- Ted Frank, Center for Class Action Fairness
Although a territory of the United States and subject to the Constitution’s guarantees of non-discrimination, Guam law permits only those who meet the definition of “Native Inhabitants of Guam” to vote in a future status plebiscite. Guam thus excludes most citizens of the United States from voting in the plebiscite. Supporters of the plebiscite are forcing a reexamination of the role of the United States on this strategically important island without giving all citizens a voice in the process. What are the implications for the reach of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. national security? An ongoing lawsuit against Guam will be discussed.
J. Christian Adams, Election Lawyer Center
Mr. Kirk will discuss the successful challenge brought by the leaders of the Virginia General Assembly to Governor Terry McAuliffe’s attempt to repeal Virginia’s constitutional prohibition against felon voting by Executive Order. The Executive Order purported to exercise the Governor's clemency power to restore political rights (including the rights to vote and to sit on juries) to over 200,000 convicted felons. Mr. Kirk will focus in particular on issues that could arise in connection with other states’ prohibitions against felon voting, including the argument that such provisions discriminate on the basis of race.
Michael Kirk, Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC
In 2014, the Students for Fair Admissions ("SFFA"), a membership organization comprised of students, parents, and concerned citizens, sued both Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for racial discrimination in the admissions process. SFFA alleged that the universities were capping the number of Asian Americans they admit and using racial classifications to engage in discrimination. After a brief stay pending resolution of Fisher v. University of Texas, both cases are now moving forward. This call will provide a litigation update on these and other cases
Recent opinions from the Supreme Court and policy debates within the halls of Washington have placed a renewed focus on the amount of judicial deference administrative agencies receive when interpreting statues. Kent Barnett of the University of Georgia Law School and Christopher Walker of Ohio State’s Moritz College of Law have authored a law review article entitled Chevron in the Circuit Courts that empirically examines the effect of so-called Chevron, and its weaker cousin Skidmore, deference on cases heard by the federal intermediate appellate courts. Their article features circuit and agency-specific data on when and where Chevron really matters. Stephen Vaden will moderate a discussion with the papers' authors in a teleforum that should be of interest to both administrative law practitioners and those engaged in the debate over the size and role of the administrative state.