MENU

Civil Rights

Subscribe in a reader

Subcommittees

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

Fifth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

The Relationship between Congress and the Executive Branch
Ronald A. Cass, Neil Eggleston, Todd F. Gaziano, Sally Greenberg, Kathleen Grillo, Lisa Heinzerling, Grace Koh, Michael S. Lee, Abbott (Tad) Lipsky, James C. Miller, David M. McIntosh, Mike J. Rogers, David C. Vladeck, Adam J. White, Benjamin Wittes, M. Edward Whelan May 17, 2017

The Fifth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference will examine the changing and often convoluted relationship between the legislative and the executive branches in the United States government. This daylong conference will feature plenary panels, addresses, and breakout panels on topics such as “The Unitary Executive,” “Chevron Deference,” and “Congressional Oversight of Voting Rights.”

The Conference will begin with an opening address by Senator Mike Lee.

Federal Oversight of Local Police Departments

Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Teleforum
Chuck Canterbury, Vanita Gupta, Brian M. Fish April 24, 2017

Under Attorney Generals Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, the Department of Justice entered into a number of consent decrees with local police departments to change certain police practices.  Given the ongoing review of these decrees, how will the federal government’s approach to police practices change during Jeff Sessions’ tenure as Attorney General?  What alternative methods might the DOJ employ or encourage states and municipalities to employ to help remedy problematic police practices?

Featuring:

  • Chuck Canterbury, President, Fraternal Order of Police
  • Vanita Gupta, President, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
  • Moderator: Brian Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland

Litigation Update: Davis v. Guam - Podcast

Litigation Practice Group Podcast
J. Christian Adams April 13, 2017

On March 8, Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood of the District Court of Guam struck down a Guam law that permitted only those who meet the definition of “Native Inhabitants of Guam” to vote in a future status plebiscite. This decision has been met with opposition from elected officials, protests at the federal courthouse, public rallies, and now an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Supporters of the plebiscite are forcing a reexamination of the role of the United States on this strategically important island and opponents contend they are doing so without giving all citizens a voice in the process. What did the district court decide, and what does the reaction say about the rule of law and respect for the Constitution?  Christian Adams joined us to discuss the latest in Davis v. Guam.

Featuring:

  • J. Christian Adams, Election Lawyer Center

Litigation Update: Davis v. Guam

Civil Rights Practice Group Teleforum
J. Christian Adams April 11, 2017

On March 8, Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood of the District Court of Guam struck down a Guam law that permitted only those who meet the definition of “Native Inhabitants of Guam” to vote in a future status plebiscite. This decision has been met with opposition from elected officials, protests at the federal courthouse, public rallies, and now an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Supporters of the plebiscite are forcing a reexamination of the role of the United States on this strategically important island and opponents contend they are doing so without giving all citizens a voice in the process. What did the district court decide, and what does the reaction say about the rule of law and respect for the Constitution?  Christian Adams will join us to discuss the latest in Davis v. Guam.

Featuring:

  • J. Christian Adams, Election Lawyer Center

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