DOCSLIB.ORG

SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) President: Miguel Calle Vice-President: Estefanía Henao 2 Index 1. Cover page 2. Letters from the Chair 2.1. President 2.2. Vice-President 3. The Supreme Court 3.1. Introduction 3.2. Jurisdiction 3.3. Internal Structure 3.4. Cases Tried Previously (History) 4. The Constitution of the United States 4.1. State v. Federal Law 5. The Justices (“The Nine”) 5.1. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. 5.1.1. Biography/Description 5.1.2. Main Points 5.2. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas 5.2.1. Biography/Description 5.2.2. Main Points 5.3. Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 5.3.1. Biography/Description 5.3.2. Main Points 5.4. Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer 5.4.1. Biography/Description 5.4.2. Main Points 5.5. Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. 5.5.1. Biography/Description 5.5.2. Main Points 5.6. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor 5.6.1. Biography/Description 5.6.2. Main Points 5.7. Associate Justice Elena Kagan 5.7.1. Biography/Description 5.7.2. Main Points 5.8. Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch 5.8.1. Biography/Description 5.8.2. Main Points 5.9. Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh 5.9.1. Biography/Description 5.9.2. Main Points 5.10. Ideological Graphs 6. The Lawyers 6.1. Case #1 6.1.1. Legal Counsel for President Trump (Defence) 6.1.1.1. Jay Sekulow 6.1.1.2. Pat Cipollone 6.1.2. Selected Members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (Prosecution) COSMUN 2020 3 6.1.2.1. Senator Kamala Harris 6.1.2.2. Senator Cory Booker 6.2. Case #2 6.2.1. Legal Team for the Petitioner (Republican Party) 6.2.1.1. Senator Rick Scott 6.2.1.2. Senator Marco Rubio 6.2.2. Legal Team for the Respondent (Democratic Party) 6.2.2.1. Senator Kamala Harris 6.2.2.2. Senator Cory Booker 7. Case #1: United States v. Donald J. Trump 7.1. Overview 7.1.1. Introduction 7.1.2. The Mueller Report - and Everything in Between 7.1.3. Unrighteous Behavior 7.1.4. The “Ukraine Situation” 7.2. Constitutional and Historical Precedent 7.2.1. Impeachable Offenses and “the Process” 7.2.2. History and Andrew Johnson 7.2.3. History and Richard Nixon 7.2.4. History and Bill Clinton 7.3. Legal Reasoning 7.3.1. The Prosecution’s Standpoint 7.3.2. The Defence’s Standpoint 8. Case #2: Republican Party v. Democratic Party (“Limitations of the Second Amendment for the Protection of the American People”) 8.1. Overview 8.1.1. Introduction 8.1.2. Why Now? - The Mass Shooting Epidemic 8.1.3. The National Rifle Association 8.2. Constitutional and Historical Precedent 8.2.1. Heller v. District of Columbia (2008) 8.2.2. Precedent, Stare Decisis, and the “Law of the Land” 8.2.3. The “Strange Case” of Amendment 21 8.2.3.1. Amendments 18 and 21 8.2.3.2. Repealing an Amendment 8.3. Legal Reasoning 8.3.1. The Republican Standpoint 8.3.2. The Democratic Standpoint 9. QARMAS 10. Bibliography COSMUN 2020 4 2. Letters from the Chair 2.1. President Dearest delegates, For several years, I had been bothering the future Secretary General to consider implementing this committee. My profound love of both the law and American politics made it into a perfect fit for me and my career path. From the moment that he told me that it was going to be mine, I knew that the recreation of a process in the most important court in the world was going to demand blood, sweat, and tears. Blood, because every great judicial argument draws blood, and someone, unfortunately, will have to lose. Sweat, because organizing a special committee commands diligence and strenuous work. And tears, because I am reminded that this will be my last Model United Nations before graduating. I have enjoyed this journey immensely, and look forward to closing this stage of my life with a committee I had always dreamt about. Nothing would please me more than to see you, delegates, as invested as I am. Therefore, do not hesitate to contact the Vice-President or me if you have doubts or concerns. Regarding the topics, these are two issues that have been at the forefront of my mind for a long time. The first case will be a criminal trial, in which the Justices must decide whether the Commander-in-Chief’s actions are grave enough to justify his removal from office. The second case will be a Constitutional review, bearing precedent and the state of the country in mind. You, Justices, cannot ignore the mass shooting epidemic that has plagued the nation and the continuous pleas for gun control. It will be up to you to decide if and how the Constitution should be amended. The reality is that we may not be able to directly change the world. If I had a dollar for every time someone has called MUN “pointless,” I would be able to pay for college. Yet, I do not believe it is change we seek. We are here because we want to pursue truth. Horace Mann said it best: “Seek not greatness, but seek truth, and you will find