DOCSLIB.ORG

Federalism, Localism, and Public Interest Advocacy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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;()*)#......................................................................... 51 Kathleen S. Morris Visiting Assistant Professor, Rutgers School of Law—Camden ! (2009 – 2010); Founding Executive Director, San Francisco City Attorney’s Affirmative Litigation Task Force Local Leadership and National Issues ............................................67 Richard Briffault Joseph P. Chamberlain Professor of Legislation, Columbia Law School III. COORDINATION, BOTH VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL New Federalism(s): Translocal Organizations of Government Actors (TOGAs) Reshaping Boundaries, Policies, and Laws......83 Judith Resnik Arthur Liman Professor of Law, Yale Law School Congressional Authority and Constitutional Default Rules in the Horizontal Federalism Context .................................................. 101 Gillian E. Metzger Professor of Law, Columbia Law School States Rule! or, States’ Rules ..........................................................115 Robert Hermann Partner, DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Wise & Wiederkehr, LLP IV. DEFINING THE PUBLIC INTEREST: THE ROLE AND NETWORKS OF STATE COURTS What Are the Locals Up To? A Connecticut Snapshot.................. 129 Ellen Ash Peters Former Chief Justice, Connecticut Supreme Court State Supreme Courts as Places for Litigating New Questions ... 137 Randall T. Shepard Chief Justice, Indiana Supreme Court State Courts in the Global Marketplace of Ideas .......................... 153 Margaret H. Marshall Chief Justice, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts AFTERWORD: ALTERNATIVE VISIONS OF LOCAL, STATE, AND NATIONAL ACTION........................................................................................................ 167 James E. Tierney Director, National State Attorneys General Program, Columbia Law School APPENDICES: LIMAN AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, MARCH 6–7, 2008, YALE LAW SCHOOL Colloquium Program ..................................................................... 173 Colloquium Participants ................................................................ 177 Editorial Board Kathleen Claussen & Adam Grogg, Class of 2010, Yale Law School Rachel Deutsch & Ethan Frechette, Class of 2009, Columbia Law School About the Contributors Richard Briffault is Joseph P. Chamberlain Professor of Legislation at Columbia Law School. He is the coauthor of Cases and Materials on State and Local Government Law (West Pub. 7th ed. 2009). Kathleen Claussen is a member of the Yale Law School Class of 2010 and of the Arthur Liman Public Interest Program Student Board. She received her B.A. from Indiana University as a Wells Scholar, and her M.A. from Queen’s University Belfast as a Mitchell Scholar. At Yale, Kathleen is co-Editor-in-Chief of the Yale Journal of International Law and a Coker Fellow. Norman Dorsen is Frederick I. and Grace A. Stokes Professor of Law, Co-Director of the Arthur Garfield Hays Civil Liberties Program, and Counselor to the President at New York University. He was President of the American Civil Liberties Union from 1976 to 1991. Risa Goluboff is Professor of Law and History and Caddell & Chapman Research Professor at the University of Virginia. Her scholarship focuses on the history of civil rights, labor, and constitutional law in the 20th century. She is a 2009 recipient of the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation Fellowship in Constitutional Studies and the author of The Lost Promise of Civil Rights, which won the Order of the Coif Biennial Book Award for 2010 and the James Willard Hurst Prize for the best work of sociolegal history in 2007 from the Law and Society Association. Professor Goluboff holds degrees from Harvard (A.B.), Yale (J.D.), and Princeton (M.A./Ph.D.), and she clerked for Guido Calabresi of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Stephen G. Breyer on the U.S. Supreme Court. Adam Grogg is a member of the Yale Law School Class of 2010. He received his B.A. from Williams College in 2004 and his M.Phil. from Oxford University, where he was a Marshall Scholar, in 2006. At Yale, Adam is Vice President for Publicity and Outreach of the American Constitution Society, an Editor of the Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities, and a member of the Arthur Liman Public Interest Program Student Board. Susan N. Herman is the President of the American Civil Liberties Union and Centennial Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School. Her publications include a book on the interplay of federalism and anti- terrorism programs (Terrorism, Government, and Law: National iii About the Contributors Authority and Local Autonomy