Kenji Yoshino, Chief Justice Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Kenji Yoshino, Chief Justice Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law Kenji Yoshino is the Chief Justice Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law at NYU School of Law and the Director of the Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging. A graduate of Harvard (AB summa cum laude), Oxford (MSc as a Rhodes Scholar), and Yale (JD), he specializes in constitutional law, antidiscrimination law, and law and literature. Yoshino taught at Yale Law School from 1998 to 2008, where he served as Deputy Dean and the inaugural Guido Calabresi Professor of Law. He is the author of three books: Covering: The Hidden Assault on Our Civil Rights; A Thousand Times More Fair: What Shakespeare’s Plays Teach Us About Justice; and Speak Now: Marriage Equality on Trial. Yoshino has published in major academic journals, including the Harvard Law Review, the Stanford Law Review, and the Yale Law Journal. He has also written for more popular forums, including the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. He makes regular appearances on radio and television programs, such as NPR, CNN, PBS and MSNBC. In 2011, Yoshino was elected to the Harvard Board of Overseers for a six-year term (serving as President of that body in the 2016-17 academic year). He also serves on the Advisory Board for the Center for Talent Innovation, on the Board of the Brennan Center for Justice, and on the External Advisory Panel for Diversity and Inclusion for the World Bank Group. He has won numerous awards for his scholarship and teaching, including the American Bar Association’s Silver Gavel Award in 2016 and the Podell Distinguished Teaching Award in 2014 .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Review of “The Law of Judicial Precedent.”
BOOK REVIEW CRAFTING PRECEDENT THE LAW OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENT. By Bryan A. Garner et al. St. Paul, Minn.: Thomson Reuters. 2016. Pp. xxvi, 910. $49.95. Reviewed by Paul J. Watford, Richard C. Chen, and Marco Basile How does the law of judicial precedent work in practice? That is the question at the heart of The Law of Judicial Precedent, the first treatise on the subject in more than 100 years. The treatise sets aside more theoretical and familiar questions about whether and why earlier decisions (especially wrong ones) should bind courts in new cases.1 In- stead, it offers an exhaustive how-to guide for practicing lawyers and judges: how to identify relevant precedents, how to weigh them, and how to interpret them. In short, how to apply precedents to new cases. The treatise’s thirteen authors include representatives from several of the federal circuit courts, justices from two state supreme courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s newest member, Justice Neil Gorsuch.2 Their coauthor and the project’s fountainhead, Bryan Garner, is the editor of Black’s Law Dictionary and one of the country’s leading authorities on legal writing and reasoning.3 The treatise is not a compendium of chap- ters written separately by these authors and loosely tied to a common ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Associate Professor of Law, University of Maine School of Law; Law Clerk to the Honorable Paul J. Watford, 2012–2013. Law Clerk to the Honorable Paul J. Watford, 2016–2017. In many chambers, judges work closely with their law clerks to resolve cases and draft opinions.
[Show full text]
Judge Amy Coney Barrett: Her Jurisprudence and Potential Impact on the Supreme Court
Judge Amy Coney Barrett: Her Jurisprudence and Potential Impact on the Supreme Court October 6, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46562 SUMMARY R46562 Judge Amy Coney Barrett: Her Jurisprudence October 6, 2020 and Potential Impact on the Supreme Court Valerie C. Brannon, On September 26, 2020, President Donald J. Trump announced the nomination of Judge Amy Coordinator Coney Barrett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to the Supreme Court of the Legislative Attorney United States to fill the vacancy left by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on September 18, 2020. Judge Barrett has been a judge on the Seventh Circuit since November 2017, having Michael John Garcia, been nominated by President Trump and confirmed by the Senate earlier that year. The nominee Coordinator earned her law degree from Notre Dame Law School in 1997, and clerked for Judge Laurence H. Section Research Manager Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. From 2002 until her appointment to the Seventh Circuit in 2017, Judge Barrett was a law professor at Notre Dame Law School, and she remains part of the law school faculty. Her Caitlain Devereaux Lewis, scholarship has focused on topics such as theories of constitutional interpretation, stare decisis, Coordinator and statutory interpretation. If confirmed, Judge Barrett would be the fifth woman to serve as a Section Research Manager Supreme Court Justice. During Judge Barrett’s September 26 Supreme Court nomination ceremony, she paid tribute to both Justice Ginsburg and her former mentor, Justice Scalia.
