DOCSLIB.ORG

The Journal of ACS Issue Briefs TABLE of CONTENTS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. Smalls Mark Califano Pamela S. Karlan Paul M. Smith Erwin Chemerinsky Brad S. Karp David A. Strauss Michael J. Faris Hon. Tim Lewis Christine A. Varney Julie Fernandes William P. Marshall Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. Steve Fineman Adam Winkler ACS BOARD OF ADVISORS Brooksley E. Born Faith E. Gay James T. O’Hara David M. Brodsky Linda Greenhouse Robert Post Elizabeth J. Cabraser Dennis Herrera Judith Scott Myron M. Cherry Dawn Johnsen Ted Shaw Drew S. Days III Ronald Klain Reva Siegel Walter E. Dellinger III Geoffrey Klineberg Geoffrey Stone Karen Dunn Victor Kovner Stephen D. Susman Peter B. Edelman Judith Lichtman Dan Tokaji Christopher Edley, Jr. Frank I. Michelman Jay W. Eisenhofer Spencer Overton ACS BOARD OF ACADEMIC ADVISORS Kate Andrias Linda Greenhouse Reva Siegel Erwin Chemerinsky Dawn Johnsen Ganesh Sitaraman Justin Driver Pamela S. Karlan David A. Strauss Joseph R. Fishkin William P. Marshall Mark Tushnet Ruben Garcia Allegra McLeod Stephen I. Vladeck Nancy Gertner Douglas NeJaime Adam Winkler Jamal Greene Neil S. Siegel The Journal of ACS Issue Briefs 1 Advance dvance, the Journal of the Issue Briefs of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS), is published annually. Our mission is to promote the vitality of the U.S. Constitution and the fundamental Avalues it expresses: individual rights and liberties, genuine equality, access to justice, democracy and the rule of law. Each issue of Advance features a collection of articles that emanate from the work of ACS’s network of scholars, advocates and practitioners, and features a selection of Issue Briefs written for ACS in the preceding year on a variety of topics. ACS Issue Briefs—those included in Advance as well as others available at www.acslaw.org—are intended to offer substantive analysis of legal or policy issues in a form that is easily accessible to practitioners, policymakers and the general public. Some Issue Briefs tackle the high-profile issues of the day, while others take a longer view of the law, but all are intended to enliven and enrich debate in their respective areas. ACS encourages its members to make their voices heard, and we invite those interested in writing an Issue Brief to contact us. We are pleased this year to include an article by Connor Karen, the winner of the second annual American Association for Justice Class Action Litigation Group National Law Student Writing Competition. We hope you find this issue’s articles, which span a range of topics, engaging and edifying. The Journal of ACS Issue Briefs 3 The Troubling Turn in State Preemption: The Assault on Progressive Cities and How Cities Can Respond* Richard Briffault, Nestor Davidson, Paul A. Diller, Olatunde Johnson, and Richard C. Schragger n an era of paralysis and increasingly bitter partisan conflict at the national level, cities have become a critical source of innovation across a wide array of policy areas that advance inclusion, equitable opportunity, and social justice. In recent Iyears, cities and other local governments have taken the lead in enacting minimum wage and paid sick leave policies, expanding the boundaries of civil rights, responding to emerging environmental threats, tackling public health challenges, and advancing other important progressive goals. Increasingly, however, states have been working to shut down this local innovation through legislation that either overrides—“preempts”—local policies or withdraws authority from local governments. North Carolina’s success in blocking the city of Charlotte’s ordinance extending municipal non-discrimination protections to gay, les- bian, bisexual and transgender people appropriately sparked national outrage, but it is only one high-profile example. States have left almost no area of local policy free from preemption—increasingly expressing political differences through a legal tool originally designed to protect legitimate state interests in uniformity and to police against truly recalcitrant localities. The trend toward intrusive state oversight has been most notable in—but is by no means exclusive to—states with conservative state governments that are home to progressive cities, and these conflicts have been growing in recent years. As troubling as the current wave of preemption has been, states are also now edging into new, uncharted legal territory by seeking to punish cities and even individual local officials who defy them. States have adopted statutes that threaten to withhold funding and expose cities to private liability in preemption conflicts as well as enacted laws that seek to impose personal civil penalties—and in some instances, even potential criminal liability—on mayors, city council members, police chiefs and other local officials who defy state legislation. In the face of all of this, some cities, officials, and citizens have been fighting back, defending against preemption with claims based on state constitutional “home rule” immunity, state constitutional constraints on unfairly targeting local governments, as well as federal equal protection, due process, and other constitutional arguments. Despite their limited formal authority, cities have sometimes been successful in pro- tecting local democracy. Overall, while the legal structure of intrastate preemption does not favor cities, given the contemporary landscape of increasing state hostility, there is an urgency to thinking creatively about new legal arguments, as well as build- ing on instances of successful local advocacy, where they can be found. * This Issue Brief was initially published in September 2017. 