MENU

Civil Rights

Subscribe in a reader

Subcommittees

  • Education
  • Electoral Process
  • Employment & Contracting
  • Second Amendment
  • State Initiatives

2017 National Lawyers Convention

Administrative Agencies and the Regulatory State
November 16, 2017

The 2017 National Lawyers Convention is scheduled for Thursday, November 16 through Saturday, November 18 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. The topic of this year's convention is: Administrative Agencies and the Regulatory State. More information will be posted soon!

Supreme Court Preview: What Is in Store for October Term 2017?

Co-Sponsored by the Faculty Division and the Practice Groups
Jan Crawford, Kyle Duncan, Samuel Estreicher, Orin S. Kerr, Andrew J. Pincus, Carrie Severino September 27, 2017

This event is being live-streamed.

October 2nd will mark the first day of oral arguments for the 2017 Supreme Court term. The Court's docket already includes major cases involving Federal Courts, redistricting, the First Amendment, election law, business law, class actions, international and immigration issues, alien tort statutes, and the Fourth Amendment.

The full list of cases granted thus far for the upcoming term can be viewed on SCOTUSblog here. The panelists will also discuss the current composition and the future of the Court.

Featuring:

  • Prof. Samuel Estreicher, New York University School of Law
  • Prof. Orin Kerr, George Washington University Law School
  • Kyle Duncan, Schaerr Duncan, LLP
  • Carrie Severino, Judicial Crisis Network
  • Andrew Pincus, Mayer Brown, LLP
  • Moderator: Ms. Jan Crawford, CBS News

Litigation Update: UT-Austin Faces Lawsuit Over Race-Based Admissions - Podcast

Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
Edward Blum August 10, 2017

In July 2017, Students for Fair Admissions, a non-profit membership organization comprised of over 21,000 students, parents, and others, filed a lawsuit in Texas state court against the University of Texas at Austin. The organization alleges that UT’s racial preferences in admissions violate the Texas Constitution and a Texas statute. In particular, the Texas Constitution provides that: “Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin.” This Equal Rights Amendment was purportedly enacted by the people of Texas to provide more expansive protection against discrimination than the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Edward Blum, the president of Students for Fair Admissions, joined us to discuss the use of race-based preferences in the admissions process and the organization’s new lawsuit against the University of Texas at Austin.

Featuring:

  • Edward Blum, Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute, President, Students for Fair Admissions, President, Project on Fair Representation

 

Luis v. United States: The Distinction That Makes All the Difference

Federalist Society Review, Volume 18
Dean A. Mazzone August 10, 2017
Civil Forfeiture: Three Recent Cases (Part 1)

Dean Mazzone discusses the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Luis v. United States, which dealt with asset forfeiture and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. After summarizing the arguments of the plurality, concurring, and dissenting opinions, the author briefly discusses asset forfeiture more broadly and the potential ramifications of Luis. [Read Now]

Litigation Update: UT-Austin Faces Lawsuit Over Race-Based Admissions

Civil Rights Practice Group Teleforum
Edward Blum August 07, 2017

Last month, Students for Fair Admissions, a non-profit membership organization comprised of over 21,000 students, parents, and others, filed a lawsuit in Texas state court against the University of Texas at Austin. The organization alleges that UT’s racial preferences in admissions violate the Texas Constitution and a Texas statute. In particular, the Texas Constitution provides that: “Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin.” This Equal Rights Amendment was purportedly enacted by the people of Texas to provide more expansive protection against discrimination than the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Join Edward Blum, the president of Students for Fair Admissions, will join us to discuss the use of race-based preferences in the admissions process and the organization’s new lawsuit against the University of Texas at Austin.

Featuring: 

  • Edward Blum, Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute, President, Students for Fair Admissions, President, Project on Fair Representation

2017 Annual Supreme Court Round Up - Event Audio/Video

Washington, DC Lawyers Chapter
Miguel Estrada, Douglas R. Cox July 28, 2017

On July 13, 2017, Miguel Estrada of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP delivered the Annual Supreme Court Round Up at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.

