Students at the University of Michigan Law School are able to submit Notes for consideration for publication in the Michigan Law Review. The Res Gestae will be interviewing student authors whose Notes will be published in Vol. 123 of the Michigan Law Review to ask them about their experiences writing and submitting Notes.
You’re currently working on an SJD (Doctor of Juridical Science) — can you tell our American audience a little bit about what that is?
An SJD program is functionally a doctoral program, enabling you to produce dissertation level work during your time as a student. It takes more time than an LLM, but it is similar to an LLM in that it is for a foreign trained lawyer. It’s a research degree similar to a PhD, you have a primary advisor from Michigan Law, and you are focused on research and writing.
What pushed you to pursue a degree here in the states?
I was a practicing lawyer before my LLM; I did M&A and transnational private equity work. When the pandemic came down, I felt pulled to do something else. I started with pursuing an LLM, but I then transitioned into pursuing an SJD. I am very interested in comparative constitutional law, and I chose Michigan for the quality of professors and the support. I met Professor Daniel Halberstam who is an expert on comparative constitutionalism and was excited about the research he was doing. I’ve taken many classes in and outside of the law school, like in the Anthropology and Political Science departments. I started my SJD researching and writing about constitutional law where I’m from, but I’ve really enjoyed writing and researching. I’ve transitioned into wanting to enter academia and further that research.
Speaking of research, how did your Note (Marriage, Courts and Substantive Equality: Positive Rights in Transformative Constitutionalism) come about?
Comparative constitutional law is my focus and interest. I wanted to try to see how we can understand Indian federalism better using a framework of constitutional federalism. I’ve been looking at countries like South Africa and Brazil specifically. The Supreme Court of India passed a judgment to deny same sex marriage, while South Africa was the first constitutional court to uphold same sex marriage. The same issues came up in both cases but had drastically different outcomes. When courts explore it from a privacy perspective, it doesn’t turn out well. But when courts explore it from an equality perspective, it turns out better. I actually studied in South Africa under the Chief Judge of the constitutional court, and it was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life.
What made the experience so rewarding?
So many things. South Africa is unique and has an exceptional court. New constitutions pop up all the time. South Africa is remarkable as a post-apartheid constitution that was passed with an emphasis on transformative constitutionalism and has been very successful for the past 30 years. This experience humanized the law for me, something that can be lost in academia. South Africa is focused on lives realities and how they affect the law. It was such an enriching experience and gives me hope for a better future for other countries.
What was the process like for you?
A lot of the ideas came out of the sex equality class I took with Professor Catharine MacKinnon. Another theoretical framework was a form of transformative constitutionalism — through our constitutional framework we want a state that rectifies socio economic issues and furthers substantive equality. I had already studied it in India. India had some influence on South Africa, but South Africa also took some elements from the United States and Germany. Footnoting took quite a bit of time. I had finished it and decided to submit but didn’t write it for the purpose of submitting it to [the Michigan] Law Review. To me, writing is fighting with authority, I wrote it to express how I felt and saw a call for submissions, and decided to submit it.
Do you have any advice for writing a note?
Start from a place of comparison. Comparison helps looking at things from a different perspective. If you try and understand why a jurisdiction is doing something, you’ll gain insights on how your own jurisdiction thinks and operates. It helps you overcome assumptions and biases.
How much longer do you have in your degree, and do you have any plans for the future?
I am in my third year — usually SJDs have around five years. I am looking to enter U.S. Legal Academia after this.
Res Gestae Writer Zoe Hayes can be reached at zoehayes@umich.edu.
