DOCSLIB.ORG

First Amendment Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
First Amendment Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Supreme Court Preview Conferences, Events, and Lectures 2000 Section 5: First Amendment Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School, "Section 5: First Amendment" (2000). Supreme Court Preview. 91. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview/91 Copyright c 2000 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview FIRST AMENDMENT In This Section: LAST TERM: Mitchell et al. v. Helms et al., No. 98-1648 The Louisiana Case:Justices Appove U.S. Financing of Relhgious Schools' Equipment Linda Greenhouse ....................................................... 167 Hgh Court Oks TaxpayerAidfor Religious Schools;Jeff Plaintiffs Lose 15-Year Battle Bruce A lpert and M ark W aller ..................................................................... 170 LAST TERM: Boy Scouts ofAmerica and Monmouth Council et al v. James Dale, No. 99-699 Boy Scouts' Ban on Gay Leaders Upheld by Court; 54 Ruling Respects Group's 'Sincefity' L yle D enniston ...................................................................................... 174 The Supreme Court: The New Jersey Case; Supreme Court Backs Boy Scouts in Ban of Gaysfrvm Membership Linda Greenhouse ....................................................... 177 LAST TERM: Board of Regents of the Univerity of Wisconsin System et al v. Scott HarodSouthworth et al, No. 98-1189 Justices Ok PoliticalUses of Student Fees; Supreme Court: Panel Rejects Suit Brought by Conservatives UnhappyAbout Payingfor liberalCauses David G. Savage ......................................................... 180 No Student Veto for Campus Fees Linda Greenhouse ....................................................... 183 LAST TERM: Santa Fe Independent School Districtv. Jane Doe et al., No. 99-62 The Supreme Court: The Religion Issue; Student Prayers Must be Private, Court Reaffirms Linda Greenhouse ....................................................... 186 School PrayerRejected; High Court Bans Student-Led Acts Joan Biskupic ........................................................... 189 164 LAST TERM: Hill v. Colorado et al., No. 98-1856 Two VictoriesforAbortion Rights: justices Uphold Colorado 'Bubble,'RejectNebraska Late-Term Ban Bill McAllister ........................................................... 191 Abortion War of Words Goes on at Denver Clinic; Protesters Continue Action at Faciliy on Vine Street Lisa Levitt Ryckman ...................................................... 194 LAST TERM: Nixon et al v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC et al., No. 98-963 Campaign Gzft Limits Reaffirmed; Court Upholds Power To Curb Donations Lyle Denniston .......................................................... 196 Court Sees ContributionLimits as Way to Prevent Corruption Tony Mauro ............................................................. 199 NEW CASE: Bartnicki v. Vopper, No. 99-1687; United States v. Vopper, No. 99-1728 NARRATIVE SUMMARY, The FirstAmendment v. The Right to Privacy M eredith L ugo ...................................................................................... 201 Synopsis and Question Presented ............................................ 203 GloriaBartnicki et al v. Frederick W. Vopper et al, 200 F.3d 109 (3rd Cir.) .................................................... 204 Supreme Court Roundup:Justices Agree to Review Privacy of CellularCalls Neil A. Lewis ........................................................... 216 Free Speech and Wireless Privacy Face Off Jeffrey Silva ........................................................................................... 219 NEW CASE: Legal Senices Corporationv. Velaque,, No. 99-603; United States v. Velagquez, No. 99-960 NARRATIVE SUMMARY, Limiting LegalAid M eredith Lugo ...................................................................................... 200 Synopsis and Question Presented ............................................ 222 165 Careen Vela.que( et al. v. Legal Serices Corporation, 164 F.3d 757 (2nd Cir.) .................................................... 223 High Court Will ConsiderLimits ofLegalAid to Poor Joan Biskupic ........................................................... 231 Supreme Court Roundup: Weighing Restrictions on Legal Aidfor Poor Linda G reenhouse .................................................................................. 233 NEW CASE: DonaldJames Gralike v. Rebecca McDowellCook, No. 99-929 NARRATIVE SUMMARY, The Strugglefor Term Limits Goes On David P. Primack ........................................................ 236 Synopsis and Question Presented ............................................ 238 DonaldJames Gralike v. Rebecca McDowell Cook, 191 F.3d 911 (8h Cir.) ..................................................... 239 Supreme Court to Wade Back into Term-Limits Debate with Missouri Case Tony Mauro ............................................................ 250 Supreme Court to HearMissouri Ballot Issue Case; Wording Sought on Term Limits Stances Kevin Murphy .......................................................... 252 Also This Tern .............................................................. 