4 Advance The Journal of ACS Issue Briefs 5 This Issue Brief canvasses the current wave of preemption and the primary legal Within the basic framework of home rule, important features vary by state. First, theories that these state-local conflicts present, as well as claims that might arise as home rule regimes can be rooted in the state constitution, defined by state statute, or these battles continue.1 The Brief also explores other possibilities for strengthening derived from a hybrid model, with the state constitution structuring home rule but home rule to advance progressive local policymaking at a moment when cities increas- leaving it to the legislature to elaborate. Similarly, in some states, the state constitution ingly stand on the front lines of economic justice, civil rights, sustainable development, authorizes, but does not compel, the legislature to create a system of home rule for and so many other critical policy domains. municipalities.6 In some states, the judiciary has interpreted state statutes delegating Of course, preemption can be an important progressive tool for states to check broad power to local entities as implicitly rejecting an older, restrictive rule of construc- local parochialism, as fights over exclusionary zoning have amply demonstrated. Any tion.7 In other states, the state legislation granting power to local governments makes legal strategy to bolster local democracy must be calibrated to take into account this clear that this restrictive view no longer applies.8 Constitutional home rule is generally countervailing concern so that strong federal and state laws on civil, labor, environ- more protective of local authority than statutory delegations, both because it is harder mental and other rights remain an important baseline that localities cannot undermine. to amend state constitutions and, of course, because constitutions trump statutes. That said, the current wave of preemption has all too often focused on displacing Whether constitutional or statutory, home rule provisions generally delegate pre- progressive local policy innovation. sumptive power to local governments across a broad swath of subjects, often with limitations over specific subject matters, such as the power to tax or
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Confronting Supreme Court Fact Finding Allison Orr Larsen William & Mary Law School, [email protected]
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 2012 Confronting Supreme Court Fact Finding Allison Orr Larsen William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Repository Citation Larsen, Allison Orr, "Confronting Supreme Court Fact Finding" (2012). Faculty Publications. 1284. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/1284 Copyright c 2012 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs CONFRONTING SUPREME COURT FACT FINDING Allison Orr Larsen* I. PREVALENCE OF IN-HOUSE FACT FINDING AT THE SUPREME COURT ....................................................................... 1264 A. Defining the Terms and the Quest...................................... 1264 B. How Common Is Modern In-House Fact Finding?......... 1271 II. A TAXONOMY OF IN-HOUSE FACT FINDING........................... 1277 A. What Factual Assertions Are Supported By Authorities Found “In House?”............................................................. 1278 1. Subject Matter of Facts Found In House..................... 1278 2. How Do the Justices Use In-House Factual Research? ....................................................................... 1280 B. Where Do the Sources Come From? ................................. 1286 III. WHY THE CURRENT PROCEDURAL APPROACH IS OUTDATED: RISKS OF MODERN IN-HOUSE FACT FINDING ............................................................................ 1290 A. Systematic
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Supreme Court Justices and Press Access
    BYU Law Review Volume 2012 Issue 6 Article 4 12-18-2012 U.S. Supreme Court Justices and Press Access RonNell Andersen Jones Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview Part of the Courts Commons, Journalism Studies Commons, and the Mass Communication Commons Recommended Citation RonNell Andersen Jones, ��.��. �������������� ���������� ���������������� ������ ���������� ������������, 2012 BYU L. Rᴇᴠ. 1791. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Brigham Young University Law Review at BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in BYU Law Review by an authorized editor of BYU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. U.S. Supreme Court Justices and Press Access RonNell Andersen Jones * I. INTRODUCTION Scholars and commentators have long noted the strained relationship between the United States Supreme Court and the media that wishes to report upon its work. 1 The press corps complains that the Court is cloistered, elitist, and unbending in its traditions of isolation from the public.2 Critics regularly assert that, especially when cases of major significance to many Americans are being argued, 3 the Court * Associate Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University. The author thanks student researchers Brooke Nelson Edwards, Joe Orien, and Brody Wight for their assistance. I. Linda Greenhouse, Thinking About the Supreme Court After Bush v. Gore, 35 IND. L. REV. 435, 440 (2002) (calling the relationship "problematic at best"); Linda Greenhouse, Telling the Court's Story: Justice and Journalism at the Supreme Court, 105 YALE L.J. 1537, 1559 (1996) (describing the Court as "quite blithely oblivious to the needs of those who convey its work to the outside world"); Paul W.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • The Pulitzer Prizes 2020 Winne
    WINNERS AND FINALISTS 1917 TO PRESENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Excerpts from the Plan of Award ..............................................................2 PULITZER PRIZES IN JOURNALISM Public Service ...........................................................................................6 Reporting ...............................................................................................24 Local Reporting .....................................................................................27 Local Reporting, Edition Time ..............................................................32 Local General or Spot News Reporting ..................................................33 General News Reporting ........................................................................36 Spot News Reporting ............................................................................38 Breaking News Reporting .....................................................................39 Local Reporting, No Edition Time .......................................................45 Local Investigative or Specialized Reporting .........................................47 Investigative Reporting ..........................................................................50 Explanatory Journalism .........................................................................61 Explanatory Reporting ...........................................................................64 Specialized Reporting .............................................................................70
