Beyond the Yates Memo: A New Era of Enforcement? Sponsored by the Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Tuesday, June 13, 12:00 PMMWL Conference Rooms
National Press Club
529 14th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20045
In this sequel to our panel last year on “The Limits of Federal Criminal Law,” we ask a distinguished panel to discuss how enforcement policy is evolving under Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Is the Yates Memo targeting individual employees of a corporation still operative? Do the speeches of the new Attorney General give any insights into future enforcement tendencies?
Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Podcast
- Hon. Alice Fisher, Managing Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP
- Matthew S. Miner, Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
- Hon. George J. Terwilliger III, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP
Under Attorney Generals Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, the Department of Justice entered into a number of consent decrees with local police departments to change certain police practices. Given the ongoing review of these decrees, how will the federal government’s approach to police practices change during Jeff Sessions’ tenure as Attorney General? What alternative methods might the DOJ employ or encourage states and municipalities to employ to help remedy problematic police practices?
Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Podcast
- Chuck Canterbury, President, Fraternal Order of Police
- Vanita Gupta, President, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
- Moderator: Brian Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland
In June 2013, documents leaked by Edward Snowden sparked widespread debate about secret government surveillance of Americans. Just over a year later, the shooting of Michael Brown, a black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri, set off protests and triggered concern about militarization of law enforcement and discriminatory policing. In Unwarranted, Barry Friedman argues that these two seemingly disparate events are connected―and that the problem is not so much the policing agencies as it is the rest of us. We allow these agencies to operate in secret and to decide how to police us, rather than calling the shots ourselves. And the courts, which we depended upon to supervise policing, have let us down entirely.
The book's author, Professor Barry Friedman, the Jacob D. Fuchsberg Professor of Law at New York University School of Law, Professor Orin Kerr the Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law at The George Washington University Law School, and John Malcolm, Director and Senior Legal Fellow at the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies for the Heritage Foundation, joined us to discuss this new book.
International & National Security Law Podcast
- Prof. Barry Friedman, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Professor of Law, New York University School of Law
- Prof. Orin Kerr, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School
- Moderator: John G. Malcolm, Director and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation
Steven Giaier March 08, 2017
On February 21, the Supreme Court heard argument in Hernandez v. Mesa. In July of 2010, a 15-year-old adolescent named Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca and his friends were playing along a concrete structure on the border of the U.S. and Mexico. When Jesus Mesa, Jr., a U.S. Border Patrol Agent arrived, he detained one of the youths on the border, and shot and killed Hernandez, who was hiding behind a pillar of the Paso Del Norte Bridge on the Mexican side of the border. Hernandez’s parents sued Agent Mesa under the Fourth and Fifth Amendment for the use of unlawful and disproportionate force. Agent Mesa argued that the Fourth and Fifth Amendments did not apply because Hernandez was not a U.S. citizen.
The District Court found for Agent Mesa, while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the Fifth Amendment protections against deadly force applied but the Fourth Amendment did not, and that Agent Mesa should not receive qualified immunity. The main questions for the Supreme Court to answer are: Does the Fourth Amendment apply? Should qualified immunity apply to the border patrol agent? And can Agent Mesa make a Bivens claim?
Steve Giaier of the House Committee on Homeland Security attended oral argument and shared his perceptions.
Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group Podcast
- Steven Giaier, Senior Counsel, House Committee on Homeland Security
Ilya Shapiro March 02, 2017
In Packingham v. North Carolina, the Supreme Court will decide whether the First Amendment bars a state from banning citizens from accessing social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. A North Carolina state makes it a felony for any person on the state's registry of former sex offenders to "access" a wide array of websites--including Facebook, YouTube, and nytimes.com--that enable communications among users if the site is known to allow minors to have accounts. The statute does not require the state to prove the defendant has actually had contact with a minor, intended to do so, or accessed a website for any illicit or improper purpose. Lester Packingham was convicted of violating the law for a Facebook post in which he celebrated the dismissal of a traffic ticket, declaring "God is Good!" Packingham and his supporters contend that law amounts to a sweeping, overbroad, and vague ban on protected speech untailored to any legitimate interest and unjustified by any compelling need.
- Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute