The CRIV Sheet / Vol. 43, No. 2 / February 2021

THE CRIV SHEET

THE NEWSLETTER OF THE COMMITTEE ON RELATIONS

WITH INFORMATION VENDORS

VOLUME 43, NO. 2 / FEBRUARY 2021

Published by the American Association of Law Libraries

105 West Adams Street, Suite 3300

Chicago, Illinois, 60603

www.aallnet.org

Committee on Relations with Information

Vendors (CRIV) Members

Deborah L. Heller

CHAIR

Ashley Ames Ahlbrand

VICE CHAIR

Steven P. Anderson

Jane Bahnson

Margaret M. Bartlett

Cynthia Condit

Thomas E. Hemstock

Saadia Iqbal

Donna M. Lombardo

Elizabeth Outler

Matt Timko

CONTENTS

Editors’ Corner 4

From the Chair 5

Vendor-Provided Accessibility Documentation 6

Replacing PACER: The Open Courts Act of 2020 8

Understanding & Tracking Presidential Transitions 10

Law School Immigration Clinics Have the Potential to Make Magic with AI 12

The Importance of Images 14

HeinOnline Updates 16

Updates from the Government Publishing Ofce Online 17

CRIV Liaisons to Vendors 19

Bloomberg BNA Semiannual Call 19

Thomson Reuters Semiannual Call 20

4 The CRIV Sheet / Volume 43, No. 2 / February 2021

EDITORS’ CORNER

ASHLEY AMES AHLBRAND

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC SERVICES

INDIANA UNIVERSITY MAURER SCHOOL OF LAW

MATT TIMKO

ACADEMIC TECHNOLOGIES AND OUTREACH SERVICES

NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY DAVID C. SHAPIRO

LAW LIBRARY

Welcome to a new year and a new CRIV Sheet! As 2021 begins, many things are still

the same (disappointingly so). This issue of The CRIV Sheet oers some wonderful

articles, reviews of new features in some of your favorite databases, and a summary of

a recent call with Thomson Reuters.

The featured articles in this issue include a look at the accessibility documenta-

tion provided by vendors, the Open Courts Act of 2020, resources for exploring and

understanding the Presidential transition process, and how articial intelligence (AI)

can be used to help immigration clinics. We also would like to welcome rst time

CRIV authors Jennifer Rochelle (new to the law library profession) and Alex Hutchins

(a student at the University of Arizona College of Law).

Enjoy this issue and Happy New Year to all!

The CRIV Sheet

Ashley Ames Ahlbrand

Matt Timko

CO-EDITORS

CRIV Page & Tools

Deborah L. Heller

Matt Timko

Education

Ashley Ames Ahlbrand

Deborah L. Heller

Marketing

Deborah L. Heller

Matt Timko

Member Advocacy

Margaret Bartlett

Deborah L. Heller

Saadia Iqbal

Matt Timko

5 The CRIV Sheet / Volume 43, No. 2 / February 2021

FROM THE CHAIR

DEBORAH L. HELLER

ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE LAW LIBRARY

PACE UNIVERSITY ELISABETH HAUB SCHOOL OF LAW

Hello CRIV Sheet Readers,

Let me be one of the last to wish you a Happy New Year!

This issue of The CRIV Sheet is packed full of some great content thanks to the

eorts of Ashley and Matt to solicit articles! Many of the articles in this issue relate to

one of the largest information providers: the U.S. government. Todd Venie outlines

digital accessibility documentation from vendors, I look at the possible replacement of

PACER with the Open Courts Act of 2020, and Elizabeth Outler highlights some of

the recent updates to HeinOnline. With a new administration coming in on January

20th, Ashley Ahlbrand discusses resources on learning more about and tracking pres-

idential transitions, and Matt Timko updates us on recent FDLP/GovInfo enhance-

ments. We also have the latest from our semiannual phone calls with vendors.

If you have an issue with a vendor that you would like assistance with, contact

CRIV through our Request for Assistance form. If you want to contribute an

article to The CRIV Sheet, please contact Ashley and Matt.

CRIV Blog

crivblog.com

Cynthia Condit

BLOG COORDINATOR

Deborah L. Heller

Matt Timko

Vendor Roundtable

Margaret Barlett

Deborah L. Heller

Tom Hemstock

Saadia Iqbal

Elizabeth Outer

Matt Timko

Listserv Liaisons

Elizabeth Outler &Matt Timko

A L L-SI S

Margaret Bartlett

PLLIP-SIS

Elizabeth Outer

Law-lib

Vendor Liaisons

Tom Hemstock

Bloomberg Law

Ashley Ames Ahlbrand

LexisNexis

Deborah L. Heller

Thomas Reuters

Cynthia Condit

Wolters Kluwer

VENDOR-PROVIDED ACCESSIBILITY DOCUMENTATION

TODD VENIE

ASSISTANT DEAN AND DIRECTOR FOR THE LIBRARY AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SER-

VICES

LSU PAUL M. HEBERT LAW CENTER

This article describes the Louisiana State University

(LSU) Law Library’s experience documenting the

extent to which our digital resources comply with the

university’s accessibility policy. This process invo

lved

familiarizing ourselves with the legal authority that

led to this policy, learning a list of acronyms and other

jargon, and working with vendors to obtain proper

documentation. The article summarizes the legal back-

ground and technical standards of digital accessibility

and advises law librarians who must comply with sim-

ilar policies on what to look for when reviewing digital

accessibility documents from vendors.

Like hundreds of colleges and universities in the

United States, LSU entered into a resolution agreement

with the U.S. Department of Education, requiring that

our digital resources comply with a set of standards

called the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0

AA (WCAG 2.0 AA). This agreement went into eect

in August 2019, and applies to all digital resources

provided or linked to by LSU, including university

websites, course materials, learning management

systems, and library databases. These accessibility

standards ensure digital resources can be used by those

with visual, hearing, or other disabilities.

As part of the workow adopted by the LSU Law

Library to comply with these requirements, we now re-

quest Accessibility Conformance Reports (ACRs) from

all digital resource vendors, whether we are adding a

new resource or continuing an existing subscription.