[Show full text]
Queer Politics, Bisexual Erasure: Sexuality at the Nexus of Race, Gender, and Statistics
UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Previously Published Works Title Queer Politics, Bisexual Erasure: Sexuality at the Nexus of Race, Gender, and Statistics Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8hv987pn Author Rodriguez, JM Publication Date 2021-06-27 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California JUANA MARÍA RODRÍGUEZ Queer Politics, Bisexual Erasure Sexuality at the Nexus of Race, Gender, and Statistics COMING OF AGE as a bisexual Latina femme in the 1980s, I was sur- rounded by lesbian-feminist communities and discourses that dispar- aged, dismissed, and vilified bisexuality. Those of us that enthusiastically embraced femininity or that actively sought out masculine presenting butches, were deemed perpetually suspect. Femmes were imagined as being always on the verge of abandoning the lesbian-feminist commu- nities that nurtured us for the respectability and privilege that hetero- sexual relations might afford. The label bisexuality, for those that dared to claim it, was viewed as the apolitical cop-out for those that were not radical enough to fully commit to the implied lesbian practice of feminist theory. In the bad old days of lesbian separatist politics, bisexu- ality was attached to a yearning, not just for men, but for multifarious sexual pleasures deemed decidedly anti-feminist including desires for penetration, sexual dominance and submission, and the wickedly per- verse delights of expressive gender roles. Decades later, discursive prac- tices have shifted. The B is now routinely added to the label LGBT and the umbrella of queer provides discursive cover for sexual practices that fall outside the normative frameworks of heteropatriarchy.
[Show full text]
Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement Amy Coney Barrett Notre Dame Law School, [email protected]
Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Journal Articles Publications 2013 Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement Amy Coney Barrett Notre Dame Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship Part of the Jurisprudence Commons Recommended Citation Amy C. Barrett, Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement, 91 Tex. L. Rev. 1711 (2012-2013). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/293 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement Amy Coney Barrett* Introduction Over the years, some have lamented the Supreme Court's willingness to overrule itself and have urged the Court to abandon its weak presumption of stare decisis in constitutional cases in favor of a more stringent rule.' In this Article, I point out that one virtue of the weak presumption is that it promotes doctrinal stability while still accommodating pluralism on the Court. Stare decisis purports to guide a justice's decision whether to reverse or tolerate error, and sometimes it does that. Sometimes, however, it functions less to handle doctrinal missteps than to mediate intense disagreements between justices about the fundamental nature of the Constitution.2 Because the justices do not all share the same interpretive methodology, they do not always have an agreed-upon standard for identifying "error" in constitutional cases. Rejection of a controversial precedent does not always mean that the case is wrong when judged by its own lights; it sometimes means that the justices voting to reverse rejected the interpretive premise of the case.
