When Reda Taleb (McLean Class, 2015) talks about “giving back,” she isn’t just reciting a slogan — she’s living by example. The daughter of immigrants from Bint Jbeil, Lebanon, Taleb’s parents, along with her six older siblings, laid roots in Dearborn’s south end, an area known for its pollution-emitting factory smoke stacks and community of Arab Americans seeking the “American Dream.”
Read More
The Cooley Organization of Women Law Students (OWLS) hosted an International Women’s Day Event on March 11, 2025, featuring the Honorable Ana C. Viscomi, former Asbestos Special Master and current Superior Court Judge, as their keynote speaker.
Preface: Although I am committed to avoiding personality, policy, politics, and party in these blogs, I must cross that line in considering President Trump’s March 25, 2025, Executive Order entitled “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering, Parents, States, and Communities.” I do so because I am offended by the stark incompetence demonstrated in the document, which actually does not address empowerment of anyone and does not provide any indication of how outcomes will be improved. After law school, I joined the Department of Justice as an Honors Employee. My major task was supervising investigations, which revealed my hidden competence in planning and organizing activity. After that experience, I became a planner for the State of Michigan, serving in the Executive Office of Governor William G. Milliken. I became head of a State Planning Agency, implementing federal law and state policy through writing and administering plans for and distribution of federal appropriations (and state and local matching funds). That experience colors my judgment about the President’s Executive Order, which attempts to close the federal Department of Education without providing any planning whatsoever.
In his memorandum, the President asserts that he has unspecified “core powers,“ which are being abused by law firms and attorneys. He fails to identify these powers and their source. Contrary to his assertion, under the Constitution the President possesses only clearly delegated power; while most of the federal power is delegated to Congress.
On Wednesday, March 12, 2025, Cooley Law School's Lansing campus held its annual MentorJet program, co-sponsored with the National Association of Women Judges. The program matches law students with leading lawyers and judges to learn about law practice and job opportunities. The event included representatives from the Michigan Department of the Attorney General, 54-A District Court, Oakland County Circuit Court, Ingham County Circuit Court, Michigan Indigent Defense Commission, and many private practice law firms. "It was inspiring to see our students get the opportunity to meet with various professionals to learn about legal career opportunities," said Karen M. Poole, Cooley Law School director of Career & Professional Development. "We're grateful to all the judges and attorneys who volunteered their time to engage with our students."
The Context On March 14, 2025, President Trump issued a proclamation invoking the Alien Enemy Act1 to justify massive, immediate deportations of groups of allegedly illegal immigrants who came to the United States from Venezuela. These illegal immigrants were reportedly members of a terrorist group.
Tracey Brame, Associate Dean of Experiential Learning and Practice Preparation at Cooley Law School, was recently featured on WGVU's Powerful Women: Let's Talk podcast. A passionate legal advocate and educator, Brame shared her journey, commitment to justice, and the impact of her work. From her time at Legal Aid of Western Michigan to leading the Cooley Innocence Project, Brame has dedicated her life to advocating for justice for individuals and within legal systems. Her recognition as Michigan Lawyers Weekly's 2020 Lawyer of the Year reflects her deep commitment to public service. You can listen to the episode below or find it on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, NPR One, or anywhere else you listen to podcasts.
Professor Emeritus Gerald Fisher was recently featured in the Detroit Free Press and Law360. He offered expert insight into a dispute over bills passed by the Michigan Legislature last year but not presented to the governor for consideration. A state judge recently ruled that the House should have presented the legislation. At Cooley, Professor Fisher taught Property, Secured Transactions, Constitutional Law, Zoning and Land Use Law, and State and Local Government Law. He also served as general counsel for cities, villages, and townships in southeast Michigan and as special counsel for governmental entities throughout Michigan. He appeared on 21 occasions in cases presented to the Michigan Supreme Court. To learn more about the legal complexities of this issue, read the full articles here:
In a recent Detroit Free Press article, Professor Mark Dotson provided an expert analysis of the legal complexities arising from a water main break in Detroit. The incident caused extensive property damage, leading to questions about a liability waiver the city asked residents to sign. Professor Dotson noted that the city's primary concern is securing legal access to affected properties before conducting repairs. His main message for residents was: "Regardless of what the city is doing, regardless of requirements of the waiver, they need to notify their insurance company." He said they should do it now. Professor Dotson's expertise offers valuable guidance to Detroit residents navigating the legal aftermath of the water main break, highlighting the intersection of law and public infrastructure management. For a more in-depth understanding of Professor Dotson's analysis and the legal considerations surrounding this incident, read the full article: "Detroit asking water main flood victims to sign a waiver. We had 2 lawyers take a look."
In Humphrey's Executor v. United States,[1] the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a statutory restriction that provided a for-cause limitation on the removal of a Federal Trade Commission member was constitutional. The Federal Trade Commission Act limited the power of the President to remove a Commissioner to “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”[2] The Court found that the statutory provision restricted the President’s removal power to those causes. It distinguished the recent decision of the same Court in Myers v. United States,[3] finding that the federal officer removed in Myers–a postmaster–was an executive officer restricted to the performance of executive functions, while the FTC Commissioner removed in Humphrey’s Executor acted in a quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial manner, and was not a purely executive officer. The Court held that the Commissioner could only be removed by the President for the causes listed in the Act. The limiting provision was constitutional.