Featuring:

  • Mr. Miguel Estrada, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
  • Introduction: Mr. Douglas R. Cox, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP

National Press Club
Washington, DC

Are Existing Civil Rights Policies Based on a Statistical Understanding That Is the Opposite of Reality? - Podcast

Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
James P. Scanlan, Roger B. Clegg July 25, 2017

For decades, the DOJ’s civil rights enforcement policies regarding lending, school discipline, and criminal justice have been premised on the belief that relaxing standards and otherwise reducing the frequency of adverse outcomes will reduce percentage racial differences in rates of experiencing those outcomes.  Exactly the opposite is the case. Generally reducing any adverse outcome tends to increase, not decrease, percentage racial differences in rates of experiencing those outcomes. This Teleforum discussed whether the Sessions DOJ will be able to understand the statistical issues and, if so, how such understanding should affect civil rights enforcement policies. Click here to access materials referenced in this Podcast. Click here for Jim's website.

Featuring:

  • James P. Scanlan, Attorney at Law
  • Moderator: Roger B. Clegg, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity

Are Existing Civil Rights Policies Based on a Statistical Understanding That Is the Opposite of Reality?

Civil Rights Practice Group Teleforum
Roger B. Clegg, James P. Scanlan July 24, 2017

For decades, the DOJ’s civil rights enforcement policies regarding lending, school discipline, and criminal justice have been premised on the belief that relaxing standards and otherwise reducing the frequency of adverse outcomes will reduce percentage racial differences in rates of experiencing those outcomes.  Exactly the opposite is the case. Generally reducing any adverse outcome tends to increase, not decrease, percentage racial differences in rates of experiencing those outcomes.  This Teleforum will discuss whether the Sessions DOJ will be able to understand the statistical issues and, if so, how such understanding should affect civil rights enforcement policies. Click here to access materials referenced in this Teleforum. Click here for Jim's website.

Featuring:

  • James P. Scanlan, Attorney at Law
  • Roger B. Clegg, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity

Courthouse Steps: Sessions v. Morales-Santana Update - Podcast

Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
Curt Levey June 27, 2017

On November 9, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Lynch v. Morales-Santana. Morales-Santana’s father was born in Puerto Rico but acquired U.S. citizenship in 1917 under the Jones Act of Puerto Rico. Morales-Santana was born in 1962 in the Dominican Republic to his father and Dominican mother, who were unmarried at the time. In 1970, upon his parents’ marriage, he was statutorily “legitimated” and was admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident in 1976.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which was in effect at the time of Morales-Santana’s birth, limits the ability of an unwed citizen father to confer citizenship on his child born abroad, where the child’s mother is not a citizen at the time of the child’s birth, more stringently than it limits the ability of a similarly situated unwed citizen mother to do the same.

In 2000, Morales-Santana was placed in removal proceedings after having been convicted of various felonies. An immigration judge denied his application for withholding of removal on the basis of derivative citizenship obtained through his father. He filed a motion to reopen in 2010, based on a violation of equal protection and newly obtained evidence relating to his father, but the Board of Immigration Appeals denied the motion. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the Board’s decision, however, and concluded that Morales-Santana was a citizen as of birth. The Attorney General of the United States then obtained a grant of certiorari from the Supreme Court.

The two questions before the Supreme Court were: (1) whether Congress’s decision to impose a different physical-presence requirement on unwed citizen mothers of foreign-born children than on other citizen parents of foreign-born children violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection; and (2) whether the court of appeals erred in conferring U.S. citizenship on respondent, in the absence of any express statutory authority to do so.

Featuring: 

  • Curt Levey, President, Committee for Justice; Legal Affairs Fellow, Freedom Works

Immigration Moratorium in the Supreme Court

International & National Security Law Practice Group
Josh Blackman, David B. Rivkin Jr., Ilya Somin June 26, 2017

Today, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project and stay applications were granted in part. The case is based on the January 21 Executive Order No. 13780, “Protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States.” The order suspended immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the country by citizens of seven majority Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days. It also suspended refugee admission into the United States for 120 days, and barred entry of Syrian refugees until further notice. The stated order’s purpose was to “ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.”

The Washington State Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the order in District Court citing harm to Seattle residents. Judge James Robart in the Western District of Washington issued a restraining order on February 3 halting President Trump’s executive order nationwide. The Department of Justice appealed the restraining order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected the Justice Department’s appeal for an emergency stay.

Join us for a great discussion on what the Supreme Court’s actions mean for the current application of the EO and a preview of the case before the Court. 

Featuring:

  • Prof. Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law, Houston
  • David B. Rivkin Jr., Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP

  • Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University