About

Limeng is a rising 3L at Harvard Law School. He was born and raised in Changzhou, China. Prior to law school, Limeng received an M.A. in international affairs from George Washington University and a B.A. in Arabic from Beijing Foreign Studies University. During his 1L summer, Limeng interned for a federal judge in New York City and worked on cases involving civil rights and criminal procedure. At HLS, Limeng is involved in the WTO Moot Court, the Islamic Law Blog, APALSA, and Lambda (LGBTQ).

Publications

Limeng Sun. 6/23/2020. “Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region Regulation on De-Radicalization.” Islamic Law Blog. Publisher's VersionAbstract

This post is part of the Digital Islamic Law Lab (DILL) series, in which a Harvard student analyzes a primary source of Islamic law, previously workshopped in the DIL Lab.

Regulation Summary:

In March 2017, Xinjiang, a territory in northwest China, enacted the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region Regulation on De-Radicalization (“2017 Regulation”), which designated fifteen types of statements and actions as “primary expressions of radicalization” and authorized punishment for nonconformity, including criminal penalties and forced participation in “individual and collective” education programs. Many of these designated statements and actions are not only common practices in Muslim communities but also mandated by traditional Islamic law. The 2017 Regulation, through restricting religious expression, has the effect of further stigmatizing the Islamic faith and dismantling the social infrastructure of Muslim communities in Xinjiang.

Limeng Sun. 6/9/2020. “Interpreting Sharī’a in Amina Lawal v. State.” Islamic Law Blog. Publisher's VersionAbstract

This post is part of the Digital Islamic Law Lab (DILL) series, in which a Harvard student analyzes a primary source of Islamic law, previously workshopped in the DIL Lab.

This blog post examines Amina Lawal v. State, a criminal case adjudicated by the Sharī‘a Court of Appeal of Katsina State, Nigeria. The post focuses on the first issue on which the Sharī‘a appellate court based its rulings—the validity of confessions and the effects of a retraction in a zinā (adultery/fornication) conviction. The court cited traditional sharī‘a sources in abundance to support its ruling, giving rise to a variety of interpretive issues in Islamic law.

 

Limeng Sun. 6/16/2020. “Talāq, Sex Equality, and Due Process.” Islamic Law Blog. Publisher's VersionAbstract

This post is part of the Digital Islamic Law Lab (DILL) series, in which a Harvard student analyzes a primary source of Islamic law, previously workshopped in the DIL Lab.

The Maryland Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, in a case of first impression, held that the enforcement of a talāq divorce under Pakistani law was contrary to Maryland’s public policy because (1) only the husband had an independent right to exercise talāq to the exclusion of the wife, which violated “sex equality” under the state constitution; and (2) the process deprived the wife of due process. The Court further ruled that the marriage contract between the parties, if enforced under Pakistani law, will deprive the wife of half of the marital property that she is entitled to under Maryland law, which also contradicts the state’s public policy.

Limeng Sun. 4/28/2015. “Saudi-U.S. Relationship Endures Despite Disagreements.” Center for International Policy. Publisher's VersionAbstract
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United States have shared close ties for over 70 years. Although the two nations sometimes disagree, including recently over the civil war in Syria and U.S. nuclear negotiations with Iran, this relationship has endured despite both nations’ distinct set of values.