DOCSLIB.ORG

Selling Originalism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Selling Originalism Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2009 Selling Originalism Jamal Greene Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Jamal Greene, Selling Originalism, 97 GEO. L. J. 657 (2009). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/674 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES Selling Originalism JAMAL GREENE* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................... 658 I. ORIGINALISM AND ITS DETRACTORS ........................ 661 A. WHOSE ORIGINALISM? . .. 661 B. WHY ORIGINALISMM? . 664 C. WHY NOT ORIGINALISM?. ................................... 665 D. NEW ORIGINALISM ................................. 670 II. POPULAR ORIGINALISM ...................................... 672 A. A BRIEF HISTORY OF ORIGINALISM ....................... 674 B. ORIGINALISM IN PRACTICE .................................... 682 C. THE SALIENCE OF METHODOLOGY ................... ..... 690 Ill. ORIGINALISM AS NON-ORIGINALIST .............................. 696 A. CONSTITUTIONAL PRACTICE AS CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY ......... 697 B. THE MARKET FOR METHODOLOGIES ...................... 702 c. TESTING THE MARKET (METAPHOR) ...................... 704 D. SELLING ORIGINALISM ............................... 708 1. Simplicity ................................... 708 * Associate Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; Yale Law School, J.D. 2005; Harvard University, A.B. 1999. © 2009, Jamal Greene. This Article has benefited incalculably from the insights of far too many people to name, but I am particularly indebted to Kate Andrias, Nicholas Bagley, Jack Balkin, Guido Calabresi, John Coyle, Joshua Dugan, Stephen Ellman, Cynthia Esflund, Barry Fried- man, Chad Golder, Mark Graber, Abner Greene, Sherrilyn Ifill, Samuel Issacharoff, Dan Kahan, Ralf Michaels, Trevor Morrison, Elora Mukherjee, Burt Neuborne, Brandon Paradise, Nathaniel Persily, Robert Post, Theodore Ruger, Neil Siegel, Reva Siegel, William Treanor, Benjamin Zipursky, and workshop participants at the University of Alabama School of Law, the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, the University of Chicago Law School, Columbia Law School, Duke Law School, Fordham Law School, the University of Maryland School of Law, New York Law School, New York University School of Law, the University of Pennsylvania Law School, Stanford Law School, and Washington College of Law. THE GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 97:657 2. Populism .................................... 711 3. N ativism ................................... 713 'E. SELLING ORIGINALISM? .............................. 714 IV. ORIGINALISM'S LESSONS ............................... 716 CONCLUSION ............................................ 719 INTRODUCTION Justice Scalia has described an originalist approach to interpretation as a prerequisite to faithful application of a written Constitution. If, says he, constitu- tional judicial review is implicit in the notion that the Constitution is paramount law, as has been settled in this country at least since Marbury v. Madison,1 then that review must be guided by the ordinary tools of legislative interpretation.2 In a democracy, serious legislative interpretation requires that judges keep faith with the meaning of the text as understood at the time of enactment, not as desired by those judges or by anyone else who does not, in the relevant way, represent the will of the People. To pledge allegiance to the understandings or the will of contemporary majorities-or, worse, of contemporary judges-is to subvert the aim of higher lawmaking. "The purpose of constitutional guaran- tees," Justice Scalia has written, "is precisely to prevent the law from reflecting certain changes in original values that the society adopting the Constitution thinks fundamentally undesirable. 3 A substantial number of legal academics regard this as hogwash. For one thing, Justice Scalia's writings on constitutional interpretation reflect a restless fixation on what is, to many, a false dichotomy. Non-originalists do not gener- ally imagine themselves to be making up constitutional meaning as they go4 along, or even to be seeking "the desirable result for the case at hand.", Whether or not interpretive constraints other than original meaning are more difficult to apply and discern, there is no reason beyond Justice Scalia's own (formidable) imaginings to think them less constraining. Nor does rejecting the supremacy of the framing .generation's understanding of the import and limita- tions of the Constitution's language portend the interpretive paralysis that Justice Scalia supposes it does.5 At the very least, it does so no more than his "time-dated" version of originalism, 6 which compels judges to engage in an 1. