MENU

Civil Rights

Subscribe in a reader

Subcommittees

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

Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado: Post Decision Recap

Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Teleforum
John C. Richter March 23, 2017

On March 6, 2017, the Supreme Court released its 5-3 decision in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado. The majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, reveresed and remanded the case holding that when there is a juror's clear statement that he or she relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant, the Sixth Amendment requires that the trial court consider the evidence of the statement and any resulting denial of the jury trial guarantee. John Richter, Partner at King & Spalding, will join us to discuss the important ramifications of the Court's striking decision. 

Featuring:

  • John Richter, Partner, King & Spalding

Privacy and Freedom of the Press - Event Audio/Video

2017 National Student Symposium
Richard A. Epstein, Irina D. Manta, Jameel Jaffer, Steve Coll, Reena Raggi, Gillian Lester March 15, 2017

The Internet has made information not only much more accessible, it has allowed almost anyone to be a provider of such information. 

This has not been without consequence: the refusal to take down an obscene video led to an eye-popping $140 million jury verdict and the subsequent collapse of Gawker Media. Personal e-mails or national secrets can quickly turn into political ammunition through the amplification of Wikileaks. A wide range of individuals, from Dan Rather to former President Barack Obama, have criticized the spread of misinformation. They claim false information is being dressed up as legitimate online journalism with the intent to deceive and misinform. Technology CEOs have felt the pressure. For example, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is devoting considerable resources to developing methods to regulate speech on his platform— probably the most significant in the world. But, as Zuckerberg himself said, “identifying 'the truth' is complicated." 

This panel will explore this new reality and whether it necessitates new regulation. Will any effort be imprecise, such that protected speech will necessarily be silenced? Does such regulation go against the principles enshrined in the First Amendment?

This panel was presented at the 2017 National Student Symposium on Friday, March 3, 2017, at Columbia Law School in New York City, New York.

Panel 1: Privacy and Freedom of the Press
6:30 p.m. -8:00 p.m.
Jerome Greene Hall 104

  • Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University School of Law
  • Prof. Irina Manta, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Intellectual Property Law, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University
  • Mr. Jameel Jaffer, Director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University
  • Prof. Steve Coll, Dean & Henry R. Luce Professor of Journalism, Columbia Journalism School; Staff Writer, The New Yorker
  • Moderator: Hon. Reena Raggi, Circuit Judge, US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
  • Opening: Dean Gillian Lester, Dean and Lucy G. Moses Professor of Law, Columbia Law School

Columbia Law School
New York, New York

Medical Marijuana & the Second Amendment

Short video featuring Joseph Greenlee
Joseph Greenlee March 10, 2017

Should medical marijuana use limit Second Amendment rights? Joseph Greenlee, Second Amendment attorney, explains the contradiction in state and federal law when it comes to medical marijuana use and gun rights. 

Hardie v. NCAA: Can the NCAA Bar Convicted Felons from Coaching in NCAA-Certified Recruiting Tournaments? - Podcast

Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
Joshua P. Thompson, Roger B. Clegg March 07, 2017

Hardie v. NCAA is a recently argued case from the Ninth Circuit. It involves a NCAA ban on all convicted felons from coaching in NCAA-certified tournaments held for recruiting student-athletes to NCAA Division I schools. The key question is whether this policy has a “disparate impact” (disproportional statistical effect, but without any racially discriminatory intent) on African Americans -- and whether Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which precludes “discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin” in “places of public accommodation,” bans such disproportionate results. The district court ruled that Title II did not cover disparate impact, but, in a surprising move, the NCAA abandoned that winning argument on appeal.

Pacific Legal Foundation Senior Attorney Joshua Thompson discussed the parties’ arguments and explained why PLF as amicus was the only party to support the lower court’s judgment. Roger Clegg, President and General Counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, will also join us to moderate the call.

Featuring:

  • Mr. Joshua P. Thompson, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
  • Moderator: Mr. Roger Clegg, President & General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity

Hardie v. NCAA: Can the NCAA Bar Convicted Felons from Coaching in NCAA-Certified Recruiting Tournaments?

Civil Rights Practice Group Teleforum
Joshua P. Thompson, Roger B. Clegg March 06, 2017

Hardie v. NCAA is a recently argued case from the Ninth Circuit.  It involves a NCAA ban on all convicted felons from coaching in NCAA-certified tournaments held for recruiting student-athletes to NCAA Division I schools. The key question is whether this policy has a “disparate impact” (disproportional statistical effect, but without any racially discriminatory intent) on African Americans -- and whether Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which precludes “discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin” in “places of public accommodation,” bans such disproportionate results. The district court ruled that Title II did not cover disparate impact, but, in a surprising move, the NCAA abandoned that winning argument on appeal.

Pacific Legal Foundation Senior Attorney Joshua Thompson will discuss the parties’ arguments and explain why PLF as amicus was the only party to support the lower court’s judgment. Roger Clegg, President and General Counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, will also join us to moderate the call.

Featuring:

  • Mr. Joshua P. Thompson, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
  • Moderator: Mr. Roger Clegg, President & General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity

Unwarranted: Policing Without Permission by Barry Friedman

Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Teleforum
Barry Friedman, Orin S. Kerr, John G. Malcolm March 03, 2017

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, will join us to discuss this new book. 

Featuring:

  • 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
  • ModeratorJohn 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

Supreme Court Preview: Packingham v. North Carolina

Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Teleforum
Jonathan Sherman, Melissa Arbus Sherry February 22, 2017

On February 27, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Packingham v. North Carolina.  This First Amendment case deals with whether a state may bar citizens from accessing social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. A North Carolina state law makes it a felony for any person on the state's registry of former sex offenders to "access" a wide array of popular websites 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. In the trial court, the Defendant was convicted of violating the law for a Facebook post in which he celebrated the dismissal of a traffic ticket, declaring "God is Good!" Some contend that the law amounts to a sweeping, overbroad, and vague ban on protected speech untailored to any legitimate interest and is unjustified by any compelling need. 

Jonathan Sherman, Partner at Boies Schiller Flexner and Melissa Arbus Sherry, Partner at Latham & Watkins will provide a preview of this interesting case.

Featuring:

  • Jonathan Sherman, Partner at Boies Schiller Flexner
  • Melissa Arbus Sherry, Latham & Watkins

Labor Issues in the Sharing Economy

Short video on the Sharing Economy
February 09, 2017

The sharing economy is changing the nature of work, yet it doesn’t fit clearly within laws governing labor and employment. In this short documentary, policy experts, lawyers, and sharing economy workers weigh in on the debate over "contractors v. employees" and what kind of protections workers need in this new economy.