IBA: Interrogatories

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Tyler D. Helmond, Voyles Zahn & Paul

fuentesLuis Fuentes-Rohwer

Professor of Law and Harry T. Ice Faculty Fellow, Indiana University Maurer School of Law

He is a graduate of the University of Michigan and the University of Michigan Law School. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Michigan and an LL.M from the Georgetown University School of Law. He is an expert on race, democracy, and Puerto Rico. He is Dr. Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, and he has been served with interrogatories.

Q: Much of your scholarship has focused on the Voting Rights Act. The United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument later this month in Shelby County v. Holder, a case that challenges the constitutionality of the “preclearance” provision of the VRA. What will you be looking for in the argument?

A: I will be looking for a discussion of the original intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment over the scope of congressional powers. I will not be looking too hard, however. For some reason, originalists don’t spend a lot of time with the 14th Amendment. I’ll let you figure out why that is.

Q: Are you willing to make a prediction for how the case might come out?

A: Are you kidding? I love predictions! Like the Sebelius case, I just don’t think the Chief Justice wants the Court to strike down the Voting Rights Act under his watch. Imagine the headlines.

Q: There is a relatively new challenge to the procedure in which trial court judges are elected in Marion County. The plaintiff in Common Cause Indiana v. Indiana Secretary of State argues the unique system of primary election that ends up filling the entire bench with half Democratic nominees and half Republican nominees deprives Marion County citizens of the right to case a meaningful vote. What are your thoughts on how that questioned ought to be resolved?

A: Can you think of anything crazier than electing judges? Apparently, Marion County did. I am looking forward to reading how the Attorney General defends this process. It will be very challenging.

Q: The Maurer School of Law has lost three legendary faculty members recently: Patrick Baude, Dennis Long, and most recently, Leonard Fromm. What will be their legacies?

A: I don’t even know how you begin to replace them. They were remarkable teachers and mentors.

Q: You have three degrees from the University of Michigan and you teach at Indiana. Describe what you will be feeling on March 10th when the Hoosiers play the Wolverines in Ann Arbor in a game that could determine the Big Ten Title.

A: It was hard watching the first game, and it might be harder watching the finale. My youngest son couldn’t even watch the first one; he was very conflicted about it. I do think IU pulls it out and wins the Big Ten championship.

Q: President Obama recently remarked that if he had a son, he’d have to think long and hard before he would let him play football. With all of the challenges facing the modern law student – including rising tuition and diminishing job prospects – would you have any hesitation encouraging your children to go to law school?

A: On football, I agree with the president. But law school presents different challenges. If my children wanted to go to law school, I would ask them to be smart about it. Buying a legal education is not much different than buying anything else. Do your research and make smart decisions.

Q: Who has had the biggest influence on your writing? What advice would you give to law students and lawyers looking to improve their writing?

A: The biggest influence, believe it or not, was from a foreword I read a long time ago. The author didn’t quite say it like this, but the message was clear. Writing is a process and it “takes a village.” Don’t be afraid to take criticism, to ask for help, to edit your writing as many times as necessary. Great writing doesn’t just happen.

Q: What are the three best legal books of the past decade?

A: Oh man, that’s a tough question. If you are looking for fiction, anything by Grisham is quite entertaining. I loved Akhil Amar’s “America’s Constitution.” If I had to pick one book to recommend, it would have to be Fehrenbacher’s “The Dred Scott Case.”

Q: If you were starting a soccer team and you had to pick between Lionel Messi and Christiano Ronaldo, which would be the leader of Team LFR?

A: Will this be an MLS team? And will it be in Indianapolis? I am hoping this happens sometime soon. As for my pick, it’d have to be Ronaldo. If I picked anybody else, my boys would kill me.•


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?