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803). 2. Antonin Scalia, Originalism:The Lesser Evil, 57 U. CIN. L. REv. 849, 854 (1989). 3. Id. at 862. 4. Antonin Scalia, Common-Law Courts in a Civil-Law System: The Role of United States Federal Courts in Interpretingthe Constitution and Laws, in A MATrER OF Im.mREATION: FEDERAL COURTS AND THE LAW 3, 39 (Amy Gutmann ed., 1997). 5. Scalia, supra note 2, at 855; see also Scalia, supra note 4, at 44-46. 6. See Antonin Scalia, Response, in A MArER OF INTERPRETATION: FEDERAL CouRTS AND THE LAW 129, 147-49 (Amy Gutmann ed., 1997). 2009] SELLING ORIGINALISM often contentious and indeterminate historical examination that is beyond their institutional competence. And if democratic legitimacy is the measure of a sound constitutional interpretive practice,7 then Justice Scalia needs an account of why and how rote obedience to the commitments of voters two centuries distant and wildly different in racial, ethnic, sexual, and cultural composition can be justified on democratic grounds. The proposition that, absent open revolution, we may change an ancient Constitution only through the onerous and constitutionally endogenous Article V process is both undemocratic and unattractive. Whatever its theoretical shortcomings, however, originalism in practice is at least as healthy today as it was when Justice Scalia joined the Court in 1986. Arguments from original intent or original meaning are a prominent feature of both our legal practice and our constitutional pop culture, such as it is. The force of such arguments was dramatically in evidence in the Court's decision last Term in District of Columbia v. Heller,8 which struck down the District's handgun ban and threatens to invalidate numerous others. Not only did Justice Scalia secure five votes for the most thoroughgoing originalist opinion in the Court's history, but Justice Stevens's dissent appeared to engage rather than challenge the majority's originalist premises. 9 Perhaps the two most significant lines of criminal law cases of the last decade, those resting on Apprendi v. New Jersey'° and Crawford v. Washington," rely primarily on originalist reasoning, and on talk radio, on cable news, and in the blogosphere, originalist constitu- tional presuppositions remain vibrant. Polls report that nearly half of Americans claim to believe that the original intentions of the Constitution's authors should be the sole consideration in Supreme Court constitutional interpretation, 12 and about seven in ten believe it is "very important" for a good Supreme Court Justice to "uphold the values of those who wrote our Constitution two hundred years ago."'13 Notwithstanding its many academic critics, originalism continues to sell. Originalism's resiliency comes at a time when constitutional methodology more generally has assumed a cultural prominence it has not always enjoyed. This is not a coincidence. As others have noted, exalting originalism was part of 7. See Scalia, supra note 2, at 862. 8. District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008). 9. See id. at 2822-47 (Stevens, J.,dissenting). 10. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (prohibiting increasing criminal sentences beyond the statutory minimum based on facts not submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt). 11. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (prohibiting out-of-court testimonial statements at trial under the Confrontation Clause). 12. Press Release, Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, American Voters Oppose Same-Sex Marriage Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds, but They Don't Want Government To Ban It (July 17, 2008), http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polinglus07l72008.doc. 13. James L. Gibson & Gregory A. Caldeira, Citizens, Courts, and Confirmations: Positivity Theory and the Judgments of the American People 141, 163 tbl.4.5 (Sept. 17, 2008) (unpublished manuscript, on file with author). THE GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 97:657 a deliberate effort by the Reagan Justice Department to rally Americans against a Federal Judiciary it perceived as frustrating its conservative political agenda. 14 Deliberately using an interpretive methodology as a site for political mobiliza- tion was novel 15 and has contributed to heightened popular attention to "judicial philosophy" as a subject of conventional political discourse. When John Mar- shall Harlan
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Who Is the Attorney General's Client?