in the War of Terror (2008)), The Right to a Speedy and Public Trial (2006) (part of a series on the Constitution), sections of other books, and numerous articles in law reviews and non-legal publications on topics relating to the Constitution, the Supreme Court, criminal procedure, and law and literature. Robert Hermann is a partner at DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Wise & Wiederkehr, LLP, in White Plains, New York, and served from 2007 – 2009 as the Director of the Governor’s Office of Regulatory Reform in New York. Margaret H. Marshall is Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Before her appointment to the bench in 1996, Chief Justice Marshall was Vice President and General Counsel of Harvard University, and prior to that a partner in the Boston law firm of Choate, Hall & Stewart. Chief Justice Marshall is a 1976 graduate of the Yale Law School and a member of the Yale Corporation. She was born and educated in the Republic of South Africa, graduating from the University of Witwatersrand (Johannesburg) in 1966. Chief Justice Marshall came to the United States in 1968. Gillian Metzger is Professor of Law at Columbia Law School. Her scholarship focuses on the intersection of administrative and constitutional law, with a specialization in federalism and privatization. Her prior articles include: Administrative Law as the New Federalism, 57 Duke L.J. 2023 (2008); Congress, Article IV, and Interstate Relations, 120 Harv. L. Rev. 1468 (2007); Facial Challenges and Federalism, 105 Colum. L. Rev. 873 (2005); and Privatization As Delegation, 103 Colum. L. Rev. 1367 (2003). Kathleen S. Morris was the founding Executive Director of the Affirmative Litigation Task Force at the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office. She also co-founded the San Francisco Affirmative Litigation Project at Yale Law School and was a Visiting Lecturer at Yale in the Spring of 2008. Ms. Morris has taken leave from the City Attorney’s Office to spend the 2009 – 2010 academic year writing and teaching at Rutgers School of Law—Camden, where she is a Visiting Assistant Professor. Ellen Ash Peters, a graduate of Swarthmore College and the Yale Law School, was a member of the Yale Law School faculty from 1956 to 1978 iv Why the Local Matters and a justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court from 1978 to 2000. She was Chief Justice from 1984 – 1996. Judith Resnik is Arthur Liman Professor of Law at Yale Law School and Founding Director of the Arthur Liman Public Interest Program. Her recent books include Migrations and Mobilities: Citizenship, Bor- ders, and Gender, co-edited with Seyla Benhabib (2009), and Federal Courts Stories, co-edited with Vicki C. Jackson (2009). Her recent es- says include Ratifying Kyoto at the Local Level: Sovereigntism, Feder- alism, and Translocal Organizations of Government Actors (TOGAs), co-authored with Joshua Civin and Joseph Frueh, 50 Ariz. L. Rev. 709 (2008). Sarah French Russell is an Associate Research Scholar in Law, a Clinical Lecturer in
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]
  • Cooperative Localism: Federal-Local Collaboration in an Era of State Sovereignty
    DAVIDSON_BOOK 5/17/2007 5:10 PM COOPERATIVE LOCALISM: FEDERAL-LOCAL COLLABORATION IN AN ERA OF STATE SOVEREIGNTY Nestor M. Davidson* INTRODUCTION................................................................................... 960 I. BACKGROUND: FEDERAL-LOCAL COOPERATION AND CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE................................................... 964 A. The Importance of Direct Federal-Local Cooperation...... 966 B. Local Autonomy and the Intermediary of the States.......... 975 II. LOCAL GOVERNMENT POWERLESSNESS AND STATE SOVEREIGNTY .............................................................................. 979 A. Plenary State Control of Local Governments and the Unitary State........................................................................... 980 B. Modern Federalism, State Sovereignty, and Local Governments.......................................................................... 984 III. THE TRADITION OF FEDERAL EMPOWERMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ............................................................................ 990 A. Cracks in the Façade of the Unitary State............................ 991 1. Local Disaggregation from the States............................ 991 2. Shadow Constitutional Protection for Local Autonomy ........................................................................ 994 B. Federal Empowerment of Local Governments .................. 995 1. Autonomy and the Authority to Act.............................. 996 2. Fiscal Federalism, Local Spending, and State Interference .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Participatory Economics & the Next System