254 166 Last Term: Guy MITCHELL et a. V. Mary L. HELMS et al. No. 98-1648 Supreme Court of the United States Decided June 28, 2000 THE LOUISIANA CASE: JUSTICES APPROVE U.S. FINANCING OF RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS' EQUIPMENT The New York Times Thursday,June 29,2000 Linda Greenhouse Overturning two of its own precedents that provide ammunition for the legal argument that had limited public aid to religious schools, the as long as aid was distributed evenhandedly, it Supreme Court ruled today that a federal could not be said to be impermissibly favoring program that placed computers and other religious recipients. "instructional equipment" in parochial school "We see six potential votes for school classrooms did not violate the constitutional choice," Clint Bolick, litigation director of the separation between church and state. Institute for Justice, a leading advocacy group The 6-to-3 decision was not supported by a on the issue, said today. His count included single majority opinion. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who voted with three who A far-reaching opinion by Justice Clarence Justice O'Connor, as well as the voted with Justice Thomas: Chief Justice Thomas that would have made "the principles William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin of neutrality and private choice" the only Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy. touchstones for channeling aid to religious schools was supported by three other justices. Nonetheless, although the voucher debate was obviously in the justices' minds, that But Justice Thomas's opinion was qualified outcome remained in the realm by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's insistence in of potential, that in a concurring opinion that public aid may given Justice O'Connor's observation the case before the court today, no government supplement, but must not supplant, money that funds "ever reach the coffers of a religious a religious school could otherwise spend on its school." own programs. The Rev. Barry Lynn, director of Americans Nonetheless, the decision appeared likely to United for the Separation of Church and State, provide momentum for the drive to legalize the said in an interview that "in the case of use of vouchers for religious-school tuition and vouchers, the money goes directly to the 167 school's coffers" even though it first passed in Agostini v. Felton. In that decision -- which through the hands of parents. "The parents can also overturned a precedent -- the court held do nothing with the voucher except spend it for that it did not violate the Constitution for tuition," Mr. Lynn said. public schools to send teachers into parochial schools, under a federal program, to provide The Clinton administration supported the remedial classes. program that was upheld today and appealed a decision from a federal appeals court in New As these decisions indicate, the court's Orleans that declared it unconstitutional. jurisprudence on the subject of permissible Dating to 1965, the law, now known generally public aid to religious schools has been in as Chapter 2, has evolved from providing video turmoil for years. The case today, Mitchell v. filmstrips and similar material to a vehicle for Helms, No. 98-1648, was the oldest on the accomplishing the administration's goal of court's docket, having been argued on Dec. 1, wiring every classroom in the country for and the justices' failure to settle on a single Internet access. majority opinion after seven months showed that the turmoil was likely to continue. Under the program, federal money flows through public school districts, which are Reflecting on historical anti-Catholic obligated to buy the equipment and distribute sentiment in the late 1800's, Justice Thomas it, technically as loans, to all schools within the said that "hostility to aid to pervasively district's geographic boundaries -- public, sectarian schools has a shameful pedigree that private and parochial -- based on their we do not hesitate to disavow." He said that enrollment. Three taxpayers in Jefferson Parish, "nothing in the Establishment Clause requires La., brought suit in 1985 to challenge the the exclusion of pervasively sectarian schools program's application to religious schools in the from otherwise permissible
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Federal Sentencing Reform Jon O
    Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law Howard and Iris Kaplan Memorial Lecture Lectures 4-23-2003 Federal Sentencing Reform Jon O. Newman Senior Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/lectures_kaplan Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Newman, Jon O., "Federal Sentencing Reform" (2003). Howard and Iris Kaplan Memorial Lecture. 19. http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/lectures_kaplan/19 This Lecture is brought to you for free and open access by the Lectures at Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Howard and Iris Kaplan Memorial Lecture by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HOFSTRA UNNERSITY 5ci-rOOLOF lAW 2002-2003 Howard and Iris Kaplan Memorial Lecture Series The Honorable Jon 0. Newman Senior Judge, Un ited States Co urt of Appeals for the Second Circuit JON 0 . NEWMAN j on 0. Newman is a Senior Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for th e Second Circuit (Connecticut, New York and Vennont.), on which he has served since june 1979. He was Chief judge of the Second Circuit from july 1993 to June 1997, and he served as a United States District judge for the Distri ct of Connecti cut from j anuary 1972 until his appointment to th e Court of Appeals. judge Newman graduated from Princeton University in 1953 and from Yale Law School in 1956.