[Show full text]
The Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett: an Indian Law Perspective
Native American Rights Fund 1506 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80302-6296 (303) 447-8760 FAX (303) 443-7776 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR www.narf.org WASHINGTON OFFICE John E. Echohawk 1514 P Street, NW (Rear) Suite D LITIGATION MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Washington, D.C. 20005-1910 David L. Gover Matthew L. Campbell Ph. (202) 785-4166 Erin C. Dougherty Lynch FAX (202) 822-0068 October 6, 2020 ATTORNEYS ATTORNEYS Joel W. Williams Matthew L. Campbell Daniel D. Lewerenz Jacqueline De León Samantha B. Kelty K. Jerome Gottschalk David L. Gover ANCHORAGE OFFICE MEMORANDUM th Melody L. McCoy 745 W. 4 Avenue, Ste. 502 Anchorage, AK 99501-1736 Steven C. Moore Susan Y. Noe Ph. (907) 276-0680 Brett Lee Shelton Joe M. Tenorio FAX (907) 276-2466 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER ATTORNEYS Michael Kennedy Natalie A. Landreth Erin C. Dougherty Lynch DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT Matthew N. Newman Donald M. Ragona Wesley J. Furlong Megan Condon CORPORATE SECRETARY Ronald P. Mack To: Tribal Leaders National Congress of American Indians – Project on the Judiciary From: Joel West Williams, Senior Staff Attorney, Native American Rights Fund RE: The Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States: An Indian Law Perspective I. Introduction On September 26, 2020, President Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Seventh Circuit) to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States (U.S. Supreme Court), to fill the seat opened by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. On October 12, 2020, the Senate Judiciary Committee will convene hearings to consider her nomination.
[Show full text]
Report on the Nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett As an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court
REPORT ON THE NOMINATION OF JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT AS AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 1 ABOUT THE LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW The principal mission of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is to secure equal justice for all through the rule of law, targeting in particular the inequities confronting African Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities. The Lawyers’ Committee is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to enlist the private bar’s leadership and resources in combating racial discrimination and the resulting inequality of opportunity – work that continues to be vital today. Among its major areas of work are Educational Opportunities, Fair Housing & Community Development, Voting Rights, Criminal Justice, Economic Justice and Judicial Diversity. Since its inception, the Lawyers’ Committee has been committed to vigorous civil rights enforcement, the pursuit of equal justice under law, and fidelity to the rule of law. Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 1500 K Street, N.W., 9th Fl. Washington, DC 20005 [email protected] 2 Judge Amy Coney Barrett Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Nominated September 26, 2020 to United States Supreme Court 3 Table of Contents I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 II. BIOGRAPHY 2 III. ANALYSIS OF JUDGE BARRETT’S JUDICIAL OPINIONS 4 A. Workers’ and Civil Rights 4 B. Criminal Justice 5 C. Reproductive Rights 6 D. Second Amendment 7 E. Immigration 8 F. LGBTQ Rights 9 G. Healthcare 9 IV. ANALYSIS OF JUDGE BARRETT’S THEORY OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION 10 V.
[Show full text]
Speaking in a Judicial Voice
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW VOLUME 67 DECEMBER 1992 NUMBER 6 SPEAKING IN A JUDICIAL VOICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG* An active participantin the women's movement of the 1970S and,since 19SO, a mem- berof thefederaljudiciary,Ruth Bader Ginsburg has held influentialpositions as both an advocate and a judge. In this Madison Lecture, then Judge Ginsburg drew upon her experiences to examine the 'yudicial voice"from two different perspecti=e± First, she explores the relationshipamong members of the bench, advocating a greatersense of collegiality amongjudge. Second, she contrasts the Supreme Court'ssweeping opin- ion in Roe v. Wade with the Court's more restrained approach in contemporaneous cases involving explicitly gender-baseddiscrimination. offering a vision ofjudicialdeci- sionmaking that recognizes the interdependent role of thejudiciary within the Ameri- can politicalsystem. INTRODUCTION The Madison Lecture series has exposed and developed two main themes: human rights and the administration of justice, particularly in our nation's federal courts.' My remarks touch on both themes; I will speak first about collegiality in style, and next, about moderation in the substance of appellate decisiomaking. My views on these matters reflect experiences over a span of three decades. They have been shaped from my years as a law teacher beginning in the 1960s, through the 1970s when I helped to launch the American Civil Liberties Union's Women's Rights Project, and most recently during the nearly thirteen years I have had the good fortune to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. What I hope to convey about courts, I believe, is in line with the founders'-Madison's and Hamilton's---expec- * Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