    [Show full text]
  • The Breadth of Congress' Authority to Access Information in Our Scheme
    H H H H H H H H H H H 5. The Breadth of Congress’s Authority to Access Information in Our Scheme of Separated Powers Overview Congress’s broad investigatory powers are constrained both by the structural limitations imposed by our constitutional system of separated and balanced powers and by the individual rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Thus, the president, subordinate officials, and individuals called as witnesses can assert various privileges, which enable them to resist or limit the scope of congressional inquiries. These privileges, however, are also limited. The Supreme Court has recognized the president’s constitutionally based privilege to protect the confidentiality of documents or other information that reflects presidential decision-making and deliberations. This presidential executive privilege, however, is qualified. Congress and other appropriate investigative entities may overcome the privilege by a sufficient showing of need and the inability to obtain the information elsewhere. Moreover, neither the Constitution nor the courts have provided a special exemption protecting the confidentiality of national security or foreign affairs information. But self-imposed congressional constraints on information access in these sensitive areas have raised serious institutional and practical concerns as to the current effectiveness of oversight of executive actions in these areas. With regard to individual rights, the Supreme Court has recognized that individuals subject to congressional inquiries are protected by the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, though in many important respects those rights may be qualified by Congress’s constitutionally rooted investigatory authority. A. Executive Privilege Executive privilege is a doctrine that enables the president to withhold certain information from disclosure to the public or even Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • Irreversible Error
    Copyright © 2014 by The Constitution Project. All rights reserved. No part may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of The Constitution Project. For other information about this report, or any other work of The Constitution Project, please visit our website at www.constitutionproject.org or email us at [email protected]. Cover art designed by Elias Moose THE CONSTITUTION PROJECT STAFF Larry Akey Scott Roehm Director of Communications Senior Counsel, Rule of Law Program Maria Cortina Hispanic Outreach Fellow Virginia E. Sloan President Jennifer Donley Development Coordinator Katherine Stern Senior Counsel, Christopher Durocher Rule of Law Program Government Affairs Counsel Sarah E. Turberville Louis Fisher Senior Counsel, Scholar in Residence Criminal Justice Program Kayla Haran Stephen I. Vladeck Program Assistant Supreme Court Fellow Sarah McLean Brian Yourish Communications Coordinator Office Manager I. Scott Messinger Chief Operating Officer The Constitution Project promotes constitutional rights and values by forging a non-ideological consensus aimed at sound legal interpretations and policy solutions. The Constitution Project | iii Irreversible Error iv | The Constitution Project TABLE OF CONTENTS The Death Penalty Committee .......................................................................... vii Acknowledgements .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • UN Chief Calls for More Efforts to End Violence in Syria
    5 International UN Chief Calls for more Efforts to Neighbour News Li’s Visit Opens New End Violence in Syria Chapter in China-EU UNITED NATIONS - The and a high representa- Economic Ties international community tive from the European BEIJING - Chinese Pre- nomic structure, ana- should be shamed by Union, met in Geneva, mier Li Keqiang’s visit lysts believe integration the continued suffering Switzerland, to create to the European Union of their development of the Syrian people, UN a road map for peace in has resulted in a hoard strategies will boost the Secretary-General Ban Syria. of new trade deals, growth of both sides Ki-Moon said in a state- The conflict, which start- which are expected to and provide new oppor- ment issued here Tues- ed in March 2011, has left establish the highest tunities for China-EU day, the third anniversa- more than 220,000 Syr- level of bilateral eco- economic ties. ry of an agreement aimed ians dead, while almost nomic and trade coop- Zhao Junjie, a research at finding a political solu- half of the country’s eration to date. fellow at the Institute tion to end the conflict in population have been During Li’s visit, the of European Studies of the Middle East country. forced to flee their homes two economic giants the Chinese Academy “It should shame us all since three years ago, ac- expressed interest in of Social Sciences, said that, three years since the cording to Ban. Syria is linking the European connecting Chinese and adoption of the Geneva now the most unstable Fund for Strategic EU development strate- Communiqu on resolv- region in the world, de- Investments (EFSI), gies has become one of ing the cataclysmic con- clared Ban, saying it is known as the Juncker the highlights of Li’s Eu- flict in Syria, the suffer- “increasingly controlled Plan, with the China- rope visit.
