DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court of the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court of the United States No. 16-1161 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States dBEVERLEY R. GILL, et al., Appellants, —v.— WILLIAM WHITFORD, et al., Appellees. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN BRIEF OF COLLEAGUES OF PROFESSOR NORMAN DORSEN AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES BURT NEUBORNE Counsel of Record NORMAN DORSEN (1930-2017) 40 Washington Square South New York, New York 10012 (212) 998-6172 [email protected] Attorneys for Amici Curiae Colleagues of Professor Norman Dorsen QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a massive partisan gerrymander that entrenches the transient majority’s political control of the Wisconsin legislature for the foreseeable future, and virtually eliminates genuinely contestable legislative elections from Wisconsin political life, violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments? i TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE QUESTION PRESENTED ..................................i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................. iii INTEREST OF AMICI ....................................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................. 4 ARGUMENT ...................................................... 7 SYSTEMATIC POLITICAL GERRYMANDERING THAT DENIES VOTERS A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN GENUINELY CONTESTABLE LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT .............................................. 7 A. The Impact of the Wisconsin Gerrymander on Genuinely Contestable Legislative Elections .......... 10 B. The Scope of the First Amendment Right to Participate in a Genuinely Contestable Legislative Election ............ 15 C. The Advantages of Recognizing a First Amendment Right to Participate, When Possible, in a Genuinely Contestable Election .................................................. 21 CONCLUSION ................................................. 25 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES PAGE(S) Cases: Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) ..................................... 20 Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) ....................................... 7 Barnes v. Glen Theater, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991) ..................................... 19 Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937) ....................................... 7 Brown v. Ent. Merchs. Ass’n, 564 U.S. 786 (2011) ..................................... 20 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)......................................... 20 Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) ...................... 6, 17, 18, 23 Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992) ..................................... 23 California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000) ..................................... 21 Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965) ......................................... 8 Cipriano v. Houma, 395 U.S. 701 (1969) ....................................... 8 Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) ..................................... 21 iii PAGE(S) Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946) ....................................... 7 Cox v. Larios, 542 U.S. 947 (2004) ..................................... 24 Crawford v. Marion County Elec. Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) ....................................... 8 Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986) ....................................... 9 Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972) ....................................... 8 Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015) ................................. 20 Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884) ....................................... 7 Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 137 S. Ct. 1144 (2017) ........................... 20, 24 Gaffney v Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973) ....................................... 9 Giles v. Harris, 189 U.S. 475 (1903) ....................................... 7 Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960) ....................................... 7 Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347 (1915) ....................................... 7 Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) ....................................... 8 Kramer v. Union School District, 395 U.S. 621 (1969) ....................................... 8 iv PAGE(S) Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268 (1939) ....................................... 7 LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 299 (2006) ....................................... 9 Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017) ........................... 18, 20 McCutcheon v. FCC, 572 U.S. __ (2014) ....................................... 15 Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) ......................................... 7 Newton v. Comm’rs, 100 U.S. 548 (1879) ..................................... 10 O’Brien v. United States, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) ............................... 22, 24 Ohio Life Ins. & Trust Co. v. Debolt, 57 U.S. (How) 416 (1853) .............................. 9 Phoenix v. Kolodzieski, 399 U.S. 204 (1970) ....................................... 8 Pleasant Grove City v. Sumuum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009) ..................................... 18 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) ................................. 8, 20 Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011) ..................................... 20 Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953) ....................................... 7 Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) ..................................... 20 v PAGE(S) Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) ..................................... 