Because of this modied workow, and the excellent

work of our Acquisitions Librarian, Ajaye Bloomstone,

we have maintained all of our critical digital resources

while complying with the university’s policy.

While some details of our experience in this article

are specic to academic institutions, law libraries of all

types might nd themselves obligated to follow similar

procedures under multiple federal statutes and regu-

lations. The technical standards described below are

commonly used in a variety of environments, and they

6 The CRIV Sheet / Volume 43, No. 2 / February 2021

form the basis of standards adopted by state and federal

agencies.

Role of the OCR

The Oce of Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S. Depart-

ment of Education is charged with investigating poten-

tial noncompliance with digital accessibility standards

under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, along with the regulations

promulgated pursuant to those acts. These regula-

tions require state and local government entities to,

“ensure that communications with applicants, partic-

ipants, members of the public, and companions with

disabilities are as eective as communications with oth-

ers.” OCR investigations can result from a complaint

alleging violations of these regulations, which can be

led by any member of the public, or from a directed

investigation, which is initiated by the OCR itself.

If the OCR nds that the institution’s digital re-

sources are not accessible to those with disabilities, the

institution can ask to resolve the allegations through a

voluntary resolution agreement. While the person who

led the original complaint may still have a private

cause of action resulting from any noncompliance,

institutions frequently resolve OCR investigations

through resolution agreements. At least 250 colleges

and universities have reached a resolution agreement

with the OCR since 2013.

The statutes and regulations requiring colleges and

universities to meet accessibility standards do not actu-

ally dene the technical criteria by which compliance is

measured. Absent legally mandated technical criteria,

the OCR applies the WCAG 2.0 AA criteria as the

standard for determining whether the institution com-

plies. Resolution agreements also establish a timeline

for complying for both new content created after the

agreement, and for legacy content created before the

agreement. Resolution agreements are written broadly

and apply to all of an institution’s digital resources, and

they also require institutions to create internal compli-

ance, reporting, and auditing procedures.

The WCAG 2.0 AA Criteria

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has devel-

oped standards for accessible digital content as part of

its Web Accessibility Initiative. Originally developed

and published as the Web Content Accessibility

Guideli

nes (WCAG) 1.0 in 1999, the standards have

since been revised and updated. The most current ver-

sion, the WCAG 2.1, was adopted by the W3C in 2018.

Although version 2.1 is more current, most colleges and

universities apply the WCAG 2.0 standards, because

those institutions reached their agreement with the

OCR before the development of version 2.1.

The WCAG 2.0 standards consist of 12 accessi-

bility guidelines; conformance with each guideline is

measured by multiple “success criteria” that are used

to determine whether digital content meets the guide-

lines and principles of accessibility. The success criteria

can be conformed at three levels, with “A” the lowest

conformance level and “AAA” the highest. The vast

majority of colleges and universities must conform with

the success criteria at the intermediate, or “AA” level, as

stipulated in the resolution agreements.

While the W3C is a nongovernmental organization

and its recommendations do not have the force of law,

its web accessibility guidelines have been used as stan-

dards by both courts and administrative agencies. The

Oce of Civil Rights of the Department of Education

has invariably used the WCAG 2.0 as the applicable

standard in its agreements with colleges and universi-

ties, at least since 2013. As a result, the WCAG 2.0 is

the de facto requirement for higher education in the

U.S.

Institutional Processes

The internal processes created by LSU to comply with

the terms of its resolution agreement include a review of

every purchase of, or subscription to, a digital resource.

The review includes multiple steps, but each resource

ultimately needs to be approved by a newly established

Digital Resources & Content Exceptions Committee.

The committee asks that we send documentation from

the vendor indicating whether the resource complies

with accessibility standards. That documentation usu-

ally is an Accessibility Conformance Report, which is

based on the Voluntary Product Accessibility Template.

Role of the Vendor

7 The CRIV Sheet / Volume 43, No. 2 / February 2021

VPAT and ACR

The Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT)

is a standardized document format used by vendors to

provide information about the accessibility features of

their products. The standard blank template is called a

VPAT before it is lled out by the vendor; once the doc-

ument has been completed by the vendor, it is called an

Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR), though some

vendors still call the completed document a VPAT even

after they have entered their conformance information.

The VPAT was developed and maintained by the

Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) in

collaboration with the U.S. General Services Adminis-

tration. Initially, the VPAT was intended to document

accessibility compliance under Section 508 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which applies to federal gov-

ernment agencies. The ITI has since developed multiple

versions of the VPAT, to document compliance with

dierent technical standards and in multiple contexts.

The essential content of an ACR (a VPAT after the

vendor has lled in the information) is a table listing

each of the success criteria under the WCAG 2.0 AA

standards. For example, criterion 1.4.4 species that,

“Except for captions and images of text, text can be

resized without assistive technology up to 200 percent

without loss of content or functionality.” For each

success criterion, the vendor can indicate in the table

one of the following conformance levels: “supports,”

“partially supports,” “does not support,” “not applica-

ble,” or “not evaluated.” Once a vendor has entered a

conformance level for the success criteria, the VPAT

becomes an ACR for that vendor’s product.

What to Look for in an ACR

The ICI provides four dierent editions of the

VPAT, with each edition applying a dierent combi-

nation of standards in dierent contexts. For example,

the “Revised Section 508 Edition” applies to digital re-

sources procured by U.S. federal agencies and includes

success criteria under both the WCAG 2.0 and Section

508 standards.

Each of the four VPAT editions includes the WCAG

2.0 standards; assuming your school is using the WCAG

2.0 AA standards as the measure of accessibility, any

of the editions should be acceptable. More critical than

the edition is the version being used. The ICI continu-

ously updates the four VPAT editions to reect changes

in the WCAG 2.0 standards and the applicable statutes

and regulations. Version 2.4 is the current version for all

four editions of the VPAT, published in February 2020.

