Murray offered assault-and-battery torts and criminal restitution as legal routes for descendants

Evidence

Murray’s essay made me question, again, why Harvard felt they could control this plundered property—on what ground? She writes, “Under what legal doctrine could we transform legal title in properties made by enslaved people, driven by the concern that these properties are the fruits of illegal force? Should we employ the tort of assault and battery, which could feasibly garner the victims’ heirs’ damages? Or should we turn to restitution in crimes?…Wrestling the daguerreotypes from Harvard and placing them back in the custody of descendants or appropriate institutions would not succumb to a myth of cultural purity and authenticity, but rather recognize a history of abuse and theft that Harvard currently would rather keep quiet.” — Tamara Lanier, From These Roots, 667

Categorization

• QUESTION: Which doctrinal route did the actual lawsuit ultimately press, and how did the court rule on each?
• DEFINE: Names the two operative legal theories Lanier’s counsel would build the case on.