    \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\87-3\NDL305.txt unknown Seq: 1 20-APR-12 11:03 WHO IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S CLIENT? William R. Dailey, CSC* Two consecutive presidential administrations have been beset with controversies surrounding decision making in the Department of Justice, frequently arising from issues relating to the war on terrorism, but generally giving rise to accusations that the work of the Department is being unduly politicized. Much recent academic commentary has been devoted to analyzing and, typically, defending various more or less robust versions of “independence” in the Department generally and in the Attorney General in particular. This Article builds from the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Board, in which the Court set forth key principles relating to the role of the President in seeing to it that the laws are faithfully executed. This Article draws upon these principles to construct a model for understanding the Attorney General’s role. Focusing on the question, “Who is the Attorney General’s client?”, the Article presumes that in the most important sense the American people are the Attorney General’s client. The Article argues, however, that that client relationship is necessarily a mediated one, with the most important mediat- ing force being the elected head of the executive branch, the President. The argument invokes historical considerations, epistemic concerns, and constitutional structure. Against a trend in recent commentary defending a robustly independent model of execu- tive branch lawyering rooted in the putative ability and obligation of executive branch lawyers to alight upon a “best view” of the law thought to have binding force even over plausible alternatives, the Article defends as legitimate and necessary a greater degree of presidential direction in the setting of legal policy.
    [Show full text]
  • JAMAL GREENE [email protected] • 435 West 116Th Street, New York, NY 10027 • (212) 854-5865
    JAMAL GREENE [email protected] • 435 West 116th Street, New York, NY 10027 • (212) 854-5865 EXPERIENCE COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL, Dwight Professor of Law 2016 – present Professor of Law 2012 – 2016 Associate Professor of Law 2008 – 2012 Courses: Constitutional Law; Comparative Constitutional Law; Law of the Political Process; Seminar in Transnational Constitutionalism; First Amendment; Citizenship; Citizenship, Religion, and Identity; Theories of Constitutional Interpretation; Federal Courts; Legal Theory Workshop OVERSIGHT BOARD, Co-Chair 2020 – present KNIGHT FIRST AMENDMENT INSTITUTE, Visiting Scholar 2018 – 2019 HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, Leo Gottlieb Visiting Professor of Law Winter 2017 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Academic Fellow 2007 – 2008 HON. JOHN PAUL STEVENS, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, Law Clerk 2006 – 2007 HON. GUIDO CALABRESI, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND CIRCUIT, Law Clerk 2005 – 2006 BELDOCK, LEVINE & HOFFMAN, LLP, New York, NY, Summer Associate Summer 2004 DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON, LLP, New York, NY, Summer Associate Summer 2004 BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE, New York, NY, Democracy Program Intern Summer 2003 EDUCATION YALE LAW SCHOOL, J.D., 2005 • Articles Editor, Yale Law Journal • Teaching Assistant (Coker Fellow), Contracts HARVARD UNIVERSITY, A.B. (Economics), 1999 1 ACADEMIC PUBLICATIONS Works-in-Progress HOW RIGHTS WENT WRONG: WHY OUR OBSESSION WITH RIGHTS IS TEARING AMERICA APART (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, expected 2021) (book). The Elephant in the Room, in PROPORTIONALITY AND TRANSFORMATION: THEORY AND PRACTICE FROM LATIN AMERICA (Francisca Pou-Giménez, Laura Clérico, & Esteban Restrepo-Saldarriaga eds., expected 2022) (book chapter) The Right to Grow Old, in LAW AND THE 100-YEAR LIFE (Anne Alstott & Abbe Gluck eds., expected 2022) (book chapter) Text, History, and Precedent, in RESEARCH HANDBOOK ON CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION (Carlos Bernal, Sujit Choudhry, & Kate O’Regan eds., expected 2022) (with Yvonne Tew) (book chapter) Articles Rights as Trumps?, 132 HARV.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Law and Government 1
