MENU

Civil Rights

Subscribe in a reader

Subcommittees

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

Courthouse Steps: Gloucester County School Board v. G.G.

Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group Teleforum
Kyle Duncan January 09, 2017

In late October the Supreme Court accepted a petition from the School Board of Gloucester County, Virginia seeking to overturn a lower court’s order that a 17-year-old transgender student, born female but identifying as male, be allowed to use the boys’ restroom during senior year of high school. The Department of Education’s interpretation of Title IX and 34 C.F.R. § 106.33, reflects that public schools must “generally treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity.” The Court will consider this interpretation and hear argument on whether courts should extend deference to unpublished “guidance” letters issued by the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Education. Kyle Duncan, attorney for the School Board of Gloucester County, recently filed the Board’s Supreme Court brief and will join us to discuss this important case.

Featuring:

  • Kyle Duncan, Partner, Schaerr Duncan LLP

Redistricting Tested in the Supreme Court - Podcast

Free Speech & Election Law and Civil Rights Practice Groups Podcast
Maya Noronha December 07, 2016

On December 5, the U.S. Supreme Court will hold oral arguments on two redistricting cases, Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections and McCrory v. Harris. After the movement of population, both Virginia and North Carolina legislatures redrew plans for their state legislative districts. However, plaintiffs in each state challenged the plans as racial gerrymanders diluting the vote of African-American voters. Both cases raise the question of how to comply with the Voting Rights Act requirement that racial minorities have the ability to elect representatives of their choice, along with the Constitutional prohibition of race predominating in the drawing of plans. The Court will be also be asked to clarify the acceptable ways to consider minority populations in drawing plans, what plaintiffs need to show to prove a racial gerrymander, and what would trigger strict scrutiny.

Featuring:

  • Ms. Maya M. Noronha, Associate, Baker & Hostetler LLP

 

Redistricting Tested in the Supreme Court

Free Speech & Election Law and Civil Rights Practice Groups Teleforum
Maya Noronha December 05, 2016

On December 5, the U.S. Supreme Court will hold oral arguments on two redistricting cases, Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections and McCrory v. Harris.  After the movement of population, both Virginia and North Carolina legislatures redrew plans for their state legislative districts.  However, plaintiffs in each state challenged the plans as racial gerrymanders diluting the vote of African-American voters.  Both cases raise the question of how to comply with the Voting Rights Act requirement that racial minorities have the ability to elect representatives of their choice, along with the Constitutional prohibition of race predominating in the drawing of plans.  The Court will be also be asked to clarify the acceptable ways to consider minority populations in drawing plans, what plaintiffs need to show to prove a racial gerrymander, and what would trigger strict scrutiny.
 

Featuring:

  • Ms. Maya M. Noronha, Associate, Baker & Hostetler LLP

Courthouse Steps: Moore v. Texas

Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Teleforum
December 02, 2016

On November 29, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Moore v. Texas. This case involves the death penalty and the intellectually disabled. Specifically, whether in capital cases it violates the Eighth Amendment and the High Court’s prior rulings in Hall v. Florida and Atkins v. Virginia to preclude the application of current medical standards and require older medical standards to determine the intellectual disability of a criminal defendant. 

Featuring:

  • Kent S. Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation

The Second Amendment: Enforcing the Heller Decision - Event Audio/Video

2016 National Lawyers Convention
Noel J. Francisco, Nelson Lund, Michael O'Shea, Allan Rostron, Raymond Kethledge, Gail Heriot November 23, 2016

The Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller recognized for the first time in our history that individual Americans have a right to gun ownership. Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller is widely regarded as a signal success for his originalist approach to constitutional interpretation. This panel will assess Heller's contribution to the law. How originalist was the opinion? Have the lower courts been faithful in applying Heller to issues outside its narrow holding? Is the Court likely to read Heller broadly or narrowly in the future?

This panel was held on November 18, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC.

Civil Rights: The Second Amendment: Enforcing the Heller Decision
12:30 p.m. – 2:45 p.m.
East Room

  • Mr. Noel J. Francisco, Partner, Jones Day
  • Prof. Nelson Lund, University Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
  • Prof. Michael O'Shea, Professor of Law, Oklahoma City University School of Law
  • Prof. Allan Rostron, University of Missouri - Kansas City Law School
  • Moderator: Hon. Raymond M. Kethledge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
  • Introduction: Hon. Gail Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

2016 National Lawyers Convention

The Jurisprudence and Legacy of Justice Scalia
November 17, 2016

The 2016 National Lawyers Convention is scheduled for Thursday, November 17 through Saturday, November 19 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. The topic of this year's convention is: The Jurisprudence and Legacy of Justice Scalia.

Right to Vote on Island of Guam Limited to Natives: A Litigation Update - Podcast

Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
J. Christian Adams November 07, 2016

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? Our speaker discussed the ongoing lawsuit against Guam.

Featuring:

  • J. Christian Adams,  Election Law Center

Right to Vote on Island of Guam Limited to Natives: A Litigation Update

Civil Rights Practice Group Teleforum
J. Christian Adams November 04, 2016

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.

Featuring:

  • J. Christian Adams, Election Lawyer Center