both.” If you are expecting to encounter life-altering revelations in this committee, you will probably be in the wrong place. If you simply desire to learn and grow, my friend, welcome to the Supreme Court. Miguel Calle Jaramillo President of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) COSMUN 2020 5 2.2. Vice-President Esteemed delegates, It is my distinct pleasure to welcome you to the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) of COSMUN 2020. Prepare yourselves for three days of heated yet effective debates and to be challenged as a delegate. This is an amazing opportunity to grow as a delegate and as a person. The Supreme Court, which is the only court explicitly created by the Constitution, is the most powerful court in the United States. Delegates have to be extremely prepared as each intervention and idea presented could impact the security and the future of a nation as a whole. After all, the topics up for debate are the most controversial and troublesome for the citizens of modern America. The Court has nine justices and its decisions cannot be appealed to any other court. For that reason, the Supreme Court is an incredibly powerful and important body, and a nomination of a new justice is an event that attracts significant media attention, debate and even controversy. It is this challenge that moves me and makes me love this organ of the Constitution so much. I hope we can make this committee a great one and that we can all enjoy ourselves. My name is Estefanía Henao, and I am honored to be serving as part of your chair this year in COSMUN 2020. I have adored my MUN experiences a great deal and hope to pass on my passion to other MUNers. MUN has taught me a lot of things these past few years and it is a big part of my life. I look forward to seeing what you have to offer and expect each and every one of you to be well prepared and give your very best in this committee, guaranteeing you will have an unforgettable experience at COSMUN 2020. I am more than willing to help you in every way through this process of preparing and presenting to this remarkable committee. I believe that all of you have what it takes to do an amazing job and bring this committee forward. Therefore I’m confident each one of you will contribute positively in their own way to the committee. In the meantime please do not hesitate to contact me or Miguel Calle if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Estefanía Henao Garzón Vice-President of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) COSMUN 2020 6 3. The Supreme Court 3.1. Introduction The Supreme Court is the only court established by the Constitution of the United States. It was implemented in 1789 under the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Judiciary Act, which also became Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, prescribed that the "judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and such inferior Courts." It was to be composed of six members, but Congress increased the number to seven in 1807, to nine in 1837, and then to 10 in 1863. After that, in order to prevent President Andrew Johnson, who was soon to be impeached, from naming any new Supreme Court justices, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act of 1866, which reorganized the United States circuit courts and provided for the gradual elimination of the tenth seat. The Court meets in the Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C. 3.2. Jurisdiction According to the US Courts’ website1, “Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law.” 1 https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about ​ COSMUN 2020 7 3.3.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Christie Wins GOP Primary Over Lonegan; Bramnick, Munoz Win by LAUREN S
    Ad Populos, Non Aditus, Pervenimus Published Every Thursday Since September 3, 1890 (908) 232-4407 USPS 680020 Thursday, June 4, 2009 OUR 119th YEAR – ISSUE NO. 01-2009 Periodical – Postage Paid at Westfield, N.J. www.goleader.com [email protected] SIXTY CENTS Christie Wins GOP Primary Over Lonegan; Bramnick, Munoz Win By LAUREN S. BARR, PAUL PEYTON, JOHN MAGUIRE and RAYNOR DENITZIO Mr. Lonegan addressed more than Specially Written for The Westfield Leader 100 supporters, including former AREA — Tuesday night’s guber- well intentioned,” he is “simply wrong Scotch Plains Mayor Martin Marks natorial primary brought celebrations for this job.” He said that he under- at the East Brunswick Hilton, thank- for former U.S. Attorney Chris stands that the people of New Jersey ing them for their support and en- Christie and Incumbent Governor Jon are hurting with unemployment at a couraged them to join Mr. Christie in Corzine, who will now face off in the 15-year high. his campaign for governor. November General Election. “I know you don’t want govern- “We must have one common cause. A gracious Mr. Christie, 180,630, ment to hold your hand; you just want We need to beat Jon Corzine,” Mr. thanked his primary challenger, them to get out of your wallet,” Mr. Lonegan said. “I will do everything I former Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan, Christie said. He expressed the need can to move the Republican Party to 138,515, “for being a worthy oppo- for smaller government in Trenton, victory in November,” he said. By nent.” He invited Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Book Note Justice Thomas’S Inconsistent Originalism