24 Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180 (1997) ..................................... 24 United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537 (2012) ................................. 20 United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010) ..................................... 20 United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839 (1996) ..................................... 10 Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004) ................................... 8, 9 Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003) ..................................... 20 Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans, 135 S. Ct. 2239 (20015) ............................... 18 Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976) ....................................... 8 Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964)..................................... 5, 20 Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) ................................... 8, 20 Books and Articles: Donald A. Debats, How America Voted: By Voice, available at sociallogic.iath. virginia.edu (University of Virginia) ........... 19 vi PAGE(S) Donald A. Debats, How the Other Half Voted: The Party Ticket States, available at sociallogic.iath.virginia.edu (University of Virginia) ............................... 19 Heather K. Evans, Competitive Elections and Democracy in America: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (2014) ........................ 9 Gary C. Jacobson, The Electoral Origins of Divided Government: Competition in U.S. House Elections, 1946-1988 ................ 11 Keena Lipsitz, Competitive Elections and the American Voter (U. Pa. Press 2011) ........ 9 David R. Mayhew, Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Marginals, 6 Polity 295 (1974) ...................................... 11 Other Authorities: Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics, available at https://ballotpedia. org/Wisconsin_State_Assembly_Districts, 2016 (most recently accessed on August 25, 2017) ..................................... 5, 12 Cook Political Report (cookpolitical.com) ......... 11 Cook PVI. http://cookpolitical.com/introducing- 2017-cook-political-report-partisan- voter-index .................................................. 11 The Election Project, www.electproject.org/ home/voter-turnout/voter turnout-data ....... 13 vii No. 16-1161 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ____________ BEVERLEY R. GILL, ET AL., Appellants v. WILLIAM WHITFORD, ET AL., Appellees On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin INTEREST OF AMICI1 Amici were close colleagues of Professor Norman Dorsen during his tenure from 1969-1991 as General Counsel, and then President of the American Civil Liberties Union; and during his tenure from 1961- 1 Blanket consents to the filing of briefs amici curiae have been filed with the Clerk of the Court by all parties. Counsel represent, pursuant to Rule 37.6, that no party, or counsel for a party, has played a role in the drafting or preparation of this brief amici curiae; nor did any person or entity other than amici contribute financially to the drafting, preparation, or filing of this brief. This brief reflects the personal views of amici, and does not purport to express the views of New York University School of Law, or of any other entity or institution. 1 2017 as Frederick I. and Grace A. Stokes Professor, Co-Director of the Arthur Garfield Hays Civil Liberties Program at New York University School of Law, and Counsellor to the President of New York University. Aryeh Neier served as Executive Director of the ACLU from 1970-1978, and worked closely with Professor Dorsen on issues of international human rights as Vice Chair and Executive Director of Human Rights Watch from 1978-1993, and as President, and President Emeritus of the Open Society Foundations from 1993- 2017. John Shattuck served as Legislative Director of the ACLU from 1976-1984, and worked closely with Professor Dorsen on issues of democratic governance as President and Rector of Central European University in Budapest from 2009-2016, as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor from 1993-1998, and Ambassador to the Czech Republic from 1998-2000. John Sexton is the Benjamin Butler Professor of Law, Dean Emeritus
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Arthur Garfield Hays Civil Liberties Program
    THE ARTHUR GARFIELD HAYS CIVIL LIBERTIES PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT 2019–2020 August 2020 New York University A private university in the public service School of Law Arthur Garfield Hays Civil Liberties Program 40 Washington Square South New York, New York10012-1099 Co-Directors Professor Emerita Sylvia A. Law Tel: (212) 998-6265 Email:[email protected] Professor Helen Hershkoff Tel: (212) 998-6285 Email: [email protected] THE ARTHUR GARFIELD HAYS CIVIL LIBERTIES PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT 2019–2020 Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. — Martin Luther King, Jr. This Report summarizes the activities of the Hays Program during AY 2019–2020.The year presented extraordinary challenges, as well as important opportunities. Above all, the Hays Program remained steadfast in its central mission: to mentor a new generation of lawyers dedicated to redressing historic inequalities, to resisting injustice, and to protecting democratic institutions. The heart of the Program remained the Fellows and their engagement with lawyers, advocates, and communities through their term-time internships and seminar discussions aimed at defending civil rights and civil liberties. The academic year began with the Trump administration’s continuing assault on the Constitution, from its treatment of immigrants, to its tacit endorsement of racist violence, fueled by the President’s explicit use of federal judicial appointments to narrow civil rights and civil liberties (at this count, an unprecedented two hundred). By March, a global pandemic had caused the Law School, like the rest of the world, to shutter, with the Hays seminar, along with all courses, taught remotely.