    Constitutional Law and Government 1 taking one of the courses offering such perspectives. Similarly, students CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND interested in international law should consider seminars dealing with the constitutional dimensions of foreign affairs or comparative constitutional GOVERNMENT law. Public law plays a central role in the modern U.S. legal system. Statutes The clinic and practicum courses in this cluster provide students with have displaced common law regulation in many areas, and supplement opportunities to learn about the process of adopting and interpreting it in nearly all. Constitutional law issues, while not central in the daily legislation by engaging in it, through litigation or legislative advocacy. practice of most lawyers, sporadically arise in nearly all areas of law. And, Students interested in the practical and theoretical aspects of this field of course, constitutional law is fundamental to understanding the place are encouraged to combine a relevant clinic, practicum, or externship of law in our society. As lawyers, you should have a fair understanding of with a combination of the basic courses in the field and some advanced the basic structure of the Constitution and the rights it guarantees. offerings. Basic courses in the field are outlined below. (The basic course in Search Constitutional Law and Government Courses (http:// Administrative Law, described in the "Administrative Law, Legislation, curriculum.law.georgetown.edu/course-search/?cluster=cluster_8) and Governance" cluster, is an important complement to study of LAW 1474 v00 Advanced Civil Rights: The Civil Rights Act of 1964, constitutional law and government.) The Frontiers of Civil Rights Enforcement and the Next Fifty Years The field of constitutional law and government allows students to (http://curriculum.law.georgetown.edu/course-search/?keyword=LAW examine the role of statutes and the Constitution in modern law.
    [Show full text]
  • JAMAL GREENE [email protected] • 435 West 116Th Street, New York, NY 10027 • (212) 854-5865
    JAMAL GREENE [email protected] • 435 West 116th Street, New York, NY 10027 • (212) 854-5865 EDUCATION YALE LAW SCHOOL, J.D., 2005 • Articles Editor, Yale Law Journal • Teaching Assistant (Coker Fellow), Contracts HARVARD UNIVERSITY, A.B. (Economics), 1999 EXPERIENCE COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL Dwight Professor of Law 2016 – present Professor of Law 2012 – 2016 Associate Professor of Law 2008 – 2012 KNIGHT FIRST AMENDMENT INSTITUTE, Visiting Scholar 2018 – 2019 HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, Leo Gottlieb Visiting Professor of Law Winter 2017 Courses taught: Constitutional Law; Comparative Constitutional Law; Law of the Political Process; First Amendment; Citizenship; Citizenship, Religion, and Identity; Theories of Constitutional Interpretation; Federal Courts; Legal Theory Workshop NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 2007 – 2008 Alexander Fellow HON. JOHN PAUL STEVENS, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 2006 – 2007 Law Clerk HON. GUIDO CALABRESI, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND CIRCUIT 2005 – 2006 Law Clerk BELDOCK, LEVINE & HOFFMAN, LLP, New York, NY Summer 2004 Summer Associate DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON, LLP, New York, NY Summer 2004 Summer Associate BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE, New York, NY Summer 2003 Democracy Program Intern 1 ACADEMIC PUBLICATIONS Works-in-Progress HOW RIGHTS WENT WRONG: WHY OUR OBSESSION WITH RIGHTS IS TEARING AMERICA APART (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, forthcoming March 16, 2021). Articles Rights as Trumps?, 132 HARV. L. REV. 28 (2018). • Quoted in Marchan v. John Miller Farms, 352 F. Supp. 3d 938, 948 n.5 (2018) The Age of Scalia, 130 HARV. L. REV. 144 (2016). Rule Originalism, 117 COLUM. L. REV. 1639 (2016). The Meming of Substantive Due Process, 31 CONST. COMM. 241 (2016). The Supreme Court as a Constitutional Court, 128 HARV.