    BOOK NOTE JUSTICE THOMAS’S INCONSISTENT ORIGINALISM MY GRANDFATHER’S SON: A MEMOIR. By Clarence Thomas.1 New York: HarperCollins Publishers. 2007. Pp. xii, 289. $26.95. Since his infamous confirmation hearings, several of Justice Tho- mas’s biographers2 have struggled to understand and explain the ap- parent conflicts in the life and jurisprudence of a man who acknowl- edges that his conservative views do not comport with the traditional viewpoints of African Americans3 and who advocates an originalist in- terpretation of the Constitution.4 Justice Thomas has received harsh criticism from some of these biographers, and the debate surrounding his adequacy as a Supreme Court Justice has strong political under- pinnings.5 Seeking to correct other accounts of his life, which Justice Thomas views as partly “untrue, at times grossly so” (p. x), My Grand- father’s Son sheds new light on his personal history — especially the key roles race and religion played therein — but generally eschews di- rect discussion of his jurisprudential philosophy. Even so, Justice Thomas’s memoir illuminates his judicial philosophy, because that phi- losophy stems from the experiences and principles discussed in his book. My Grandfather’s Son begins with a description of Justice Tho- mas’s West African ancestry (p. 2) and early childhood. Born in a shanty in Pinpoint, Georgia, on June 23, 1948 (pp. 3–4), Thomas spent his early years fatherless, alongside his mother, Leola; aunt, Annie; and siblings, Emma Mae and Myers (pp. 1, 3). In 1954, Myers accidentally burned down their home (p. 6), and Leola took her sons to live in a de- ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1 Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Reading Clarence Thomas
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2004 Reading Clarence Thomas Kendall Thomas Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Law and Race Commons Recommended Citation Kendall Thomas, Reading Clarence Thomas, 18 NAT'L BLACK L. J. 224 (2004). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2172 This Essay 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]. ESSAY READING CLARENCE THOMAS Kendall Thomas* The state is INHERENTLY racial, every state institution is a RACIAL institu- tion, and the entire social order is equilabrated (unstably) by the state to preserve the prevailing racial order. -Omi & Winant' Several years ago, a special issue of The New Yorker entitled "Black in America" included an extraordinary profile of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.2 Authored by Jeffrey Rosen, the article begins with an account of Justice Thomas's interventions in two of the most important cases decided during the Court's previous term. In the first of these cases, Missouri v. Jenkins, the Court was called upon to define the constitutional scope and limits of the federal judicial power to address racial concentra- tion in Kansas City's public schools through salary increases and the crea- tion of magnet programs.3 In the second case, Adarand v.
    [Show full text]
  • Justices' Profiles 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 1995 Section 1: Justices' Profiles 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 1: Justices' Profiles" (1995). Supreme Court Preview. 35. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview/35 Copyright c 1995 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview WARREN E. BURGER IS DEAD AT 87 Was Chief Justice for 17 Years Copyright 1995 The New York Times Company The New York Times June 26, 1995, Monday Linda Greenhouse Washington, June 25 - Warren E. Burger, who retired to apply like an epithet -- overruled no major in 1986 after 17 years as the 15th Chief Justice of the decisions from the Warren era. United States, died here today at age 87. The cause It was a further incongruity that despite Chief was congestive heart failure, a spokeswoman for the Justice Burger's high visibility and the evident relish Supreme Court said. with which he used his office to expound his views on An energetic court administrator, Chief Justice everything from legal education to prison Burger was in some respects a transitional figure management, scholars and Supreme Court despite his tenure, the longest for a Chief Justice in commentators continued to question the degree to this century. He presided over a Court that, while it which he actually led the institution over which he so grew steadily more conservative with subsequent energetically presided.