    [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]
  • Mediating Civil Liberties: Liberal and Civil Libertarian Reactions to Father Coughlin
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Supervised Undergraduate Student Research Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects and Creative Work Spring 5-2008 Mediating Civil Liberties: Liberal and Civil Libertarian Reactions to Father Coughlin Margaret E. Crilly University of Tennessee - Knoxville Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj Recommended Citation Crilly, Margaret E., "Mediating Civil Liberties: Liberal and Civil Libertarian Reactions to Father Coughlin" (2008). Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/1166 This is brought to you for free and open access by the Supervised Undergraduate Student Research and Creative Work at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Margaret Crilly Mediating Civil Liberties: Liberal and Civil Libertarian Reactions to Father Coughlin Marta Crilly By August 15, 1939, Magistrate Michael A. Ford had had it. Sitting at his bench in the Tombs Court of New York City, faced with a sobbing peddler of Social Justice magazine, he dressed her down with scathing language before revealing her sentence. "I think you are one of the most contemptible individuals ever brought into my court," he stated. "There is no place in this free country for any person who entertains the narrow, bigoted, intolerant ideas you have in your head. You remind me of a witch burner. You belong to the Middle Ages. You don't belong to this modem civilized day of ours ..
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Liberties Outside the Courts Laura M. Weinrib Confidence In
    Civil Liberties Outside the Courts Laura M. Weinrib Confidence in liberal legalism as a framework for social change appears to be in a period of decline. In areas ranging from same-sex marriage to racial equality, recent decades have witnessed a resurgence of interest in extrajudicial strategies for advancing civil rights. Debates over popular constitutionalism and calls for constitutional amendment and judicial restraint manifest a growing aversion to the court-centered rights mobilization that dominated legal academia and the liberal imagination for almost half a century.1 Even in the domain of First Amendment protection for free speech—long considered an unassailable case for robust judicial review—the Warren Court consensus has begun to crumble. From the Second World War until the Rehnquist Court, it was an article of faith among activists and academics that a strong First Amendment would preserve a platform for transformative political ideas. In an era when state and federal actors targeted radical agitators, civil rights protestors, and anti-war demonstrators, the Supreme Court was comparatively (if unevenly) friendly to the rights of dissenters. In the 1980s and 1990s, however, a growing chorus of legal scholars described a shift in First Amendment law from the protection of disfavored minorities against state suppression to the insulation of industrial interests against government regulation.2 Over time, such appraisals have become more prevalent and more frenzied. Today, a broad range of legal scholars and cultural critics decry the Court’s “Lochnerization” of the First Amendment: its persistent invalidation of legislative and administrative efforts to temper corporate dominance, and its use of the First Amendment to undermine federal programs or to qualify public sector collective bargaining agreements.3 They lament its 1 The vast literature includes works from a variety of disciplinary and methodological perspectives, including Gerald N.
