Distinguished Judges’ Panel, with participation by:

• Justice Rosalie Abella, Retired Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada 
• Justice Geraldine Hines, Retired Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
• Justice Scott Kafker, Associate Justice Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
• Justice Kristen Walker, Justice of the Victorian Court of Appeal, Australia

Lunch provided
Reception to follow at Barat House, Boston College Law School

Sponsored by the Clough Center for the Study of Constitutional Democracy, Attachment to Place in a World of Nations Series; and Global Programs, Boston College Law School

--

As the Supreme Court of the United States continues its retrenchment of federal constitutional rights, in areas such as voting, criminal procedure, and abortion, many have looked to State constitutions and State courts for guidance and protection. The present iteration of a ‘new judicial federalism’ marks the willingness of State courts to exercise their authority and provide interpretations of State constitutional rights that are independent from U.S. federal constitutional rights, signaling both substantive and methodological departures in the protection of individual rights.

  
This distinguished panel will explore these departures experientially and comparatively. We are delighted to host Justice Rosalie Abella, Retired Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada; Justice Geraldine Hines, Retired Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court; Justice Scott Kafker, Associate Justice Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and Justice Kristen Walker, Justice of the Victorian Court of Appeal, Australia. As with the United States, Canada and Australia offer visions of federal judicial power in which the authority of State courts operates in conjunction with an apex supreme court, in a judicial hierarchy designed to support State experimentation and identity, constitutional and/or legislated individual rights, and the project of constitutional democracy.

 
The panel has been assembled with the idea that comparative perspectives can highlight institutional and cultural differences, but can also point to similar problems and pathways forward. Panelists may offer additional thoughts, not only in areas such as voting, criminal procedure, and reproductive rights, but also (possibly) in relation to affirmative action, protection for juvenile offenders, LGBTQ+ rights, welfare, labor and education rights, rights to a healthy environment, gun rights, property rights, and church and state relations.