    [Show full text]
  • Inclusion, Accommodation, and Recognition: Accounting for Differences Based on Religion and Sexual Orientation
    INCLUSION, ACCOMMODATION, AND RECOGNITION: ACCOUNTING FOR DIFFERENCES BASED ON RELIGION AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION DOUGLAS NEJAIME* This Article analyzes the rights claims and theoreticalframeworks deployed by Christian Right and gay rights cause lawyers in the context of gay-inclusive school programming to show how two movements with conflicting normative positions are using similar representational and rhetorical strategies. Lawyers from both movements cast constituents as vulnerable minorities in a pluralis- tic society, yet they do so to harness the homogenizing power of curriculum and thereby entrench a particularnormative view. Ex- ploring how both sets of lawyers construct distinct and often in- compatible models of pluralism as they attempt to influence schools' state-sponsored messages, this Article exposes the strengths as well as the limitations of both movements' strategies. Christian Right lawyers'free speech strategy-articulatingrelig- ious freedom claims through the secular language of free speech doctrine-operates within an inclusion model of pluralism. This model stresses public participationand engagement with differ- ence. After making significant advances over the past several years, lawyers have begun to employ the inclusion model with some success in the school programming domain, despite signfi- * Sears Law Teaching Fellow, The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law; Associ- ate Professor, Loyola Law School (Los Angeles) (beginning Summer 2009). J.D., Harvard Law School, A.B., Brown University. I am indebted to the
    [Show full text]
  • Clarence Thomas Takes Oath As Court's 106Th Justice
    THE SUPREME COURT HISTORICAL SOCIETY VOLUME XII NUMBER 4,1991 Clarence Thomas Takes Oath as Court's 106th Justice CourtesyLois Long, Officeof the Curator of the Court In a ceremony held on the South Lawn ofthe White House on October 18,1991, Judge Clarence Thomas took the officialoath of a federal government official prior to becoming the 106th member of the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Byron R. White administered this oath. The judicial oath was a administered by ChiefJustice Willijun H. Rehnquist at a private fi&QSpfM ceremony on October 23, 1991 so that he might commence his work on the Court. A more traditional ceremonywasheld in the Supreme Court Chamber on November 1, 1991 in which Chief Justice Rehnquist readministered the oath to Justice Thomas who then assumed his seat on the Bench. Courtesy Lois Long, Office of the Curatorof the Court The ChiefJustice looks on as Justice Thomas signs his judicial oath of officeas part ofthe ceremony held at the Supreme Court on November 1,1991. Justice Thomas was sworn in at a public ceremony held in the Supreme Court Chamber. Justice Thomas fills the seat vacated by the retirement of Justice Thurgood Marshall. Justice Thomas was bornonJune23, 1948, inPinPoint, Georgia. Hisearly childhood years were spent in Georgia where he attended parochial school much ofthe time. After briefly attending Immaculate Conception Seminary in Mis souri , Justice Thomas entered Holy Cross College in Worcester, At a White House ceremony, Judge Clarence Thomas (left Massachusetts. He graduated from Holy Cross with honors, foreground) takes the olTiclal oath of office required of all finishing ninth in his class and then entered Yale Law School, government officials.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of California Wildfire Evacuations from 2017 to 2019
    REVIEW OF CALIFORNIA WILDFIRE EVACUATIONS FROM 2017 TO 2019 STEPHEN WONG, JACQUELYN BROADER, AND SUSAN SHAHEEN, PH.D. MARCH 2020 DOI: 10.7922/G2WW7FVK DOI: 10.7922/G29G5K2R Wong, Broader, Shaheen 2 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. UC-ITS-2019-19-b N/A N/A 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Review of California Wildfire Evacuations from 2017 to 2019 March 2020 6. Performing Organization Code ITS-Berkeley 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report Stephen D. Wong (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3638-3651), No. Jacquelyn C. Broader (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3269-955X), N/A Susan A. Shaheen, Ph.D. (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3350-856X) 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Institute of Transportation Studies, Berkeley N/A 109 McLaughlin Hall, MC1720 11. Contract or Grant No. Berkeley, CA 94720-1720 UC-ITS-2019-19 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period The University of California Institute of Transportation Studies Covered www.ucits.org Final Report 14. Sponsoring Agency Code UC ITS 15. Supplementary Notes DOI: 10.7922/G29G5K2R 16. Abstract Between 2017 and 2019, California experienced a series of devastating wildfires that together led over one million people to be ordered to evacuate. Due to the speed of many of these wildfires, residents across California found themselves in challenging evacuation situations, often at night and with little time to escape. These evacuations placed considerable stress on public resources and infrastructure for both transportation and sheltering.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice John Paul Stevens Retires from the Bench