It is very common for vendors to provide ACRs

based on outdated versions of the VPAT. In the last

year, we have received VPATs dated as far back as

2010. We have contacted vendors for more current doc-

umentation, and they have provided it to us promptly.

Librarians should also check to make sure an ACR pro-

vided by a vendor includes the success criteria specied

under WCAG 2.0 AA. ACRs based on older VPATs

might include only the WCAG 1.0 success criteria, and

colleges and universities are almost invariably required

to comply with the 2.0 AA success criteria.

Even when the vendor’s ACR is based on the current

version of a VPAT, vendors sometimes only indicate

conformance levels for criteria other than the 2.0 AA

success criteria. We have received ACRs from vendors

that include the 2.0 A success criteria and not the 2.0

AA success criteria. We responded to the vendor asking

for a new ACR with the 2.0 AA success criteria and

they provided it, but the university probably would have

rejected our subscription had we submitted the original

ACR with the 2.0 A success criteria alone.

ACRs provided by vendors rarely indicate that their

product supports all criteria, and resolution agreements

do not require 100 percent compliance with the WCAG

2.0 AA standards. Instead, resolution agreements re-

quire institutions to develop strategies and processes to

“ensure that individuals with disabilities have an equal

opportunity to participate in the University’s programs

and activities oered through [the] University’s website

or equally eective alternate access.” Institutions can

consider several factors in deciding whether to subscribe

to third-party digital resources, including the availabil-

ity of alternatives and the programming impact that

would result if the institution canceled the subscription.

A few vendors have told us they could not provide an

ACR and had no intention of creating one. These ven-

dors have all been small entities selling niche products,

and we canceled our subscriptions to those products

without aecting the research needs of our faculty and

students. Other than those few cancelations, we have

been allowed to add and renew all subscriptions to digi-

tal resources using the ACRs provided to us by vendors.

Conclusion

Vendor-provided documentation in ACRs is an essen-

tial part of an institution’s processes for complying with

accessibility laws. By modifying acquisitions workows

to include collecting this documentation from vendors

and reviewing the content to make sure the document

is up to date and uses the correct criteria, law librarians

can continue to provide the digital resources needed by

their students and faculty.

REPLACING PACER: THE OPEN COURTS ACT OF 2020

DEBORAH L. HELLER

ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE LAW LIBRARY

PACE UNIVERSITY ELISABETH HAUB SCHOOL OF LAW

Although Congress is in its lame duck period after the

election but before the new session begins, there is a

piece of pending legislation that could change the way

users access docketing information of the federal courts.

The Open Courts Act,

H.R. 8235, would be a huge

step forward for access to federal court dockets. The bill

itself was introduced by Henry C. Johnson Jr. (D-Ga) in

September 2020. It was referred to the House Commit-

tee on the Judiciary, which did hold a mark-up session.

Although passed by the House in December 2020, it is

unclear whether it will pass the Senate and be signed

8 The CRIV Sheet / Volume 43, No. 2 / February 2021

by the President. On December 9th, the Senate read

the bill and referred it to the Senate Committee on the

Judiciar y.

The current federal system used to nd docket items

is called PACER (an acronym derived from its true

name, Public Access to Court Electronic Records). The

system itself is not user-friendly and requires you to

search for les. Once you do access the system, you then

need to pay $0.10 per page for any items you retrieve.

If you stay below a threshold amount for a quarter,

you are not actually charged. However, many scholars

researching court records can quickly accrue charges.

The fees charged by PACER have been the subject of

recent lawsuits. This summer the Federal Circuit issued

a decision in Nati

onal Veterans Legal Services

Program v. United States, holding that PACER fees

may only be used for expenses incurred in providing

services that are part of providing the public with access

to electronic information the federal courts maintain on

its CM/ECF docketing system.

The Open Courts Act proposes a complete mod-

ernization of the electronic court records system to

allow for search functions developed in coordination

with the Administrator of General Services for use by

both parties appearing before the courts and members

of the public. The proposed new system must also make

information available from other websites in accordance

with section 205 of the E-Government Act of 2002,

and allow external websites to link to documents on the

system. The Director of the Administrative Oce of

the United States Courts must coordinate with the Ad-

ministrator of General Services and the Archivist of the

United States to establish the data standards for the new

system within a period of nine months of the date of

enactment. The data standards should include full text

searching with information provided in an indepen-

dent readable format and allow for continual updating.

Further, the Act requires that the system use the latest

technology to provide for improved security, accessibili-

ty, aordability, performance, and decreased burden on

pro se litigants. The date target for development of the

system is January 1, 2025 but could be extended by one

year.

Section 2 outlines some of the fees that may be

charged. Until the system is fully established, either in

2025 or 2026, the Judicial Conference shall prescribe

a progressive, reasonable, fee schedule for anyone who

accrues fees for electronic access to court information

in the amount of $6,000 or more in any quarter. Such

schedule must be based on a determination of specif-

ic and substantial need and cannot inhibit access to

justice and the public right of access to court records

or nonprot research of the business of Federal courts.

The Judicial Conference may prescribe schedules of fees

to cover the costs of carrying out the Act but must base

such fees on the extent of use of the system, feasibility,

9 The CRIV Sheet / Volume 43, No. 2 / February 2021

fairness to other users of the system, ecacy, and to

prevent the foreclosure of access to justice and the pub-

lic right to access court records. However, the Judicial

Conference will not be allowed to prescribe ling fees

to cover the cost of the system unless the Conference

determines that all other fee sources will not cover the

costs of building the new system; furthermore, the fees

must be graduated and equitable, as well as take into

consideration the type of action, claim for relief, status

of ler, amount of damages demanded, complexity

of the action, and interests of justice. Any of the fees

collected under § 2 shall be deposited in the Judiciary

Information Technology Fund to reimburse expenses

incurred in meeting the requirements of the Act.