    [Show full text]
  • An Empirical Study of the Ideologies of Judges on the Unites States
    JUDGED BY THE COMPANY YOU KEEP: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THE IDEOLOGIES OF JUDGES ON THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS Corey Rayburn Yung* Abstract: Although there has been an explosion of empirical legal schol- arship about the federal judiciary, with a particular focus on judicial ide- ology, the question remains: how do we know what the ideology of a judge actually is? For federal courts below the U.S. Supreme Court, legal aca- demics and political scientists have offered only crude proxies to identify the ideologies of judges. This Article attempts to cure this deficiency in empirical research about the federal courts by introducing a new tech- nique for measuring the ideology of judges based upon judicial behavior in the U.S. courts of appeals. This study measures ideology, not by subjec- tively coding the ideological direction of case outcomes, but by determin- ing the degree to which federal appellate judges agree and disagree with their liberal and conservative colleagues at both the appellate and district court levels. Further, through regression analysis, several important find- ings related to the Ideology Scores emerge. First, the Ideology Scores in this Article offer substantial improvements in predicting civil rights case outcomes over the leading measures of ideology. Second, there were very different levels and heterogeneity of ideology among the judges on the studied circuits. Third, the data did not support the conventional wisdom that Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush appointed uniquely ideological judges. Fourth, in general judges appointed by Republican presidents were more ideological than those appointed by Democratic presidents.
    [Show full text]
  • CYBERSPACE INVADES the FIRST AMENDMENT: Where Do We Go from Here?
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge University of Kentucky Master's Theses Graduate School 2001 CYBERSPACE INVADES THE FIRST AMENDMENT: Where do we go from here? Dollie Deaton University of Kentucky Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Deaton, Dollie, "CYBERSPACE INVADES THE FIRST AMENDMENT: Where do we go from here?" (2001). University of Kentucky Master's Theses. 216. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/gradschool_theses/216 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Kentucky Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ABSTRACT OF THESIS CYBERSPACE INVADES THE FIRST AMENDMENT: Where do we go from here? Long before our nation was created, European Countries acknowledged the importance of free speech. Despite this, Great Britain later denied this right to the New England Colonies. Over the last two centuries many battles have been fought to make freedom of speech an inalienable right to be shared by all. A good portion of these battles have been fought in courtrooms. Judge and Supreme Court justices have dealt with issues ranging from what is a public figure to what is indecent speech. Many of these issues are not found in the original text of the Constitution. This has forced the judges to devise tests to determine certain standards and to make discretionary choices. Today’s public officials are dealing with issues that have never been dealt with before, such as Internet speech and cyberspace libel.
    [Show full text]
  • Dialogue on Diversity 5 CLE Credits N by Jeff Lyons Available At
    Philadelphia ® The Monthly Newspaper of the Philadelphia Bar Association Vol. 38, No. 10 October 2009 13 Courses, Dialogue on Diversity 5 CLE Credits n By Jeff Lyons Available at A panel of 12 attorneys and judges Bench-Bar discussed the past, present and future of diversity and inclusion in the legal More than 400 attorneys and judges profession at the Association’s Sept. 22 are expected to attend the Association’s Dialogue on Diversity. 2009 Bench-Bar and Annual Conference Chancellor Sayde Ladov moderated at Harrah’s Atlantic City on Oct. 23 and the program and said the summit is 24, where five CLE credits and 13 differ- evidence of the Philadelphia Bar Associa- ent seminars will be available. tion’s continuing commitment to make The Conference kicks off with the this 13,000-member bar an inclusive, October Quarterly Meeting on Oct. 23 welcoming place for all lawyers. with a discussion on the future of Philadel- “We want to help the legal community phia in challenging economic times. The in Philadelphia recognize and maintain presiding judges of the state’s courts will and continue to explore its commitment also present a state of the courts discussion. to diversity. As times change, we must Programs will be available in a number of remain steadfast in our commitment. But different practice areas. the way in which we move the dialogue Join your colleagues, friends and mem- on diversity further must be geared to the bers of the bench for a weekend of educa- realities of the day,” she said. tion, camaraderie and fun that includes Panelists included U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • From the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission to the Courthouse: Does Civil Rights Litigation Remediate Racial Inequality in the Workplace?