    [Show full text]
  • JAMAL GREENE [email protected] • 435 West 116Th Street, New York, NY 10027 • (212) 854-5865
    JAMAL GREENE [email protected] • 435 West 116th Street, New York, NY 10027 • (212) 854-5865 EXPERIENCE COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL, Dwight Professor of Law 2016 – present Professor of Law 2012 – 2016 Associate Professor of Law 2008 – 2012 Courses: Constitutional Law; Comparative Constitutional Law; Law of the Political Process; Seminar in Transnational Constitutionalism; First Amendment; Citizenship; Citizenship, Religion, and Identity; Theories of Constitutional Interpretation; Federal Courts; Legal Theory Workshop OVERSIGHT BOARD, Co-Chair 2020 – present KNIGHT FIRST AMENDMENT INSTITUTE, Visiting Scholar 2018 – 2019 HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, Leo Gottlieb Visiting Professor of Law Winter 2017 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Academic Fellow 2007 – 2008 HON. JOHN PAUL STEVENS, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, Law Clerk 2006 – 2007 HON. GUIDO CALABRESI, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND CIRCUIT, Law Clerk 2005 – 2006 BELDOCK, LEVINE & HOFFMAN, LLP, New York, NY, Summer Associate Summer 2004 DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON, LLP, New York, NY, Summer Associate Summer 2004 BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE, New York, NY, Democracy Program Intern Summer 2003 EDUCATION YALE LAW SCHOOL, J.D., 2005 • Articles Editor, Yale Law Journal • Teaching Assistant (Coker Fellow), Contracts HARVARD UNIVERSITY, A.B. (Economics), 1999 1 ACADEMIC PUBLICATIONS Works-in-Progress THE RIGHTS EPIDEMIC: HOW THE ADDICTION TO ABSOLUTE JUSTICE IS DIVIDING AMERICA, AND WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT IT (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, expected 2021) (book). The Elephant in the Room, in PROPORTIONALITY AND TRANSFORMATION: THEORY AND PRACTICE FROM LATIN AMERICA (Francisca Pou-Giménez, Laura Clérico, & Esteban Restrepo-Saldarriaga eds., expected 2022) (book chapter) Aging and Proportionality, in LAW AND THE 100-YEAR LIFE (Anne Alstott & Abbe Gluck eds., expected 2022) (book chapter) Text, History, and Precedent, in RESEARCH HANDBOOK ON CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION (Carlos Bernal, Sujit Choudhry, & Kate O’Regan eds., expected 2022) (with Yvonne Tew) (book chapter) Articles Rights as Trumps?, 132 HARV.
    [Show full text]
  • Nov/Dec 2018
    AwardAward Volume XXIV, No. 2 • New York City • NOV/DEC 2018 www.EDUCATIONUPDATE.com Winner CUTTING EDGE NEWS FOR ALL THE PEOPLE UPDATE THE EDUCATION THE PAID U.S. POSTAGE U.S. THOMAS BAILEY PRESORTED STANDARD PRESORTED PRESIDENT, TEACHERS COLLEGE 2 EDUCATION UPDATE ■ FOR PARENTS, EDUCATORS & STUDENTS ■ NOV/DEC 2018 GUEST EDITORIALS EDUCATION UPDATE MAILING ADDRESS: Pathways to The College of Touro College: 695 Park Avenue, Ste. E1509, NY, NY 10065 Email: [email protected] www.EducationUpdate.com Tel: 212-650-3552 Fax: 212-410-0591 PUBLISHERS: Progress: Staten Island A Place Where Pola Rosen, Ed.D., Adam Sugerman, M.A. ADVISORY COUNCIL: April Bedford, Ph.D., Dean of Education, Brooklyn Strategic Is Entering a Knowledge and College; Dominic Brewer, Ph.D., Dean of Education, New York University Steinhardt; Mark Cannizzaro, Pres., CSA; Christine Cea, Ph.D., NYS Board of Planning and New Era of Values Meet Regents; Mary Driscoll, Ph.D., Dean, CCNY; Shelia Evans-Tranumn, Chair, Board of Trustees, Casey Family Programs Foundation; Scott Evenbeck, Ph.D., President, Guttman Community College, CUNY; Outcomes Excellence, Charlotte K. Frank, Ph.D., Sr. Advisor, McGraw- Hill; Joan Freilich, Ph.D., Trustee, College of New Rochelle; Andrew Gardner, Director, BrainPOP Creating the Educators; Kenneth Gold, Ph.D., Dean of Education, College of Staten Island; Cynthia Greenleaf, Ed.M., J.D., Former Dir. of Partnerships, Chicago Public Opportunity to Schools; Donne Kampel, Ph.D., Dean, Touro College; Augusta S. Kappner, Ph.D., President Emerita, Bank St. College; Harold Koplewicz, M.D., Pres., Child Mind Institute; Shenzhan Liao, Director of Education, Ascend China Institute; Cecelia McCarton, M.D., Dir., The McCarton Center; Craig Michaels, Ph.D., Dean of Education, Queens College; Michael Mulgrew, Pres., UFT; Eric Nadelstern, Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Governing Online Speech: from “Posts-As-Trumps” to Proportionality and Probability
    COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW VOL. 121 APRIL 2021 NO. 3 ARTICLES GOVERNING ONLINE SPEECH: FROM “POSTS-AS-TRUMPS” TO PROPORTIONALITY AND PROBABILITY Evelyn Douek* Online speech governance stands at an inflection point. The state of emergency that platforms invoked during the COVID-19 pandemic is subsiding, and lawmakers are poised to transform the regulatory landscape. What emerges from this moment will shape the most important channels for communication in the modern era and have profound consequences for individuals, societies, and democratic governance. Tracing the path to this point illuminates the tasks that the institutions created during this transformation must be designed to do. This history shows that where online speech governance was once dominated by the First Amendment tradition’s categorical and individualistic approach to adjudicating speech conflicts, that approach became strained, and online speech governance now revolves around two other principles: proportion- ality and probability. Proportionality requires no longer focusing on the speech interest in an individual post alone, but also taking account of other societal interests that can justify proportionate limitations on content. But the unfathomable scale of online speech makes enforcement of rules only ever a matter of probability: Content moderation will always involve error, and so the pertinent questions are what error rates are reasonable and which kinds of errors should be preferred. Platforms’ actions during the pandemic have thrown into stark relief the centrality of these principles to online speech governance and also how undertheo- rized they remain. This Article reviews the causes of this shift from a “posts-as-trumps” approach to online speech governance to one of systemic balancing and what this new era of content moderation entails for platforms and their regulators.
    [Show full text]
  • VIKRAM DAVID AMAR [email protected]
    VIKRAM DAVID AMAR [email protected] LEGAL EMPLOYMENT: 2015-Present Dean and Iwan Foundation Professor of Law, University of Illinois College of Law 2008-2015 Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, University of California, Davis School of Law 2007-2015 Professor of Law, University of California, Davis School of Law (writing, consulting and teaching in the fields of constitutional law, civil procedure, remedies, criminal procedure and local government) 1998-2007 Professor of Law, University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA 1997-1998; 2007 Visiting Professor of Law, University of California, Hastings College of the Law Spring 1997 Visiting Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law 1997-1998 Professor of Law, University of California, Davis School of Law Spring 2007 Visiting Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law Spring 2006 Spring 2005 Spring/Fall 2004 Spring/Fall 2003 Fall 2002 Fall 2001 Spring/Fall 2000 Spring 1999 Fall 1997 Fall 1996 Spring/Fall 1995 1993-1997 Acting Professor of Law, University of California, Davis School of Law 1990-1993 Associate, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (handled a variety of complex civil and white collar criminal litigation matters) 1989-1990 Law Clerk to Associate Justice Harry A. Blackmun, United States Supreme Court 1988-1989 Law Clerk to Judge William A. Norris, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit EDUCATION: Yale Law School, New Haven, Connecticut, J.D., June 1988 (articles editor, Yale Law Journal) University of California at Berkeley, A.B., May 1985, in History (Distinction in Scholarship, Recipient of Kraft Prize) SELECTED ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE: 2019-present Member, University of Illinois System Task Force On Invited Speakers Policies 2017-present Member, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Campus Free Speech Task Force 2017-present Member, Deans Steering Committee, Association of American Law Schools 2018 National Assoc.