Of greatest interest to researchers and litigants,

Section 3 of the Act establishes that all materials in the

system be publicly accessible, free of charge, and with-

out registration. To cover the marginal costs of ensuring

free public accessibility, the Judicial Conference shall

collect an annual fee from Federal agencies equal to

what those agencies paid in PACER fees in 2018 and

adjusted for ination. The Judicial Conference must

review any fees established under this Act three years

after the scheduled eective date and at three-year

intervals thereafter. Any new fee schedules or adjust-

ments must be published in the Federal Register as well

as on the U.S. Courts website and provide a minimum

comment period of 60 days.

Congressman Jerry Nadler (D-NY), chair of the

House Judiciary Committee, issued a press release on

September 15th urging his Congressional colleagues to

support the legislation since it “takes a signicant step

forward in making the federal judiciary more modern,

more open, and more accessible to the public it serves.”

Congressman Nadler noted that “it is indefensible that

the public must pay fees—and unjustiably high fees, at

that—to know what is happening in their own courts.”

On the oor of Congress, Mr. Johnson noted that “[c]

ourt records should be as easy to access as legislation is

on Congress.gov.”

As part of the oor debate on the bill, a letter

from the Judicial Conference was read into the record.

The Judicial Conference expressed concerns that the

legislation did not include “appropriate and necessary

assurances and provisions regarding the budget” and

that the requirements of the bill would have a “devas-

tating” impact on the Federal judiciary, resulting in ex-

penditures of $2 billion more than Congress presumed.

Technological feasibility, security, and governance were

provided as sources of additional concern.

Mr. Barr (R-Ky) conveyed his own reservations

about the costs involved with developing such a system.

Barr also argued that low-income Americans could

access many of the records without cost and that the

“vast majority” of those organizations and individuals

that pay for records through PACER have the means

to do so. In response, Johnson noted that the Judicial

Conference only provided their letter at the last minute

and that the alleged $2 billion price dierential was

in fact not a realistic cost estimate. The Congressional

Budget Oce (CBO) estimate was then read into the

record. The CBO estimated that the new fees imposed

on high-volume for-prot users, would generate an

additional $47 million in revenue during 2021-2030 and

that even with a loss in revenue from the usual PACER

fees, the net revenue stemming from the legislation

would be increased by $37 million over that same

period. Furthermore, the estimation was that most of

the additional $46 million in increased spending would

occur during 2021-2025, leading to an increase of the

decit by $9 million from 2021-2030.

The Open Courts Act would be a welcome update

to an outdated existing system. Although the Judicial

Conference may believe that those who engage in re-

search that involves the use of PACER can aord to pay

the fees charged, this is not always the case. Documents

are quite lengthy, and the fees can build quicker than

you might think. Even setting the concern over fees

aside, the system is not user friendly and inhibits true

empirical legal research since there are separate systems

for each court. The ability to search through multiple

courts in one system, a service that can now only really

be done through paid services, is one that many cannot

aord to subscribe to. The technological landscape has

changed greatly since PACER was rst introduced and

it is time for a change. If the Open Courts Act of 2020

does not pass during the nal days of the 116th Con-

gress, hopefully similar legislation might be passed in

the new 117th session.

UNDERSTANDING & TRACKING PRESIDENTIAL

TRANSITIONS

ASHLEY AMES AHLBRAND

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC SERVICES

INDIANA UNIVERSITY MAURER SCHOOL OF LAW

With this issue of The CRIV Sheet publishing shortly af-

ter the inauguration of President Joe Biden, it felt timely

to write an article on resources related to presidential

transitions. Even when the President is elected for a

second term, signicant transitions often take place. For

instance, the Partnership for Public Service’s Center for

Presidential Transitions found that 43 percent of Cabi-

net secretaries, deputy secretaries, and undersecretaries

left their jobs between Election Day and six months

into the second term for Presidents Clinton, Bush, and

Obama (for a helpful chart on this data, see Presiden-

tial Transition Guide: A Comprehensive Guide

the Activities Required During the Transition

(2020), p. 207). The transition is greater when we switch

presidential administrations, and even more so when

the transition involves a change in political party as

well.

10 The CRIV Sheet / Volume 43, No. 2 / February 2021

The Center for Presidential Transitions identi-

es three phases of the transition. The Pre-Election

“Planning” Phase, as its name suggests, begins in the

spring of the election year. In this phase, the transition

team is assembled, goals are set, and relationships are

established with key governmental entities. Work in

this phase of the transition is aided by the Pre-Election

Presidential Transition Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-283),

through which the General Services Administration

provides both space and equipment to the transition

teams following the political conventions. Phase two is

the Post-Election “Transition” Phase, comprising the

roughly two-and-a-half months between Election Day

and Inauguration Day. During this phase, the focus is

on stang the White House and the agencies, con-

ducting agency review, and making concrete plans for

11 The CRIV Sheet / Volume 43

, No. 2 / February 2021

executing the President’s goals. Finally, phase three is

the Post-Inauguration “Handover” Phase, the Pres-

ident’s rst 200 days in oce, in which the primary

focus is on careful identication of the best candidates

to appoint to strategic oces in order to help fulll the

President’s agenda. A new President will typically ll

several thousand political appointments, many of which

require Senate conrmation, so this vetting process is

critical to kick o a successful presidential transition

(more on these phases in Presidential Transition Guide,

pp. 10-12).

Presidential transitions are rife with complexity (and

often controversy); but there is a wealth of resources

out there for anyone interested in learning more about

this process. What follows is a selective annotated bib-

liography of the resources I have found most helpful in

my own research.

Pertinent Laws

• Presidential Transition Act of 1963 (Pub. L. 88-

277)

• Pre-Election Presidential Transition Act of 2010

(Pub. L. 111-283)

• Executive Order 13176, Facilitation of a Presiden-

tial Transition (Nov. 27, 2000): created a Presiden-

tial Transition Council; charged GSA with creating

a Presidential Transition Directory (see below); see

also E.O. 13476, establishing another Presidential

Transition Coordinating Council for the transition

from the Bush to the Obama administrations, and

E.O. 13727, for the transition from the Obama to

the Trump administrations.

• For more details on these laws and more, refer to the

White House Transition Project’s report, “Rules

Governing Presidential Transitions: Laws,

Executive Orders, and Funding Provisions.”