    From the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission to the Courthouse: Does Civil Rights Litigation Remediate Racial Inequality in the Workplace? By David Berney ABSTRACT This dissertation examines the ability of civil rights litigation to redress racial inequality in the workplace. It enters the larger historical debate regarding the effectiveness of civil rights litigation to serve as a force for progressive, socio- political change. To focus my inquiry, I studied the operations of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, an administrative agency charged with enforcing civil rights laws. I also interviewed major participants in the civil rights litigation system, including complainants, attorneys, and judges. I drew upon my own experiences as a practicing civil rights attorney. My investigation employed a range of different methods, including interviews, ethnographic observation, and archival research. This is, to my knowledge, the first full study of the actual operations of an important state civil rights agency in close to fifty years. My dissertation finds that litigation has historically promoted racial equality in employment. But two factors have contributed to limit what lawsuits can realistically accomplish today. First, starting in the 1970s, Republican presidential administrations appointed judges who proved less sympathetic to civil rights claims. The resulting case law made it much harder to bring successful lawsuits. Second, expressions of workplace bias became much more covert over time partly as a consequence of the successes that civil rights litigators achieved. The litigation paradigm is not well designed to tackle such subtleties. Beyond a lack of effectiveness, litigation can also have deleterious effects as it can cause employees to suffer psychic injury on top of whatever racial indignities they have endured.
    [Show full text]
  • Summer 2011 Alabama Birmingham Bradley Arant Boult Cummings Alaska Anchorage Alaska Legal Services Corporation Anchorage Feldman Orlansky & Sanders Anchorage U.S
    First Year Students' Employers - Summer 2011 Alabama Birmingham Bradley Arant Boult Cummings Alaska Anchorage Alaska Legal Services Corporation Anchorage Feldman Orlansky & Sanders Anchorage U.S. Attorney's Office Arkansas Bentonville Walmart - Legal Department Arizona Phoenix Gammage & Burnham California Alameda Oakland Raiders Berkeley East Bay Community Law Center Irvine Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear Los Angeles AFL-CIO and the United Steelworkers of America Los Angeles Los Angeles City Attorney Los Angeles Los Angeles County Public Defender Mountain View Google Oakland California Attorney General's Office Oakland Hon. Donna Ryu, USDC - NDCA Orange Talley & Co Pasadena Hon. Alex Kozinski, USCA - 9th Circuit Pasadena Hon. Richard Paez, USCA - 9th Circuit Riverside Californai 4th District Court of Appeal Riverside Riverside DA Sacramento California Attorney General's Office Sacramento California Independent System Operator San Diego San Diego Public Defender San Diego U.S. Attorney's Office San Francisco Bay Area Legal Services San Francisco CA Attorney General, Public Rights Division San Francisco Gay-Straight Alliance San Francisco Habeas Corpus Resource Center San Francisco Homeless Advocacy Project San Francisco Hon. William Alsup, USDC - NDCA San Francisco Liuzzi Murphy & Solomon San Francisco Ram Olson Cereghino & Kopczynski Santa Clara Hon. James Kleinberg, Santa Clara County Superior Court Santa Cruz Senior Citizens Legal Services Colorado Boulder Environmental Defense Fund Denver Colorado Attorney General Denver Colorado Supreme Court Denver U.S. Attorney's Office Denver U.S. Department. of Education Connecticut Fairfield General Electric Hartford U.S. Attorney's Office Delaware Wilmington Delaware Court of Chancery Wilmington Hon. Leonard Stark, USDC - DDE New Haven Jerome Frank Legal Services Clinic at Yale U.
    [Show full text]
  • Omnipresent Student Speech and the Schoolhouse Gate: Interpreting Tinker in the Digital Age
    Saint Louis University Law Journal Volume 59 Number 2 Current Issues in Education Law Article 9 (Winter 2015) 2015 Omnipresent Student Speech and the Schoolhouse Gate: Interpreting Tinker in the Digital Age Watt Lesley Black Jr. Ph.D. [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/lj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Watt L. Black Jr. Ph.D., Omnipresent Student Speech and the Schoolhouse Gate: Interpreting Tinker in the Digital Age, 59 St. Louis U. L.J. (2015). Available at: https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/lj/vol59/iss2/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Saint Louis University Law Journal by an authorized editor of Scholarship Commons. For more information, please contact Susie Lee. SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW OMNIPRESENT STUDENT SPEECH AND THE SCHOOLHOUSE GATE: INTERPRETING TINKER IN THE DIGITAL AGE WATT LESLEY BLACK, JR. PH.D.* INTRODUCTION Historically, school authorities rarely took note of student expression that occurred outside of the school setting, but the times have changed. Technological advances have broadened the scope and reach of student speech in ways that were difficult to imagine twenty years ago. Students are using technology to threaten, bully, and harass not only their classmates, but also school employees. School administrators face enormous pressure to effectively address these issues, but they must also consider the First Amendment rights of students when deciding how and when to discipline them for what they say online while off campus.
