Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Podcast
The Supreme Court issued its 7-1 ruling in Foster v. Chatman on May 23, reversing the Supreme Court of Georgia and remanding the case. Foster was convicted of murder and sentenced to death three decades ago by an all-white jury. The prosecutor struck all of the black jurors and had plans to do so before the voir dire began. The prosecution presented several race-neutral reasons for striking the jurors, and the Georgia courts ruled against the Batson claim. Foster later gained access to the prosecution's jury-selection notes that showed some racial pretext and used them for a renewed Batson claim. The Georgia courts rejected the claim as barred by state res judicata. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority of the court finding that the court did still have jurisdiction and impermissible racial pretext was apparent for at least two of the state's peremptory strikes. Justice Thomas wrote a firm dissent where he doubted the court's jurisdiction. This Teleforum discussed the ramifications of this decision on the future of Batson deference, res judicata, and how this case might affect capital appeals pending throughout the nation.
Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
- Prof. Joseph L. Hoffmann, Harry Pratter Professor of Law and Director for Strategic Projects, Indiana University Maurer School of Law
In July of 2015, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced its final rule on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. HUD touts the rule, promulgated under the Fair Housing Act of 1928, as a critical tool to help communities “take significant actions to overcome historic patterns of segregation, achieve truly balanced and integrated living patterns, promote fair housing choice, and foster inclusive communities that are free from discrimination.” Critics charge that the program is a power grab that improperly applies disparate impact analysis and incorrectly views geographic clustering of racial and ethnic minorities as evidence of discrimination and segregation. Our experts discussed the merits of the rule from both law and policy perspectives.
Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
- Hon. Peter N. Kirsanow, Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
- Stanley Kurtz, Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center
David F. Barton March 17, 2016
On March 10, 2016, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Rothe Development Corporation v. Department of Defense. Rothe alleges that Congress has failed to bring a statutory racial classification under section 8(a) of the Small Business Act into compliance with subsequent Supreme Court precedent as well as a 2008 decision in which the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (in litigation also involving Rothe) unanimously struck down a Department of Defense affirmative action program as unconstitutional racial discrimination. The program struck down in Rothe required the DoD, the Coast Guard, the Air Force, and NASA to ensure that five percent of all contract dollars be awarded to individuals or businesses designated as disadvantaged individuals. Our expert argued the case before the D.C. Circuit.
18th Annual Faculty Conference
- David F. Barton, The Gardner Law Firm
Since before the Revolution, American legal and political traditions have supported many forms of multiculturalism, through institutions such as freedom of association, religious liberty, parental rights, freedom of speech, private property, federalism, often open immigration policy, and the like. And those traditions have likewise imposed constraints on such multiculturalism. What can those traditions tell us about today’s multiculturalism debates?
This panel took place during the 18th Annual Faculty Conference at the Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel in New York, NY on January 9, 2016.
Panel: American Multiculturalism: Its Force and Limits From 1776 to Today
9:00 am - 10:45 am
- Prof. Mary Anne Case, University of Chicago Law School
- Prof. John C. Eastman, Chapman University School of Law
- Prof. Richard W. Garnett, University of Notre Dame Law School
- Ms. Heather Mac Donald, Manhattan Institute
- Moderator: Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Georgetown University Law Center
Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
New York, NY
On December 9, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Abigail Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. In this case, Ms. Fisher challenges the use of racial and ethnic preferences in undergraduate admissions at the University. This is the case’s second trip to the Supreme Court; in 2013, the Court reversed a Fifth Circuit decision that had upheld the University’s policy, and said the lower court had been too deferential to the school, particularly with respect to applying the “narrow tailoring” prong of strict scrutiny. On remand, the Fifth Circuit again ruled for the University, and last summer the Court granted Ms. Fisher’s petition.
Mr. Clegg and Prof. Shaw discussed what the Court is likely to do with the case, as well as what the Court should do with the case. The Court’s review comes at an interesting time, with numerous campus protests on race-related issues. Also of interest is the fact that Ms. Fisher’s lawyers have now filed lawsuits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill, and have emphasized allegations of discrimination against Asian Americans.
- Roger B. Clegg, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity
- Prof. Theodore M. Shaw, Julius L. Chambers Distinguished Professor of Law, and Director of the Center for Civil Rights, University of North Carolina School of Law