Research Centers & Organizations

Center for Presidential Transition: a branch of

the Partnership for Public Service, this nonpartisan

organization oers an array of resources both to assist

transition teams and to help the public understand and

follow the presidential transition. Of particular note:

• Political Appointee Tracker: a tool created and

maintained in conjunction with the Washington Post,

this tool follows the appointment process, allowing

you to see what positions have been announced, and

where they are in the conrmation process.

• Presidential Transition Guide: A Compre-

hensive Guide to the Activities Required

During the Transition: referenced a few times at

the beginning of this article, this 200+ page guide

provides advice to administrations on best practices

for a successful transition, while also serving as a

detailed resource for anyone interested in learning

more about the transition process. They also have a

separate transition guide for agencies.

• The entire site is a wealth of riches on presidential

transitions, past and present. If you prefer to absorb

knowledge by listening rather than reading, you

might nd their podcast, Transition Lab, more to

your liking.

White House Transition Project: a nonpartisan

group that provides information to new White House

sta to help streamline the transition process. Their site

has several resources of interest to anyone wanting to

learn more about the presidential transition, including

a transition pace monitor that compares the pace of

Biden’s transition team to that of previous administra-

tions. Other resources of interest include:

• CRS Reports: a collection of Congressional Re-

search Service reports related to presidential transi-

tions, appointments, nominations, and more.

• Oce Briefs: based on interviews with individu-

als who previously held these positions, these briefs

provide guidance to key personnel

Brookings Institution: this nonprot has several

policy suggestions for the next administration, as

well as several articles and events analyzing presidential

transitions, past and present.

• “Presidential Transition Process: Under-

standing the Obligations, Obstacles, and

Urgency,” (event held Dec. 14, 2020).

• Stephen Hess, “First Impressions: A Look Back

at Five Presidential Transitions,” (March 3,

2001). An older article at this point, but still an

interesting examination of transitions from Nixon to

Clinton.

• Paul C. Light, “Implementation of the 1963

Presidential Transition Act,” (testimony before

the House Subcommittee on Government Manage-

ment, Information, and Technology, Dec. 4, 2000).

Access the full hearing.

Ballotpedia: best known as a resource on elections,

Ballotpedia also includes an encyclopedia of American

politics and helpful coverage of the presidential transi-

tion.

• Joe Biden Presidential Transition: a page that

monitors the latest on the transition, including news,

appointments, senior sta, and victory speeches.

• Transition Tracker: in addition to the presidential

transition, page, you can sign up for this newsletter

from Ballotpedia to receive weekday updates on

Biden’s transition team and political appointees.

University of Notre Dame, Keough School of

Global Aairs

• 2020 Presidential Transition Index: this

resource seeks to assess the progress and potential

weak areas of the presidential transition in real-time;

overseen by Denis McDonough, Professor of the

Practice of Public Policy, and former White House

Chief of Sta to Barack Obama.

News Coverage

• New York Times: The Presidential Transi-

tion: including the latest news and information on

Biden’s cabinet, and more.

• Washington Post: Transfer of Power: includ-

ing information on Biden’s cabinet, agenda, and

inauguration, with additional information about

election integrity and the electoral college vote.

• Wall Street Journal: their Election 2020 coverage

continues to post up-to-the-minute news on elec-

tion results, lawsuits, and more. One unique piece

by Gabriel T. Rubin and Dave Cole provides a

photo essay on Presidents in Post-Election

Transition (Nov. 16, 2020).

Government Resources

General Services Administration

(GSA): The GSA

plays a key role in presidential transitions, providing re-

sources to both transition teams, pre-election, to ensure

a smooth transition.

12 The CRIV Sheet / Volume 43, No. 2 / February 2021

• Presidential Transition Directory: provides

details on the GSA’s role, the transition process, and

more.

National Archives & Records Administration:

NARA includes a wealth of resources on presidential

transitions and research into current and past presiden-

cies, including resources on presidential libraries.

• Presidential Transitions: including FAQs, laws

on presidential transitions, and more

• Past administration’s White House websites:

whitehouse.gov undergoes radical transforma-

tions with every administration. But White House

websites are presidential records, so you can view

the previous administrations’ websites from Clinton

through Obama on NARA’s website.

• For more archived government websites, visit

CyberCemetery, a project of UNT Librar-

ies and the U.S. GPO to archive government

websites.

• Social media preservation: social media has played

an increasing role in politics since the Obama

administration. The administration therefore

announced a social media preservation plan in

2016, with resulting projects announced in 2017.

Most notable is the Obama White House Social

Media Archive, hosted by ArchiveSocial.

• Where to nd preserved Trump administration

tweets? The Trump administration has not yet

announced plans for archiving their social me-

dia, but you can read about several grass roots

initiatives to do just that: Rachel Treisman, “As

President Trump Tweets and Deletes, the

Historical Record Takes Shape,” NPR (Oct.

25, 2019).

These are just a sampling of the resources available

to satisfy your curiosity about presidential transitions.

As we enter Phase Three of the presidential process,

we are sure to see many other changes in the federal

government, particularly within the executive branch.

Luckily, these resources above will help you keep track

of what’s in, what’s out, and what’s coming.

LAW SCHOOL IMMIGRATION CLINICS HAVE THE

POTENTIAL TO MAKE MAGIC WITH AI

JENNIFER ROCHELLE

LIBRARY FELLOW

UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA COLLEGE OF LAW

The use of articial intelligence (AI) in the legal eld

is growing at an exponential rate. In 201

7, investment

in legal technology was approximately 233 million

dollars. By 2018, that number was over 1 billion dollars

(*Ambrogi, 2020, Chapter 12). It has been estimated

the global legal market for AI will grow 36 percent,

each year, from 2019 to 2026 (*Laut, 2020, Chapter

4). Companies and start-up ventures are continuously

developing and marketing new AI that uses machine

learning, natural language processing, analytics, and

visualization for the legal eld.