[Show full text]
Constitutional Factfinding: the Case of Same-Sex Marriage (Program)
College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository James Goold Cutler Lecture Conferences, Events, and Lectures 2014 Constitutional Factfinding: The aC se of Same-Sex Marriage (Program) Kenji Yoshino Repository Citation Yoshino, Kenji, "Constitutional Factfinding: The asC e of Same-Sex Marriage (Program)" (2014). James Goold Cutler Lecture. 33. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cutler/33 Copyright c 2014 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cutler WILLIAM & MARY LAW SCHOOL ECTURESHIP L The Cutler Lecture series was established in 1927 by James Goold Cutler of Rochester, New York, to provide an annual lecture at William UTLER & Mary by “an outstanding authority THE 2014 C on the Constitution of the United States.” The original series of 16 JAMES GOOLD CUTLER lectures ran from 1928 to 1944. After LECTURE OOLD a period of dormancy, the Cutler G lectures were revived in 1980/81 under the auspices of the Law School, with each lecture published in the WILLIAM AND MARY LAW REVIEW. AMES J HE T THE 2014 CUTLER LECTURE Kenji Yoshino is the Chief Justice Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law at New York University School of Law. A graduate of Harvard (A.B.), Oxford (M.Sc. as a Rhodes Scholar), and Yale (J.D.), Professor Yoshino taught at Kenji Yoshino Yale Law School from 1998 to 2008, where he served as Deputy Dean and the Chief Justice Earl Warren inaugural Guido Calabresi Professor of Professor of Constitutional Law Law. He has published broadly in scholarly journals, such as the Harvard New York University Law Review, Stanford Law Review, and School of Law Yale Law Journal, as well as in more popular venues such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Slate.
[Show full text]
Kenji Yoshino the Perfect Way to Earn CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION Requirements
Kenji Yoshino The Perfect Way to Earn CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION Requirements Kenji Yoshino transforms an often rote professional obligation into an enlightening NE OF THE MOST ACCLAIMED LAW PROFESSORS IN AMERICA, reminder of why Kenji Yoshino offers a way to earn your mandatory CLE credits in law matters. Oan enjoyable manner while rekindling your love of literature. Here’s how it works: In a keynote or series of lectures based on his book A ABOUT KENJI YOSHINO Thousand Times More Fair: What Shakespeare’s Plays Teach Us About Kenji Yoshino is the Chief Justice Earl Warren Justice (HarperCollins 2011), Yoshino draws startling parallels between the Professor of Constitutional Law at the NYU School of Law. Educated at Harvard, Oxford, and Yale Law works of Shakespeare and the modern practice of law. He looks at how School, he taught from 1998 to 2008 at Yale Law The Merchant of Venice illustrates our culture’s simultaneous fear and awe School, where he was the Deputy Dean and the inaugural Guido Calabresi Professor of Law. His of lawyers. He examines how the “white handkerchief” of Othello eerily landmark book, Covering: The Hidden Assault on Our foreshadows the “black glove” of the O.J. Simpson trial as forms of physical Civil Rights, was hailed by Publishers Weekly for its “tremendous potential as a touchstone in the struggle evidence that overwhelmed deeper questions of guilt or innocence. He for universal human dignity.” A Thousand Times More explores how Measure for Measure illuminates how much “empathy” Fair, his new book, takes a dozen Shakespeare plays and ties them to contemporary issues of justice.
[Show full text]
As I Lay Writing: How to Write Law Review Articles for Fun and Profit: A
University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln College of Law, Faculty Publications Law, College of 1994 As I Lay Writing: How to Write Law Review Articles for Fun and Profit: A Law-and-Economics, Critical, Hermeneutical, Policy Approach and Lots of Other Stuff That Thousands of Readers Will Find Really Interesting and Therefore You Ought to Publish in Your Prestigious, Top-Ten, Totally Excellent Law Review C. Steven Bradford University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/lawfacpub Part of the Legal Studies Commons Bradford, C. Steven, "As I Lay Writing: How to Write Law Review Articles for Fun and Profit: A Law-and- Economics, Critical, Hermeneutical, Policy Approach and Lots of Other Stuff That Thousands of Readers Will Find Really Interesting and Therefore You Ought to Publish in Your Prestigious, Top-Ten, Totally Excellent Law Review" (1994). College of Law, Faculty Publications. 87. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/lawfacpub/87 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in College of Law, Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Bradford in Journal of Legal Education 44 (1994). Copyright 1994, Southwestern Law School. Used by permission. As I Lay Writing: How to Write Law Review Articles for Fun and Profit: A Law-and-Economics, Critical, Hermeneutical, Policy Approach and Lots of Other Stuff That Thousands of Readers Will Find Really Interesting and Therefore You Ought to Publish in Your Prestigious, Top-Ten, Totally Excellent1 Law Review: [this space reserved]: C.