    [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]
  • Collechon the CHALLENGE HE Struggle for Freedom Today Centers T Around the Activities of the Organized Workers and Farmers
    \ \"3 000018 American Civil Liherties Union Our fight is to help secure unrestricted liberty of speech, press and assemblage, as the only sure guarantee of orderly progress. fLORIDA ATLANTIC UNlVElCiin i LiBRARY "It is time enough for the rightful purpose of civil government for its officers to in­ terfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order." Thos. Jefferson. 138 WEST 13th STREET NEW YORK CITY May, 1921 ~241 SOCIAUST - lABOR COllECHON THE CHALLENGE HE struggle for freedom today centers T around the activities of the organized workers and farmers. Everywhere that strug­ gle involves the issues of free speech, free press and peaceful assemblage. Everywhere the powers of organized business challenge the right of workers to organize, unionize, strike and picket. The hysterical attacks on "red" propaganda, on radical opinion of all sorts, are in substance a single masked at­ tack on the revolt of labor and the farmers against industrial tyranny. The hysteria aroused by the war, with its machinery for crushing dissenting opinion, is now directed against the advocates of indus­ trial freedom. Thirty-five states have passed laws against "criminal syndicalism," crim­ inal anarchy" or "sedition." Even cities en· act such laws. A wholesale campaign is on to deny the right to strike, by compulsory arbitration and by injunction. The nation­ wide open-shop crusade is a collossal attempt to destroy all organization of labor. Patrioteering societies, vigilantes, "loyalty leagues," strike-breaking troops or State Con­ stabularies and the hired gunmen of private corporations contend with zealous local prose­ cutors in demonstrating their own brands of "law and order." Meetings of workers and farmers are prohibited and broken up, speak­ ers are mobbed and prosecuted.
    [Show full text]
  • Thoughts on the Controversy Over Politically Correct Speech
    SMU Law Review Volume 46 Issue 1 Article 8 1993 Thoughts on the Controversy over Politically Correct Speech Nadine Strossen Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Nadine Strossen, Thoughts on the Controversy over Politically Correct Speech, 46 SMU L. REV. 119 (1993) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol46/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. II. FREE SPEECH ARTICLES THOUGHTS ON THE CONTROVERSY OVER POLITICALLY CORRECT SPEECH Nadine Strossen * INTRODUCTION I would like to offer a dispassionate perspective on the impassioned con- troversy over what has come to be called "PC" or "political correct- ness." Diatribes against PC have become so common that the term has taken on a pejorative connotation. However, I use this term only in a de- scriptive fashion and not to cast aspersions on the underlying ideas and ide- als that are commonly swept together under this rubric. Indeed, my thesis is precisely that the subject of PC deserves a serious, objective analysis. So far, it too often has been treated in near hysterical terms in media stories, which uncritically assail constructive ideas and initiatives by focusing on a few ex- treme or misguided applications. As another indication of how pervasive the attacks on PC have become, President Bush addressed this issue, and its allegedly adverse implications for free speech, in his May 1992 graduation speech at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.
    [Show full text]
  • Serving the Syllogism Machine: Reflections on Whether Brandenburg Is Now (Or Ever Was) Good Law
    SERVING THE SYLLOGISM MACHINE: REFLECTIONS ON WHETHER BRANDENBURG IS NOW (OR EVER WAS) GOOD LAW Burt Neuborne∗ I. INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF THE SUPREME COURT’S POWER TO DECIDE BRANDENBURG? ...................................................... 1 II. MARBURY V. MADISON: A CONSTITUTIONAL FARCE IN THREE ACTS .... 5 A. Prelude to a Farce ........................................................................ 5 B. Building the Set: A Large Patronage Trough ............................. 12 C. Enter the Players ......................................................................... 15 1. Act I: The Disappearing Supreme Court Term ................... 19 2. Act II: How Not to Find Facts ............................................. 21 A Short Musical Interlude .................................................... 26 3. Act III: Find the Missing Court ........................................... 26 D. Requiem for an Epilogue ............................................................. 28 III. THE DIRTY LITTLE SECRET ................................................................. 30 IV. JOHN MARSHALL’S MIRACULOUS SYLLOGISM MACHINE .................. 32 V. ERROR DEFLECTION: A LEFT-HANDED REPAIR MANUAL FOR THE BROKEN MACHINE .............................................................................. 41 A. Screening for Bad Motive............................................................ 47 B. Deflecting Error on Justification or Consequence ..................... 48 VI. THE LEFT-HANDED REPAIR MANUAL IN OPERATION: ERROR- DEFLECTION