At the same time, the U.S. has doubled down

on its eorts to deport as many immigrants

and people without proper documentation as

possible, including Dreamers. The U.S. maintains

the largest immigration detention system in

the entire world, with over 215 detention centers

spread across the U.S., that incarcerate people awaiting

immigration decisions. In 2019, the U.S. detained over

500,000 people awaiting immigration decisions alone.

While people wait weeks, months, and some-

times even years in detention centers in order to

have a decision as to their immigration status, they do

not have the right to an attorney. In 2018, Wisconsin

Watch found that about two-thirds of the immi-

grants held in detention centers did not have

lawyers. A 2016 study by the American Immigra-

tion Counsel (AIC), found that only 14 percent of

detained immigrants go to court with a lawyer by their

side. Needless to say, numerous studies have found that

not having a lawyer for immigration hearings makes

people more likely to remain in detention, not receive

a just immigration decision, and be removed from the

U.S. The longer immigrants remain in detention, the

bigger the cost burden is to the U.S.

What if there was a way for the hundreds of thou-

sands of immigrants who are detained in the U.S. every

year, without representation, to have access to legal ad-

vice or some form of legal counsel through AI? It could

13 The CRIV Sheet / Volume 43, No. 2 / February 2021

be a revolutionary method of decreasing judicial bias

against unrepresented parties and increasing the ability

for an unrepresented party to attain a fair immigration

decision. AI could also serve to decrease the time a

person is detained awaiting an immigration decision.

Finally, AI could decrease the cost of the world’s largest

immigration detention system and save taxpayer money.

Currently, there are many law school clinics,

nonprots, and attorneys that volunteer their time, in

order to give free legal advice, or representation, to

immigrants who do not have the ability to retain legal

counsel. However, the need is too great for nonprots

and law school clinics alone. The 2016 AIC study found

that only 2 percent of immigrants obtained pro bono

representation from nonprot organizations, law school

clinics, or rm volunteer programs.

Enter the beginnings of a solution: vendor provided

AI, boosting the amount of work and clients law school

immigration clinics can reach. Most, if not all, vendors

now have multiple types of groundbreaking AI technol-

ogy on their platforms. Law school students and clinics

have access to these vendor AI technologies. It is the

perfect match to increase access to justice in a system

that is anything but.

Below are some very basic ideas for AI tools on ven-

dor platforms that could be utilized by immigration law

school clinics in order to provide access to justice:

AI-Driven Legal Research Tools

One type of AI is a legal research tool that allows its

user to verify if the legal document being cited is still

good law and helps to nd the most relevant primary

and secondary sources on the issue (*Heller, 2020,

Chapter 3). Because immigration law changes so quick-

ly and can vary greatly from circuit to circuit, this could

be an invaluable time-saving tool for law school clinics.

Westlaw’s enhanced citator and Lexis’s Ravel View

are two examples of this type of AI in action. Another

type of AI research tool is one that enables the user to

provide an entire document as a search, which would

allow for similar time-saving techniques as previously

explained above. Casetext’s CARA is a good example

of this newer type of research-focused AI. There are

also answer tools that assist in nding answers to more

straightforward questions, such as the elements of a

particular crime, for example, or statutes of limitations.

Most modern legal research platforms, such as LexisNe-

xis and Westlaw, have implemented such quick answer

features already.

In another vein are analytics tools. LexisNexis,

Bloomberg Law, and Westlaw all have judicial analyt-

ic features. These tools can help predict how a judge

will rule on a certain issue, given their past body of

work and recommend suggestions as to phrasing and

keywords to utilize in motions and briefs in order to

persuade a judge. This AI tool could be essential for law

school clinics to understand how to frame an argument

to a judge or which judges might be worse or better on

certain immigration issues. It would increase the odds

of being successful on any sort of immigration claim or

case.

Document Review and E-discovery

Document review tools, such as legal research tools,

could operate to cut the time necessary to review a case

and prepare for litigation. These could work to possibly

free up additional time for law school clinics to assist a

greater number of immigration clients.

E-discovery is a large section of legal AI devel-

opment. These types of programs sort and organize

discovery and can even do visualization and sentiment

analysis, as well as threading emails together in the cor-

rect order, revealing code words or linked relationships.

AI e-discovery could again be a large time saver for law

school clinics, allowing students to assist more clients.

Drafting Pleadings

There are some AI tools that can assist in drafting

pleadings as well. Within this category, there are many

that specialize in the creation of smart contracts. Be-

cause most immigration forms, like contracts, are very

specic in what they require, this could be a type of AI

that could be replicated for immigration forms. This

could also be a powerful tool for law students to use, in

order to assist clients in ling out a form correctly, with

all the necessary elements, and decrease the amount of

time needed on supervisory oversight.

Chatbots

Chatbots are a form of AI that has been around for a

very long time and that more or less everyone who uses

a computer has encountered at some point. From mak-

ing a return on Amazon to being informed about your

pizza delivery, chatbots are now commonplace. How-

ever, chatbots could also be crucial in assisting individ-

uals with immigration questions, who could receive an

answer by simply going to a law school clinic website

(*Plumb, 2020, Chapter 9). Even just the direction as to

what form to use, or a question as to the denition of a

term, could mean the dierence between a successful

immigration case, spending life savings on an attorney,

or in some cases even possible deportation.

In conclusion, the possibilities for creating a partner-

ship between immigration clinics and cutting-edge ven-

dor AI technologies are endless. In most of the catego-

ries described above, legal vendors have already begun

developing these technologies for use by their clients.

AI in the legal eld is here and is advancing the ability

for law school clinics to be better advocates, reach more

clients, achieve better outcomes and further the interests

of justice. All we have to do is harness it.

* E. Kroski (Ed.), Law Librarianship in the Age of AI ,Chi-

cago, IL: ALA Editions.