[Show full text]
Biphobia, Bisexual Erasure and Their Impact on Mental Health
The Invisi_les: Biphobia, Bisexual Erasure and Their Impact on Mental Health ANDREA PENNASILICO [email protected] University of Naples Federico II ANNA LISA AMODEO1 [email protected] University of Naples Federico II Abstract In the last few years, research on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) health increased, but little scientific literature has been focused on bisexual health. This critical review aims at understanding the relationship between discrimination towards bisexual people and their mental and physical health. The first part of the article reviews different forms of bisexual discrimination, such as biphobia, bisexual invisibility, and bi-erasure, showing how biphobia is different from homophobia, especially considering how heavily it is perpetrated inside and outside the community. The second part of the paper focuses on gathering data about bisexual people’s health, showing the differences with the gay and lesbian community, as well as the diverse effects that discrimination can have on physical and mental outcomes. Finally, the last part focuses on the healthcare experiences of bisexual people and what can be done to improve their health. 1. Introduction Bisexuality generally refers to the attraction towards more than one gender. Notwithstanding the scientific increased interest in bisexual health in the last decades, bisexual people still are acknowledged to be an ‘invisible’ and ‘excluded’ population within several domains, such as media, gay and lesbian communities, and healthcare research. Recently, the attention on bisexuality is starting to increase and more literature on the matter is being published, along with a slow but steady increase of positive representation in the media. Therefore, a paper that collects all useful resources available on bisexuality and mental health can be especially needed in setting the groundwork for future research.
[Show full text]
Study Maps Challenges and Opportunities for Pro-LGBT Companies Operating in Anti-LGBT Markets
Contact: Tai Wingfield 1-212-315-2333 [email protected] Study Maps Challenges and Opportunities for Pro-LGBT Companies Operating in Anti-LGBT Markets Study shows multi-national corporations how to promote LGBT equality and strengthen growth NEW YORK, January 22, 2016 — Fifty-eight percent of LGBT employees at multi-national corporations (MNCs) say their company has a nondiscrimination policy based on sexual orientation and transgender identity. However, LGBT-supportive MNCs struggle to extend that protection beyond their walls in anti- LGBT jurisdictions, given that seventy-five countries still criminalize same-sex sexual conduct1. The Center for Talent Innovation’s 10-market study (including Brazil, China, Hong Kong, India, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, Turkey, the UK, and the US), Out in the World: Securing LGBT Rights in the Global Marketplace, shows LGBT-supportive MNCs how to foster an inclusive and safe environment for employees both on and off corporate campuses in anti-LGBT geographies. Co-authored by legal scholar Kenji Yoshino and CTI Founder and President Sylvia Ann Hewlett, the study of 1,964 LGBT professionals and 10,242 non-LGBT professionals maps the world into three categories: countries with LGBT-hostile laws (India, Russia, and Singapore); geographies with LGBT-unfriendly laws (China, Hong Kong, and Turkey); and countries with LGBT-friendly laws (Brazil, South Africa, the UK, and the US). The report highlights ways in which MNCs operating in LGBT-unfriendly and hostile jurisdictions might move markets and mores toward greater LGBT equality. Tactics fall within three models of engagement: The “When in Rome” model, in which companies adhere to the norms and local laws of the jurisdiction, but allow employees to opt-out of placement there.
[Show full text]