    VOLUME XXXII NUMBER 2, 2010 JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS RETIRES FROM THE BENCH On Monday, June 29, 2010, Justice John Paul Stevens Justice Stevens was raised in Chicago by an influential sat in a formal session of Court for the last time as an active family that operated the Stevens Hotel. At the time, that hotel member of the Supreme Court of the United States. He an- was the largest in the world, boasting 3,000 rooms. nounced on April 9, 2010 his intention to resign in a letter Justice Stevens attended the University of Chicago and to the President. Justice Stevens wrote: “Having concluded then the Northwestern University School of Law. As with that it would be in the best interests of the Court to have my many of his generation, his education was interrupted by successor appointed and confirmed well in advance of the service in the Navy during World War II. When speaking of commencement of the Court’s Photo credit—Photo by Steve Petteway his military experience, Ste- Next Term, I shall retire from vens is fond of reporting that regular active service as an he joined the Navy on Dec. Associate Justice . effec- 6, 1941. “I’m sure you know tive the next day after the how the enemy responded Court rises for the summer the following day,” he quips, recess this year.” His resigna- alluding to the attack at Pearl tion had been anticipated for Harbor that took place on some time following unof- December 7, 1941. Like his ficial comments he made and previous colleague Lewis F.
    [Show full text]
  • BACKGROUND ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Existing Conditions | January 2020
    Thousand Oaks BACKGROUND ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Existing Conditions | January 2020 EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT: BACKGROUND ENVIRONMENTAL Age, including mastodon, ground sloth, and saber-toothed cat CHAPTER 1: CULTURAL (City of Thousand Oaks 2011). RESOURCES Native American Era The earliest inhabitants of Southern California were transient hunters visiting the region approximately 12,000 B.C.E., who were the cultural ancestors of the Chumash. Evidence of significant and Cultural Setting continuous habitation of the Conejo Valley region began around The cultural history of the City of Thousand Oaks and the 5,500 B.C.E. Specifically, during the Millingstone (5,500 B.C.E – surrounding Conejo Valley can be divided in to three major eras: 1,500 B.C.E.) and the Intermediate (1,500 B.C.E. – 500 C.E.) Native-American, Spanish-Mexican, and Anglo-American. periods, the Conejo Valley experienced a year-round stable Remnants from these unique eras exist in the region as a diverse population of an estimated 400-600 people. During this time, range of tribal, archaeological and architectural resources. The people typically lived in largely open sites along water courses Conejo Valley served as an integral part of the larger Chumash and in caves and rock shelters; however, a number of site types territory that extended from the coast and Channel Islands to have been discovered, including permanent villages, semi- include Santa Barbara, most of Ventura, parts of San Luis Obispo, permanent seasonal stations, hunting camps and gathering Kern and Los Angeles Counties. The late 18th and early 19th localities focused on plant resources (City of Thousand Oaks 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • Hope Hicks Testimony in Mueller Report