    Created by Matt Caisley from the Noun Project Participatory Economics & the Next System By Robin Hahnel Introduction It is increasingly apparent that neoliberal capitalism is not working well for most of us. Grow- ing inequality of wealth and income is putting the famous American middle class in danger of becoming a distant memory as American children, for the first time in our history, now face economic prospects worse than what their parents enjoyed. We suffer from more frequent financial “shocks” and linger in recession far longer than in the past. Education and health care systems are being decimated. And if all this were not enough, environmental destruction continues to escalate as we stand on the verge of triggering irreversible, and perhaps cataclys- mic, climate change. yst w s em p e s n s o l s a s i s b o i l p iCreated by Matt Caisley o fromt the Noun Project r ie s & p However, in the midst of escalating economic dysfunction, new economic initia- tives are sprouting up everywhere. What these diverse “new” or “future” economy initiatives have in common is that they reject the economics of competition and greed and aspire instead to develop an economics of equitable cooperation that is environmentally sustainable. What they also have in common is that they must survive in a hostile economic environment.1 Helping these exciting and hopeful future economic initiatives grow and stay true to their principles will require us to think more clearly about what kind of “next system” these initiatives point toward. It is in this spirit
    [Show full text]
  • Tributes to Derrick Bell
    35559-nys_69-1 Sheet No. 4 Side A 10/20/2014 11:50:05 \\jciprod01\productn\n\nys\69-1\FRONT691.txt unknown Seq: 7 20-OCT-14 8:41 This Volume of New York University Annual Survey of American Law is respectfully dedicated in memoriam to DERRICK BELL VISITING PROFESSOR, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 35559-nys_69-1 Sheet No. 4 Side A 10/20/2014 11:50:05 35559-nys_69-1 Sheet No. 4 Side B 10/20/2014 11:50:05 \\jciprod01\productn\n\nys\69-1\FRONT691.txt unknown Seq: 8 20-OCT-14 8:41 35559-nys_69-1 Sheet No. 4 Side B 10/20/2014 11:50:05 PROFESSOR DERRICK BELL 35559-nys_69-1 Sheet No. 5 Side A 10/20/2014 11:50:05 \\jciprod01\productn\n\nys\69-1\FRONT691.txt unknown Seq: 9 20-OCT-14 8:41 IN MEMORIAM: DERRICK BELL (1930–2011) Derrick Bell was a full-time visiting professor at N.Y.U. School of Law from 1990 until he passed away on October 5, 2011. For more than fifty years, Professor Bell profoundly shaped the legal commu- nity with his unwavering passion for civil rights and community jus- tice, and through his leadership as a scholar, teacher, and activist. As a devoted professor of constitutional law, Professor Bell instilled in his students a deep sense of professional and ethical responsibility and encouraged them to confront complex issues about race and difference. Professor Bell received his undergraduate degree from Du- quesne University and served as a lieutenant in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • REPORT Donations Are Fully Tax-Deductible
    SUPPORT THE NYCLU JOIN AND BECOME A CARD-CARRYING MEMBER Basic individual membership is only $20 per year, joint membership NEW YORK is $35. NYCLU membership automatically extends to the national CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION American Civil Liberties Union and to your local chapter. Membership is not tax-deductible and supports our legal, legislative, lobbying, educational and community organizing efforts. ANNUAL MAKE A TAX-DEDUCTIBLE GIFT Because the NYCLU Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, REPORT donations are fully tax-deductible. The NYCLU Foundation supports litigation, advocacy and public education but does not fund legislative lobbying, which cannot be supported by tax-deductible funds. BECOME AN NYCLU ACTIVIST 2013 NYCLU activists organize coalitions, lobby elected officials, protest civil liberties violations and participate in web-based action campaigns THE DESILVER SOCIETY Named for Albert DeSilver, one of the founders of the ACLU, the DeSilver Society supports the organization through bequests, retirement plans, beneficiary designations or other legacy gifts. This special group of supporters helps secure civil liberties for future generations. THE AMICUS CLUB Lawyers and legal professionals are invited to join our Amicus Club with a donation equal to the value of one to four billable hours. Club events offer members the opportunity to network, stay informed of legal developments in the field of civil liberties and earn CLE credits. THE EASTMAN SOCIETY Named for the ACLU’s co-founder, Crystal Eastman, the Eastman Society honors and recognizes those patrons who make an annual gift of $5,000 or more. Society members receive a variety of benefits. Go to www.nyclu.org to sign up and stand up for civil liberties.
