesty. On the contrary, in clumsily attempting to defend his institution's integrity, he has at times indulged in unvarnished judicial supremacist rhetoric and presided over an unjustifiable arrogation of power to what Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist No. 78, referred to as the 'least dangerous' of the three branches. If Roberts and his fellow centrist justices — namely, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — have any sense of prudence, they must join their more stalwart originalist colleagues in holding that nationwide injunctions offend the very core of our constitutional order. Such a ruling would not merely be a win for Trump; it would be a win for the Constitution and for self-governance itself. Josh Hammer's latest book is 'Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.' This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
CBC
17-04-2025
- Politics
- CBC
U.S. and El Salvador presidents ‘thumbing their nose' at Supreme Court, says lawyer
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a judge's order that the Trump administration facilitate the return of a Maryland man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, but neither country's president seems interested in getting Kilmar Abrego Garcia home. During a visit to the White House on Monday, El Salvador President Nayib Bukele said: 'How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States?" As It Happens host Nil Kӧksal spoke to Nicole Hallett, director of the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School.