    [Show full text]
  • Diluting Justice on Appeal?: an Examination of the Use of District Court Judges Sitting by Designation on the United States Courts of Appeals
    University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Volume 28 1995 Diluting Justice on Appeal?: An Examination of the Use of District Court Judges Sitting by Designation on the United States Courts of Appeals Richard B. Saphire University of Dayton School of Law Michael E. Solimine University of Cincinnati College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr Part of the Courts Commons, and the Judges Commons Recommended Citation Richard B. Saphire & Michael E. Solimine, Diluting Justice on Appeal?: An Examination of the Use of District Court Judges Sitting by Designation on the United States Courts of Appeals, 28 U. MICH. J. L. REFORM 351 (1995). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr/vol28/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DILUTING JUSTICE ON APPEAL?: AN EXAMINA· TION OF THE USE OF DISTRICT COURT JUDGES SITTING BY DESIGNATION ON THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS Richard B. Saphire • Michael E. Solimine** According to a number ofstudies and commentators, a serious case­ load crisis faces the federal courts. With respect to the federal courts of appeals, some have called for drastic remedial measures. Until Congress responds, the courts of appeals have been forced to adopt a range of coping measures.
    [Show full text]
  • Federalism, Localism, and Public Interest Advocacy
    Why the Local Matters: Federalism, Localism, and Public Interest Advocacy !"#$%"&$'()*+$,*%%&-./$$ 0&1&-*+2.34$'()*+2.34$*51$$ 678+2)$95%&-&.%$:1;()*)# Papers from the Eleventh Annual Liman Colloquium! at Yale Law School, 2008 Published by the Liman Public Interest Program at Yale Law School and the National State Attorneys General Program at Columbia Law School CONTENTS ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS..............................................................................iii INTRODUCTION: ACTION ACROSS THE LANDSCAPE OF FEDERALISM ........ 1 Kathleen Claussen Class of 2010, Yale Law School; Member, Arthur Liman Public Interest Program Student Board Adam Grogg Class of 2010, Yale Law School; Member, Arthur Liman Public Interest Program Student Board Sarah French Russell Associate Research Scholar in Law and Clinical Lecturer in Law, Yale Law School; Director, Arthur Liman Public Interest Program I. THE ROLE OF LOCAL LEADERSHIP: REVISING THE HISTORY AND UNDERSTANDING THE PRESENT Civil Rights History Before, and Beyond, Brown ............................11 Risa Goluboff Professor of Law, Professor of History, Caddell & Chapman Research Professor, University of Virginia School of Law American Federalism and the American Civil Liberties Union ..... 21 Norman Dorsen Stokes Professor of Law, and Co-Director, Arthur Garfield Hays Civil Liberties Program, New York University Law School; former President, American Civil Liberties Union Susan N. Herman President, American Civil Liberties Union; Centennial Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School II. STATES AND CITIES AS ADVOCATES FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST The Progressive City ........................................................................39 Richard C. Schragger Professor of Law, Class of 1948 Professor in Scholarly Research in Law, University of Virginia School of Law !"#$%"&$'()*+$<%2++$,*%%&-./$$ San Francisco and the Rising Culture of Engagement$ in Local Public Law Offices0&1&-*+2.34$'()*+2.34$*51$678+2)$95%&-&.%$:1;()*)#........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Trailblazers and Those That Followed : Personal Experiences, Gender, and Judicial Empathy
    University of Louisville ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository Faculty Scholarship 9-2015 Trailblazers and those that followed : personal experiences, gender, and judicial empathy. Laura P. Moyer University of Louisville, [email protected] Susan B. Haire Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.louisville.edu/faculty Part of the American Politics Commons, Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Courts Commons, Judges Commons, and the Law and Gender Commons Original Publication Information This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Moyer, Laura P. and Susan Haire. "Trailblazers and Those That Followed: Personal Experiences, Gender, and Judicial Empathy." 2015. Law and Society Review 49(3): 665-689. which has been published in final form at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12150. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Trailblazers and Those That Followed: Personal Experiences, Gender, and Judicial Empathy Laura P. Moyer University of Louisville Susan B. Haire University of Georgia Version: May 6, 2015 Abstract This paper investigates one causal mechanism that may explain why female judges on the federal appellate courts are more likely than men to side with plaintiffs in sex discrimination cases. To test whether personal experiences with inequality are related to empathetic responses to the claims of female plaintiffs, we focus on the first wave of female judges, who attended law school during a time of severe gender inequality.