    [Show full text]
  • A Schema of Right-Wing Extremism in the United States
    ICCT Policy Brief October 2019 DOI: 10.19165/2019.2.06 ISSN: 2468-0486 A Schema of Right-Wing Extremism in the United States Author: Sam Jackson Over the past two years, and in the wake of deadly attacks in Charlottesville and Pittsburgh, attention paid to right-wing extremism in the United States has grown. Most of this attention focuses on racist extremism, overlooking other forms of right-wing extremism. This article presents a schema of three main forms of right-wing extremism in the United States in order to more clearly understand the landscape: racist extremism, nativist extremism, and anti-government extremism. Additionally, it describes the two primary subcategories of anti-government extremism: the patriot/militia movement and sovereign citizens. Finally, it discusses whether this schema can be applied to right-wing extremism in non-U.S. contexts. Key words: right-wing extremism, racism, nativism, anti-government A Schema of Right-Wing Extremism in the United States Introduction Since the public emergence of the so-called “alt-right” in the United States—seen most dramatically at the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August 2017—there has been increasing attention paid to right-wing extremism (RWE) in the United States, particularly racist right-wing extremism.1 Violent incidents like Robert Bowers’ attack on the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in October 2018; the mosque shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand in March 2019; and the mass shooting at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas in August
    [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]
  • The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies 2009 Annual Report
    The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies 2009 Annual Report “The Courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise will instead of JUDGMENT, the consequences would be the substitution of their pleasure for that of the legislative body.” The Federalist 78 THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY aw schools and the legal profession are currently strongly dominated by a L form of orthodox liberal ideology which advocates a centralized and uniform society. While some members of the academic community have dissented from these views, by and large they are taught simultaneously with (and indeed as if they were) the law. The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities. This entails reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law. It also requires restoring the recognition of the importance of these norms among lawyers, judges, law students and professors. In working to achieve these goals, the Society has created a conservative intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community.
    [Show full text]
  • The Judiciary and the Academy: a Fraught Relationship
    THE JUDICIARY AND THE ACADEMY: A FRAUGHT RELATIONSHIP RICHARD A. POSNER* I have been a federal court of appeals judge since 1981, and before that I had been a full-time law professor since 1968. And since becoming a judge I have continued to teach part time and do academic research and writing. The United States is unusual if not quite unique in the porousness of the membranes that separate the different branches of the legal profession. The judiciary both federal and state is a lateral-entry institution rather than a conventional civil service; and unlike the British system (though that system is loosening up and becoming more like the U.S. system), in which the judges are drawn from a narrow, homogeneous slice of the legal profession – namely, senior barristers – American judges are drawn from all the different branches of the profession, including the academic. Among appellate judges who came to the bench from academia are Oliver Wendell Holmes (although he had joined the Harvard Law School faculty only months before being appointed to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, he had been doing academic writing for many years), Harlan Fiske Stone, William O. Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, Antonin Scalia, Ruth Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer (U.S. Supreme Court); Calvert Magruder, Charles Clark, Jerome Frank, Joseph Sneed, Harry Edwards, Robert Bork, Ralph Winter, Frank Easterbrook, Stephen Williams, J. Harvie Wilkinson, John Noonan, Douglas Ginsburg, S. Jay Plager, Kenneth Ripple, Guido Calabresi, Michael McConnell, William Fletcher, and Diane Wood (U.S. courts of appeals); and Roger Traynor, Hans Linde, Benjamin Kaplan, Robert Braucher, Ellen Peters, and Charles Fried (state supreme courts).