THE IMPORTANCE OF IMAGES

ALEX CLAY HUTCHINGS

LAW LIBRARY FELLOW

UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA COLLEGE OF LAW

14 The CRIV Sheet / Volume 43

, No. 2 / February 2021

If you have children, then you already know how im-

portant images are to human understanding. Imagine a

world where The Cat in the Hat was devoid of illustration:

just black letters typed across a white page. No cat. No

hat. Just words. How boring! All parents have probably

chuckled at their kids ipping through a “grown-up”

book lying on the coee table and asking, “Where are

all the pictures!?” Well, maybe that is valid question us

grown-ups should be asking. Somewhere along the way,

our books become less colorful, less illustrative, and less

dynamic, and most denitely more boring.

This is nowhere more apparent than in the realm of

law. The U.S. Code contains over 22 million words,

and somewhere in all that text we have the instruction-

al building blocks of everything we know about our

country. In a way, it is the genome of the United States:

26 symbols repeated and rearranged millions of times,

laying out the rules of our society from which plots of

land are designated National Parks to what day we

should pay our taxes. Yet, like all “grown-up” books,

not a picture in sight.

So, to repeat the refrain just one more time: a picture

is worth a thousand words. I oer an example from the

U.S. Code. Title 31 U.S.C. § 5112 sets out the specica-

tions for silver bullion coins minted under the authority

of the Secretary of the Treasury:

(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the

Secretary shall mint and issue, in qualities and quanti-

ties that the Secretary determines are sucient to meet

public demand, coins which:

• (1) are 40.6 millimeters in diameter and weigh

31.103 grams;

• (2) contain .999 ne silver;

• (3) have a design;

• (A) symbolic of Liberty on the obverse side; and

• (B) of an eagle on the reverse side;

• (4) have inscriptions of the year of minting or issu-

ance, and the words “Liberty”, “In God We Trust”,

“United States of America”, “1 oz. Fine Silver”, “E

Pluribus Unum”, and “One Dollar”; and

• (5) have reeded edges.

Within that description is the genetic information

or making that coin. It is known to numismatists as a

Silver Eagle, which features the iconic image “Walk-

15 The CRIV Sheet / Volume 43

, No. 2 / February 2021

ing Liberty.” Designed in 1916 by U,S, Mint sculptor

Adolph A. Weinman for use on the half dollar, “Walk-

ing Liberty” features Lady Liberty, arms outstretched

and draped in the Star-Spangled Banner as she steps

condently toward the rising sun. The design is con-

sidered one of the most beautiful to grace the face of

U.S. coinage. As with all coins, mintage numbers and

condition tend to determine value. The rarest Silver

Eagle was minted in 1999, and examples in perfect

condition is valued at $23,000. Wouldn’t it be nice to

see a picture of it?

There are countless examples within the law where

the researcher could benet from images associated

with the text. For example, Woodsy Owl, Smokey the

Bear’s beaked buddy, is a trademarked character owned

by the federal government. He is dened at 16 U.S.C.

§ 580p:

• “‘Woodsy Owl’ means the name and representa-

tion of a fanciful owl, who wears slacks (forest green

when colored), a belt (brown when colored), and a

Robin Hood style hat (forest green when colored)

with a feather (red when colored), and who furthers

the slogan, ‘Give a Hoot, Don’t Pollute,’ originated

by the Forest Service of the United States Depart-

ment of Agriculture.”

That really paints a picture but give “Woodsy” a

Google search to double-check that yes, he is an owl

wearing green slacks and no shirt, and yes, that is kind

of weird if you think about it.

Even the simplest of images can help explain the

text of a law. The FDA has recently revamped the

requirements of nutrition labels found on prepack-

aged foods. According to the FDA website, the “iconic”

look of the label is retained, but the type size of “Calo-

ries,” “servings per container” declaration, and “Serv-

ing size” were increased, and the number of calories

and “Serving size” declaration were bolded. The FDA

insists they “made important updates to ensure consum-

ers have access to the information they need to make

informed decisions about the foods they eat.” Clearly

the FDA believes this visual change was important,

but an image of the old and new designs side-by-side is

the only way to truly comprehend it.

Images are proven to increase reading comprehen-

sion, and in this era of information overload, images

can serve as a visual shortcut to reading paragraphs of

know, is anything of this sort in the works. But perhaps

it should be. My point is that images can add a level

of understanding (that is, add value) to these materials

over merely reading the black letters of blackletter law.

Law librarians should take an extra moment while con-

ducting legal research or assisting faculty and students

and do an image search of their topic. They might nd

a picture makes it all click, or at least makes it a little

more interesting. We grown-ups can learn a thing or

two from The Cat in the Hat.

text. Why read a newspaper when you can sum up the

day’s events in 10 memes or less? And if there is still any

question about the importance of images in our under-

standing of the world, just think that 95 million photos

are uploaded to Instagram every day, and everyday

Instagram users leave 4.2 billion likes.

Vendors of digital legal information tend to lead with

the pitch that their annotations provide “added value”

to their materials, but currently no vendor supports

any type of “illustrated annotation.” Nor, as far as I

HEINONLINE UPDATES

ELIZABETH OUTLER

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL SERVICES

OLIVER B. SPELLMAN LAW LIBRARY

As many commentators have noted, 2020 was quite

eventful. It was also challenging in many ways, to many

segments of our industry, and several information ven-

dors oered products and services and innovated to help

customers meet those challenges. Never least among

legal publishers is HeinOnline, which put together quite

an array of new products and features over the past 10-

12 months. Given the eventfulness of this past year, one

might be forgiven for having missed a number of these

developments, so I oer this overview of recently added

features in HeinOnline to help us all catch up. This is

meant to be only an overview; extensive details can be

found on the HeinOnline blog and

LibGuides.

New Databases

Early in 2020, Hein announced that it had acquired the

Current Index to Legal Periodicals (CILP). This was a major

acquisition, and it removed some redundancies and

created more convenience for users and for libraries.

Anything that reduces confusion and eort for users is

a good thing, so having SmartCILP proles available

in HeinOnline along with the other personalization fea-

tures of MyHein is a real benet. In fact, this transition

could be an opportunity for getting users to embrace

MyHein as a current awareness tool if they have not

used it much in the past. For libraries, billing becomes

considerably simpler, as does providing access to

authorized users. Unlike the other databases described

below, CILP is not available free of charge or as part of

another subscription, but its move to HeinOnline is so

16 The CRIV Sheet / Volume 43, No. 2 / February 2021

noteworthy it seems wrong to leave it out of a discussion

of the year’s developments.