    [Show full text]
  • The Journal of ACS Issue Briefs TABLE of CONTENTS
    Advance The Journal of ACS Issue Briefs TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction The Troubling Turn in State Preemption: The Assault on Progressive Cities and How Cities Can Respond 3 Richard Briffault, Nestor Davidson, Paul A. Diller, Olatunde Johnson, and Richard C. Schragger Curbing Excessive Force: A Primer on Barriers to Police Accountability 23 Kami N. Chavis and Conor Degnan Access to Data Across Borders: The Critical Role for Congress to Play Now 45 Jennifer Daskal Expanding Voting Rights Through Local Law 59 Joshua A. Douglas Sex Discrimination Law and LGBT Equality 77 Katie R. Eyer Troubling Legislative Agendas: Leveraging Women’s Health Against Women’s Reproductive Rights 93 Michele Goodwin Coming to Terms with Term Limits: Fixing the Downward Spiral of Supreme Court Appointments 107 Kermit Roosevelt III and Ruth-Helen Vassilas A Pragmatic Approach to Challenging Felon Disenfranchisement Laws 121 Avner Shapiro The Bivens Term: Why the Supreme Court Should Reinvigorate Damages Suits Against Federal Officers 135 Stephen I. Vladeck Restoring the Balance Between Secrecy and Transparency: 143 The Prosecution of National Security Leaks Under the Espionage Act Christina E. Wells Parallel State Duties: Ninth Circuit Class Actions Premised on Violations of FDCA Reporting Requirements 159 Connor Karen ACS BOARD OF DIRECTORS Debo P. Adegbile David C. Frederick Ngozi Nezianya, Student Christina Beeler, Student Caroline Fredrickson, Board Member, Board Member, ACS President Northwestern University of Houston Ruben Garcia School of Law Law Center Nancy Gertner Ricki Seidman Nicole G. Berner Reuben A. Guttman Marc Seltzer Elise Boddie Keith M. Harper Cliff Sloan, Chair Timothy W. Burns Christopher Kang Dawn L.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit As of 10/8/2020
    Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit as of 10/8/2020 1st Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Jeffrey R. Howard 0 Kermit Victor Lipez (Snr) Sandra L. Lynch Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson United States District Court District of Maine D. Brock Hornby (Snr) 0 Jon David Levy George Z. Singal (Snr) Nancy Torresen John A. Woodcock, Jr. (Snr) United States District Court District of Massachusetts Allison Dale Burroughs 0 Denise Jefferson Casper Timothy S. Hillman Mark G. Mastroianni George A. O'Toole, Jr. (Snr) Michael A. Ponsor (Snr) Patti B. Saris F. Dennis Saylor Leo T. Sorokin Richard G. Stearns Indira Talwani Mark L. Wolf (Snr) Douglas P. Woodlock (Snr) William G. Young United States District Court District of New Hampshire Paul J. Barbadoro 0 Joseph N. Laplante Steven J. McAuliffe (Snr) Landya B. McCafferty Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit as of 10/8/2020 United States District Court District of Puerto Rico Francisco Augusto Besosa 0 Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez Daniel R. Dominguez (Snr) Jay A. Garcia-Gregory (Snr) Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez (Snr) United States District Court District of Rhode Island Mary M. Lisi (Snr) 0 John J. McConnell, Jr. William E. Smith 2nd Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Jose A. Cabranes 0 Guido Calabresi (Snr) Denny Chin Christopher F. Droney (Ret) Peter W. Hall Pierre N. Leval (Snr) Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. Gerard E. Lynch (Snr) Jon O. Newman (Snr) Barrington D. Parker, Jr. (Snr) Reena Raggi (Snr) Robert D. Sack (Snr) John M.
    [Show full text]