    [Show full text]
  • History of the U.S. Attorneys
    Bicentennial Celebration of the United States Attorneys 1789 - 1989 "The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor– indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one." QUOTED FROM STATEMENT OF MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND, BERGER V. UNITED STATES, 295 U. S. 88 (1935) Note: The information in this document was compiled from historical records maintained by the Offices of the United States Attorneys and by the Department of Justice. Every effort has been made to prepare accurate information. In some instances, this document mentions officials without the “United States Attorney” title, who nevertheless served under federal appointment to enforce the laws of the United States in federal territories prior to statehood and the creation of a federal judicial district. INTRODUCTION In this, the Bicentennial Year of the United States Constitution, the people of America find cause to celebrate the principles formulated at the inception of the nation Alexis de Tocqueville called, “The Great Experiment.” The experiment has worked, and the survival of the Constitution is proof of that.
    [Show full text]
  • Ms. Nadine Strossen
    Written testimony of Nadine Strossen before Joint Hearing of the Subcommittee on Health Care, Benefits, and Administrative Rules and the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, “Challenges to the Freedom of Speech on College Campuses” – July 27, 2017, 9:00 a.m., 2154 Rayburn House Office Building (Nadine Strossen is the John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, New York Law School, and the immediate past national President of the American Civil Liberties Union, 1991-2008.) Introduction I would like to thank Chairman Jordan and Ranking Member Krishnamoorthi of the Subcommittee on Health Care, Benefits and Administrative Rules, and Chairman Palmer and Ranking Member Demings of the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs, for convening this hearing on such a critically important topic and giving me the opportunity to participate. Having consulted with Chairman Jordan and Committee staff members, we agreed that I could be most helpful to your deliberations by drawing upon my expertise as a constitutional law professor, who has specialized in First Amendment freedom of speech issues, including specifically campus free speech issues. So let me start by saying a word about my longstanding engagement with these issues. My first major law review article on point was published in the Duke Law Journal way back in 1990, analyzing why the then-new so-called “hate speech” 1 codes on college campuses were unconstitutional, as well as unwise. (I attach a copy of this article as Appendix A to my testimony.) Despite the passage of time, the article’s analysis continues to be pertinent and accurate.
    [Show full text]
  • Attorney General's Task Force on Violent Crime
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ·-"t-·~\ ,0 li 1f' 1.;. National Criminal Justice Reference Service (",.~ ,.-_ >_J \ ~ncJ,rs-----i:il'~'~ u.s. Department of Justice t 1 : j !. :I .J j This microfiche was produced from documents received for inclusion in the NCJRS data base, Since NCJRS cannot exercise control over the physical condition of the documents submitted, the individual frame quality will vary, The resolution chart on Attorney General's this frame may be used to evaluate the document quality, Task Force on Violent Crime 2 5 :; 111112.8 . 11111 . 1.0 3 2 I~ Illil . I . \ W < ,0 w n~~ ~ Final Report :i I~ ... ~ 1.1 1.i.IL:.~ I August 17, 1981 , ) 111111.25 111111.4 111111.6 i I' MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-1963-A ~l , r~' "~ ~.,. , .. ',",' '~, Microfilming' proc~d~~e~ used to create this fiche comply with . the standards set forth in 41CFR 101-11.504. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author(s) and do not represent the official , I .DATE FILMED! position or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice. ~. ". ~':I.....:-.~:y~:-:"" ""'-...c~-~ '."" ___""" b'""' "~' . (;F J~... .' . .. .. -.:-- ! TNati~nal i~stitut~-orJustice .. .. :lA.:· ~ . 12/01/811 .' t··· .. -, ,. .. ,. ,. ---.. -.-.~. --'-'--~ .~.~ ....~.. I , i l}nited States Department of Justice Washington, D. C. 20531 g L ..... .. i 1 I I , i~' " J ..... 1·.. " .~_)... ... r / / .. ' ...... r U.S. Department of Justice : Attorney General's Task Force on Violent Crime Final Report Task Force Members: GRIFFIN B.
    [Show full text]