    [Show full text]
  • Indirect Constraints on the Office of Legal Counsel: Examining a Role for the Senate Judiciary Committee
    Stanford Law Review Volume 73 June 2021 NOTE Indirect Constraints on the Office of Legal Counsel: Examining a Role for the Senate Judiciary Committee William S. Janover* Abstract. As arbiter of the constitutionality of executive actions, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) possesses vast authority over the operation of the federal government and is one of the primary vessels for the articulation of executive power. It therefore is not surprising that the OLC has found itself at the center of controversy across Democratic and Republican administrations. OLC opinions have justified the obstruction of valid congressional investigations, the targeted killing of an American citizen overseas, repeated military incursions without congressional approval, and, most infamously, torture. These episodes have generated a significant body of proposals to reform, constrain, or altogether eliminate the OLC. All of these proposals can be categorized as either direct or indirect constraints on how the OLC operates. Direct constraints target how the OLC actually creates its legal work product. Indirect constraints instead focus on the OLC’s personnel or the public scrutiny the Office’s opinions will face. This Note expands on this existing body of research, focusing on how one institution unstudied in this context, the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, can operationalize meaningful indirect constraints on the OLC. Unlike the other actors that scholars have examined, the Committee’s position outside the executive branch allows it to sidestep the President’s ever-expanding reach within the federal bureaucracy. At the same time, the Committee’s oversight powers and its central role in the nomination of both the OLC’s leader and Article III judges give it important constitutional and statutory authority to constrain the Office.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the Pro Bono Task Force October 2012
    LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION REPORT OF THE PRO BONO TASK FORCE OCTOBER 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .................................................................................................. i I. Introduction: The Current Crisis in Legal Services ................................................. 1 II. Recommendations to the Legal Services Corporation and Its Grantees .............. 2 Recommendation 1: LSC Should Serve as an Information Clearinghouse and Source of Coordination and Technical Assistance to Help Grantees Develop Strong Pro Bono Programs ..................................................................................................2 1. Create an Association of Pro Bono Professionals Who Work at LSC-Funded Organizations ..........................................................................................3 2. Recommend that Congress Create a Pro Bono Innovation/Incubation Fund ...............3 3. Develop a Pro Bono Toolkit ...........................................................................................3 a. Evaluating Pro Bono Programs ..............................................................................4 b. Offering Volunteer Supports ..................................................................................5 c. Providing a Range of Pro Bono Opportunities to Engage All Segments of the Bar ...................................................................................................................5 1. Small Firm and Solo Practitioners ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • DEEN FREELON CHARLTON D. MCILWAIN MEREDITH D. CLARK About the Authors: Deen Freelon Is an Assistant Professor of Communication at American University
    BEYOND THE HASHTAGS DEEN FREELON CHARLTON D. MCILWAIN MEREDITH D. CLARK About the authors: Deen Freelon is an assistant professor of communication at American University. Charlton D. McIlwain is an associate professor of media, culture and communi- cation and Associate Dean for Faculty Development and Diversity at New York University. Meredith D. Clark is an assistant professor of digital and print news at the University of North Texas. Please send any questions or comments about this report to Deen Freelon at [email protected]. About the Center For Media & Social Impact: The Center for Media & Social Impact at American University’s School of Communication, based in Washington, D.C., is an innovation lab and research center that creates, studies, and showcases media for social impact. Fo- cusing on independent, documentary, entertainment and public media, the Center bridges boundaries between scholars, producers and communication practitioners across media production, media impact, public policy, and audience engagement. The Center produces resources for the field and academic research; convenes conferences and events; and works collaboratively to understand and design media that matters. www.cmsimpact.org Internal photos: Philip Montgomery Graphic design and layout: openbox9 The authors gratefully acknowledge funding support from the Spencer Foundation, without which this project would not have been possible. We also thank Ryan Blocher, Frank Franco, Cate Jackson, and Sedale McCall for transcribing participant interviews; David Proper and Kate Sheppard for copyediting; and Mitra Arthur, Caty Borum Chattoo, Brigid Maher, and Vincent Terlizzi for assisting with the report’s web presence and PR. The views expressed in this report are the authors’ alone and are not necessarily shared by the Spencer Foundation or the Center for Media and Social Impact.