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom of Expression and Oversight of Online Content Moderation Supported by Knight Foundation
    Research Report by the Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, with the support of the International Justice Clinic at the University of California, Irvine School of Law ______________________________________________________________________________ July 2020 Freedom of Expression and Oversight of Online Content Moderation Supported by Knight Foundation Table of Contents Page I. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………. 1 II. Overview of company responsibilities under human rights standards…………………... 2 III. Recent developments in content moderation oversight………………………………….. 5 IV. Case study: Facebook’s Oversight Board………………………………………………... 7 A. Factual background………………………………………………………………. 8 B. Preliminary Analysis……………………………………………………………. 13 V. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………… 25 I. Introduction 1. In 2018, the mandate released a thematic report examining State regulation and company moderation of online content (the “2018 Report”). The 2018 Report provided an overview of the ways in which both public and private actors interfere with the individual’s right to freedom of opinion and expression. It emphasized, inter alia, radically better transparency by both States and companies and promoted accountability and remedy to protect the use of online platforms as forums for free expression, access to information and engagement in public life.1 The Report underscored that companies, especially those in social media with significant power over user-generated content, must adopt and apply human rights standards at all stages of their operations.2 The Report encouraged companies to pursue independent mechanisms of appeal and remedy, including cross-industry social media councils (“SMCs”).3 2. During the two years since the Report was submitted to the Human Rights Council, public debate and significant research have pushed forward an agenda for content moderation oversight (as a form of appeal and remedy) with human rights as a guiding force.
    [Show full text]
  • The Journal of ACS Issue Briefs
    Advance The Journal of ACS Issue Briefs TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction 3 Redefining Employment for the Modern Economy Brishen Rogers 13 Arbitration as Wealth Transfer Deepak Gupta and Lina Khan The New Normal: Unprecedented Judicial Obstruction 29 and a Proposal for Change Michael Gerhardt and Richard Painter How the ADA Regulates and Restricts Solitary Confinement 39 for People with Mental Disabilities Margo Schlanger Racism in the U.S. Criminal Justice System: 57 Institutionalized Genocide? Nkechi Taifa The Contraception Mandate Accommodated: 71 Why the RFRA Claim in Zubik v. Burwell Fails Caroline Mala Corbin 85 Private Litigation and Audit Quality in the 21st Century Dominic LoVerde ACS BOARD OF DIRECTORS Debo P. Adegbile Reuben A. Guttman Cliff Sloan, Chair Elise Boddie Christopher Kang Dawn L. Smalls David M. Brodsky Pamela S. Karlan Jessica Smith, Student Timothy W. Burns Brad S. Karp Board Member, Mark Califano Ngozi Nezianya, Student Howard Law School Erwin Chemerinsky Board Member, Paul M. Smith Michael J. Faris Northwestern David A. Strauss Julie Fernandes University School Harry Susman David C. Frederick of Law Christine A. Varney Caroline Fredrickson, William P. Marshall Adam Winkler ACS President Robert Raben Nancy Gertner Judith Scott Linda Greenhouse Reva Siegel ACS BOARD OF ADVISORS Brooksley E. Born Peter B. Edelman Frank I. Michelman Elizabeth J. Cabraser Christopher Edley, Jr. William A. Norris Myron M. Cherry Jay W. Eisenhofer James T. O’Hara Drew S. Days III Faith E. Gay Stephen D. Susman Walter E. Dellinger III Dennis Herrera ACS BOARD OF ACADEMIC ADVISORS Kate Andrias Linda Greenhouse Reva Siegel Elise Boddie Dawn Johnsen Ganesh Sitaraman Erwin Chemerinsky Pamela S.
    [Show full text]