    [Show full text]
  • Anti-Fascism in a Global Perspective
    ANTI-FASCISM IN A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE Transnational Networks, Exile Communities, and Radical Internationalism Edited by Kasper Braskén, Nigel Copsey and David Featherstone First published 2021 ISBN: 978-1-138-35218-6 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-138-35219-3 (pbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-05835-6 (ebk) Chapter 10 ‘Aid the victims of German fascism!’: Transatlantic networks and the rise of anti-Nazism in the USA, 1933–1935 Kasper Braskén (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) This OA chapter is funded by the Academy of Finland (project number 309624) 10 ‘AID THE VICTIMS OF GERMAN FASCISM!’ Transatlantic networks and the rise of anti-Nazism in the USA, 1933–1935 Kasper Braskén Anti-fascism became one of the main causes of the American left-liberal milieu during the mid-1930s.1 However, when looking back at the early 1930s, it seems unclear as to how this general awareness initially came about, and what kind of transatlantic exchanges of information and experiences formed the basis of a rising anti-fascist consensus in the US. Research has tended to focus on the latter half of the 1930s, which is mainly concerned with the Communist International’s (Comintern) so-called popular front period. Major themes have included anti- fascist responses to the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1935, the strongly felt soli- darity with the Spanish Republic during the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939), or the slow turn from an ‘anti-interventionist’ to an ‘interventionist/internationalist’ position during the Second World War.2 The aim of this chapter is to investigate two communist-led, international organisations that enabled the creation of new transatlantic, anti-fascist solidarity networks only months after Hitler’s rise to power in January 1933.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Liberties in Uncivil Times: the Ep Rilous Quest to Preserve American Freedoms Kenneth Lasson University of Baltimore School of Law, [email protected]
    University of Baltimore Law ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law All Faculty Scholarship Faculty Scholarship 2007 Civil Liberties in Uncivil Times: The eP rilous Quest to Preserve American Freedoms Kenneth Lasson University of Baltimore School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, and the National Security Law Commons Recommended Citation Civil Liberties in Uncivil Times: The eP rilous Quest to Preserve American Freedoms, 2 London Law Review 2 (2007) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. bepress Legal Series Year Paper Civil Liberties in Uncivil Times: The Perilous Quest to Preserve American Freedoms Kenneth Lasson University of Baltimore This working paper is hosted by The Berkeley Electronic Press (bepress) and may not be commercially reproduced without the permission of the copyright holder. http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1090 Copyright c 2006 by the author. Civil Liberties in Uncivil Times: The Perilous Quest to Preserve American Freedoms Abstract The perilous quest to preserve civil liberties in uncivil times is not an easy one, but the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin should remain a beacon: “Societies that trade liberty for security end often with neither.” Part I of this article is a brief history of civil liberties in America during past conflicts.
    [Show full text]
  • A TALE of TWO HANDS: One Clapping; One Not
    A TALE OF TWO HANDS: One Clapping; One Not Burt Neuborne* My thanks to the editors of the Arizona State Law Journal for organizing this symposium celebrating the 100th anniversary of Judge Learned Hand’s brilliant and courageous, if unsuccessful, effort in Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten1 to slow down the repressive train that was running amok over Americans who vigorously spoke out against America’s entry into World War I. While many have chronicled the major Supreme Court cases from Schenck to Gitlow failing to protect free speech during and after World War I,2 they usually don’t go beneath the surface of the Supreme Court to plumb the massive wave of repression that swept the nation in the summer and fall of 1917, fanned by jingoism, fear of immigrants, war fever, fear of communism, and President Woodrow Wilson’s streak of fanaticism.3 Convinced that he was doing God’s work in committing the nation to a war to make the world safe for democracy, Wilson, a baffling figure who was an appalling racist, an economic reformer, an idealistic internationalist, and the first President to appoint a Jew to the Supreme Court,4 had no qualms about * Norman Dorsen Professor in Civil Liberties, New York University School of Law. I’m sorry that we lost my longtime friend and colleague, Norman Dorsen, who died on July 1, 2017, before he had a chance to join in the festivities. Much of what I say in this essay emerged from almost fifty years of conversations with Norman. We would have enjoyed writing this one together.
    [Show full text]