Many publishers oered free or signicantly dis-

counted collections during the beginning of the stay-

home period (approximately March to June 2020).

HeinOnline, however, has long maintained the practice

of oering new collections without additional cost, and

it continued to do so with the new COVID-19: Pandemics

Past and Present library (released as COVID-19 in Amer-

ica: Response, Issues, and Law in August 2020 with a

major enhancement and name change in November),

and the new Civil Rights and Social Justice library in Oc-

tober. These collections were clearly in response to the

trending needs and interests of legal researchers in the

United States and have been oered at no charge to any

interested organization, whether they already subscribe

to HeinOnline’s Core collection or not. Both libraries

are largely comprised of public domain material, but

the value to researchers of having these items gath-

ered together into a topical collection and indexed for

searching is self-evident.

As mentioned above, HeinOnline often provides new

collections in response to events and trends, and this

fall it added an Executive Privilege library as well as an

Electoral College collection within the U.S. Presidential

Library. These are included without additional charge

to subscribers and are quite a boon to researchers of

these topics.

New Author Prole Features

In April 2020, HeinOnline nally enabled users to edit

their own author prole pages (or authorize other users,

such as librarians, to do so). There is now a tab in the

MyHein page for Author Prole Admin, where users

can update information such as email address, title,

and institutional aliation, add links to social media

accounts, and add or edit biographical information.

This author prole editing function was released not

long after HeinOnline’s integration with ORCID was

announced. ORCID is a registry of unique identiers

that helps keep authors separated from one another in

search results and ensures proper attribution of pub-

lished works. With this integration, coupled with the

author prole edit feature, HeinOnline author proles

can incorporate the ORCID ID number and link to an

author’s prole in ORCID. In August 2020, the second

phase of the ORCID integration was completed, and

the entire ORCID record was incorporated into the

HeinOnline author prole, including articles that are

not available within HeinOnline. Other author proles

from Google Scholar and SSRN are also available to

be added as links within the HeinOnline author prole,

further encouraging authors to manage their online

identities and making that online presence easier to

access.

New Search Features

A couple of convenient features were added to make

searching easier and more ecient. The availability

facet allows researchers to lter out results that have

been indexed but are not yet available in full text

from HeinOnline. The second new feature is database

selection; this adds considerable convenience, and it is

hard to believe it did not exist before. In the past a user

could select one database to search, or they could search

across the entire catalog to which they had access. After

results were returned, they could be ltered by content

type and collection, but it was not possible to select mul-

tiple collections to search from the start. Now, from the

search box on the home screen, the user can click the

All Databases drop-down and see all available choices,

and check as many boxes as they would like.

New Customization Features

Author Alerts, Favorite Databases, Search His-

tory

There were a number of added or improved features

in MyHein over the past year. First, author alerts have

signicantly improved. They have existed for a while,

but now these alerts can be managed centrally in the

MyHein account. Whenever users view an author pro-

le page, there is the option to set up email alerts. Now

those alerts are gathered together and can be managed

on the MyHein account that has the same email address

that matches what was provided for the alert.

Researchers can now mark favorite databases in Hei-

nOnline using their MyHein account. Once logged in

and viewing the MyHein page, the user can click on the

Favorite Databases tab and select (or unselect) databases

they want to access quickly. Once these favorites are

submitted, they will appear at the top of the list on the

home screen, and users will no longer have to scroll or

hunt for a frequently used collection.

Lastly, MyHein now includes a tab to view and or-

ganize search history. From this screen, researchers can

email search results, and save searches for future use. If

users do not want their searches tracked and accessible

from the MyHein screen, they can turn this feature o.

In conclusion, the past year of challenge and frustra-

tion (and let us not forget, very real pain and loss) was

also a year of innovation and achievement for HeinOn-

line. Subscribers are encouraged to explore the rich

variety of features available to librarians and users, and

to continue to express their needs and suggestions to

vendors who show themselves ready and able to engage

in continuous improvements.

UPDA

TES FROM THE GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING

OFFICE ONLINE

MATT TIMKO

ACADEMIC TECHNOLOGIES AND OUTREACH SERVICES

17 The CRIV Sheet / Volume 43, No. 2 / February 2021

NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY DAVID C. SHAPIRO LAW LIBRARY

The Government Publishing Oce, often overlooked in

favor of the commercial databases, has been a reliable

and cost-eective alternative for decades. They have re-

cently made changes and (dare I say) advances to their

various platforms to make the usability and searchabili-

ty far easier and ecient, adding to the already consid-

erable value of the resources available. This summary

will highlight some of the major additions to the various

GPO databases and how best to use (and improve)

them. For more information on the dierent databases,

please visit the news and updates pages for GovInfo, the

eCFR, and the Federal Depository Library Program

(FDLP).

Beta eCFR

The biggest news to come out of the GPO is the beta

version of the new electronic Code of Federal Reg-

ulations (eCFR). This means the current electronic

CFR, published by the Oce of the Federal Register,

is getting a makeover of sorts. The Oce introduced a

new beta version of the eCFR in June and continues

to seek feedback to improve the layout. The goal for

the new version is for it to become the ocial version

of the Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations.

While this would not replace the print version, it would

mitigate the need to reference the PDF versions of the

print resources through govinfo, and would instead be

treated as an additional ocial version of the Register

and Code.

To get started with the new interface, the Oce

recommends beginning with the Rea

ders Aids, spe-

cically the Getting Started page which provides an

overview of the new page and features, a comparison

with the old eCFR, and the search functionality. As

you go through the new platform, there will be a “Feed-

back?” button in the bottom right-hand corner of the

screen which will allow for instant and direct feedback.

As of right now there is no timeline for the expiration of

the beta platform, so feedback is still encouraged.