MENU

Civil Rights

Subscribe in a reader

Subcommittees

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

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.

Forty Years Later: The Brennan Article and State Constitutions - Event Audio/Video

2017 Annual Western Chapters Conference
James A. Gardner, Kenneth P. Miller, Derek Muller, Jay S. Bybee, Eugene B. Meyer February 06, 2017

In 1977, the publication of Justice William Brennan’s article, “State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights,” provoked many litigators to look to the state courts to enhance individual liberties beyond the scope of the federal constitution. Panelists will discuss the legacy of Justice Brennan’s call for state constitutions to serve as a bulwark for individual liberties. How have state courts responded? Panelists will also discuss if the advancement of federalism has been an unintended consequence of this call to action. They will also discuss what this trend toward greater state judicial engagement means for the separation of powers and legislative action.

This panel was part of the 2017 Annual Western Chapters Conference at The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA on January 28, 2017.

Forty Years Later: The Brennan Article and State Constitutions
9:05 a.m. – 10:20 a.m.                      

  • Dean James A. Gardner, Interim Dean, SUNY Distinguished Professor and Bridget and Thomas Black Professor, University at Buffalo School of Law
  • Prof. Kenneth Miller, Claremont McKenna College
  • Prof. Derek Muller, Pepperdine University School of Law
  • Moderator: Hon. Jay Bybee, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
  • Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Simi Valley, CA

Views and opinions expressed by the Federalist Society are not necessarily shared by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

Capital Punishment After the 2016 Elections

Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Teleforum
William G. Otis, Carol Steiker February 03, 2017

In recent decades, there has been much study and debate in the criminal justice community regarding capital punishment and its continued use in most jurisdictions in the United States. Some argue that years of litigation and growing cost have contributed to a new fragility in support for the death penalty and point to polling that reflects decreased enthusiasm for it.  Others assert the November 2016 election results at the State and Federal levels demonstrate capital punishment continues to be firmly backed by the public and will remain in place indefinitely. 

Professor Carol Steiker of Harvard Law School, author of the recently released, Courting Death - The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment and Professor William Otis, Adjunct Professor of Law for Georgetown University Law Center and former federal prosecutor, will join us for an insightful look at this important topic. 

Featuring:

  • Professor William G. Otis, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
  • Professor Carol Steiker, Henry J. Friendly Professor of Law, Harvard Law School

The Thirteenth Amendment 150 Years Later - Event Audio/Video

19th Annual Faculty Conference
Jennifer Mason McAward, Alexander Tsesis, David Upham, Randy E. Barnett January 23, 2017

December 2015 marked 150 years since the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment—an occasion of singular moral, political, and legal importance in American history. This panel reflects on that past with an eye toward the future. While the Amendment plainly outlaws slavery itself, does it go beyond that, or authorize Congress to go beyond that, and if so, how?

This panel was held on January 5, 2017 during the 19th Annual Faculty Conference in San Francisco, CA.

Panel: The Thirteenth Amendment 150 Years Later
4:30 pm - 6:15 pm
4th Floor, Cyril Magnin III

  • Prof. Jennifer Mason McAward, Notre Dame Law School
  • Prof. Alexander Tsesis, Loyola University of Chicago School of Law
  • Prof. David Upham, University of Dallas
  • Moderator: Prof. Randy Barnett, Georgetown University Law Center

Parc 55 San Francisco - A Hilton Hotel
San Francisco, CA

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