    [Show full text]
  • CALENDAR for CHIEF JUDGE WILEY Y. DANIEL for the WEEK of JULY 23, 2012 (Updated July 27, 2012) COURTROOM A-1002, 10TH FLOOR
    CALENDAR FOR CHIEF JUDGE WILEY Y. DANIEL FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 23, 2012 (updated July 27, 2012) COURTROOM A-1002, 10TH FLOOR Monday, July 23, 2012 2:00 p.m. USA v. Robert M. Brown 11-cr-00506-WYD 1. Eusebio Gonzalez-Antunez Edward R. Harris Sentencing Hearing Interpreter 3:00 p.m. USA v. James R. Allison 10-cr-00168-WYD 1. Erika Lopez LaFonda R. Traore a/k/a Erica Patricia Lopez Supervised Release Violation Hearing 4:00 p.m. USA v. Richard A. Hosley, III 12-cr-00174-WYD 1. David Jiminez-Martinez Leif N. Furmansky a/k/a David Landin Jimenez Interpreter Change of Plea Hearing Tuesday, July 24, 2012 10:00 a.m. USA v. Hayley E. Reynolds 12-cr-00064-WYD 1. Hector Hugo Romo Romo Matthew C. Golla Sentencing Hearing 11:00 a.m. USA v. Michele M. Kelley 12-cr-00145-WYD John P. Scully 1. Peggy Lee Derrera Virginia L. Grady a/k/a Peggy Lee Jeffries a/k/a Peggy Lee Hernandez Status Conference Wednesday, July 25, 2012 9:00 a.m. USA v. James R. Boma 09-cr-00382-WYD 1. Jessica Meghan Sullivan Brett A. Greenfield 11-cr-00499-WYD Sentencing Hearing Alvin E. Entin CALENDAR FOR CHIEF JUDGE WILEY Y. DANIEL FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 23, 2012 (updated July 27, 2012) COURTROOM A-1002, 10TH FLOOR Wednesday, July 25, 2012 (continued) 10:00 a.m. USA v. Robert S. Tully 11-cr-00229-WYD Joseph K. Wheatley 1. Natallia Vishevskaya Dmitry Y. Gurovich Change of Plea Hearing Russian Interpreter 11:00 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Frankfurter, Abstention Doctrine, and the Development of Modern Federalism: a History and Three Futures Lael Weinberger†
    ARTICLE Frankfurter, Abstention Doctrine, and the Development of Modern Federalism: A History and Three Futures Lael Weinberger† In its first century and a half, the Supreme Court never used the term “feder- alism” in its opinions. The Court had talked about federal-state relations before, but the concept had gone unlabeled. That changed in 1939. Something new was hap- pening, thanks in large part to Justice Felix Frankfurter. Just a month after joining the Court, Frankfurter authored the Court’s first opinion using the term “federal- ism.” Frankfurter introduced federalism as a key concept for analyzing the relation- ship between state courts and federal courts. Before long, Frankfurter would rely on federalism to fashion an original and enduring doctrine of judicial federalism: ab- stention, which requires federal courts to sometimes refrain from hearing cases that are within their jurisdiction. This Article provides a historical study of Frankfurter’s contribution to the modern law of judicial federalism. It documents Frankfurter’s theory of federalism in his judicial opinions with a focus on the abstention cases. It also shows how the abstention cases and their concept of federalism were rooted in Frankfurter’s Pro- gressive politics. They were a reaction to what he perceived as the federal courts’ anti-regulatory and anti-labor attitudes. The history—relevant today as the political discussion around the courts again echoes the Progressive Era—sets the stage for considering the future of abstention. I suggest three possibilities. The first, an originalist future, would more or less main- tain the contemporary Supreme Court’s status quo on abstention, somewhat more modest than what Frankfurter envisioned: a cautious use of abstention in a rela- tively small number of equitable cases.
    [Show full text]