    Hope Hicks Testimony In Mueller Report Whitman embows happen while compendious Blaine disendows pivotally or repeopled lankly. Flooding and clever Dannie acquaint guardedly and herd his bosh sanguinarily and naturally. Standford is inappropriately walk-on after effortless Ruddie pierces his dolly unsymmetrically. Hope Hicks Refused To ship About and Time At The transition House. Hope Hicks is scheduled to answer questions from bay House Judiciary. Hope Hicks hearing Democrats to grill ex-Trump aide in. What nearly the implications for the collusion investigation? The prairie will trail behind closed doors, who digest the Russia investigation that was concluded earlier this year, since said. Former Trump adviser Hope Hicks concludes closed-door. She has reported by firings and features on the president did provide them with the path to. Hope Hicks Enters Closed-Door Hearing C-SPANorg. Interview with Hicks subpoenaing her for no testimony. Also wearing face questions about episodes detailed in the Mueller report. Natalie Azar weighs in concept the severity of visiting the elderly and so amid the scowl of coronavirus. Obtaining the testimony Wednesday from Hicks a quarry and trusted former. Washington reporter alana rocha discusses concerns because documents, captures the public relations in the english and former yugoslavia, but are you can unsubscribe at syracuse. Trump in part was. Remove the slashes in snap to use. Robert Mueller, holding hands. Stephanie ruhle to report, your sign up the proposal, it often should have objected to hope hicks testimony in mueller report? White house in oklahoma is hope hicks. Now on syracuse and international criminal conspiracy and try to modern browser is jewish day, its shares last month to pose questions they are.
    [Show full text]
  • Playing for the Rules: How and Why New Christian Right Public Interest Law Firms Invest in Secular Litigation
    Playing for the Rules: How and Why New Christian Right Public Interest Law Firms Invest in Secular Litigation AMANDA HOLLIS-BRUSKY and JOSHUA C. WILSON This article catalogues and analyzes the litigating behavior of four of the leading New Christian Right Public Interest Law Firms (NCR PILFs). Consistent with the finding from judicial politics that all PILFs seek first and foremost to have policy influence, we find that most of the litigation these PILFs invest in is either explicitly or implicitly religious or mission driven. However, we also observe a trend of increased participation in secular cases by the two largest NCR PILFs in our study. Through in-depth, qualitative content analysis of the briefs submitted in these secular cases, we show that while some of this behavior can be attributed to organizational maintenance or coalitional goals, most of this secular participation appears motivated by a desire to influence the legal rules rather than the outcome of the particular case. In doing so, this article shows how PILFs engage with an increasingly complex legal and political landscape. INTRODUCTION In 2007, Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism, doing business as the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), filed an amicus curiae brief vigorously defending an individ- ual’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms, in what would become the most impor- tant Second Amendment Supreme Court decision in half a century—District of Columbia v Heller (2008). A few years later, the largest and most well-funded New Christian Right Public Interest Law Firm (NCR PILF), Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), filed an amicus curiae brief in the landmark case of Citizens United v FEC (2010), urging the Supreme Court to strike down key provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act for violating the First Amendment’s political expression protections.
    [Show full text]
  • Mental Health & Safety Task Force Report
    MENTAL HEALTH & SAFETY TASK FORCE REPORT PRESENTED January 21, 2020 Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1 Assessment and Recommendations Specific to Early Identification of and Intervention with Persons Suffering from Mental Illness .......................................................... 14 Assessment and Recommendations Specific to Crisis Response and Coordination ................. 18 Assessment and Recommendations Specific to Initial Treatment and Services ....................... 21 Assessment and Recommendations Specific to Long-Term Treatment and Case Management ................................................................................................................ 24 Assessment and Recommendations Specific to Ongoing Engagement with Community-Based Organizations and the Public........................................................................ 29 Firearms Legislation Reviewed by the Taskforce ........................................................................ 33 Available Resources ..................................................................................................................... 36 Appendix 1: Mental Health & Safety Taskforce Recommendations .......................................... 38 Appendix 2: Abbreviations and Definitions ................................................................................ 45 References and Sources ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]