DOCSLIB.ORG

Civil Rights Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Civil Rights 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 2008 Section 5: Civil Rights 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 5: Civil Rights" (2008). Supreme Court Preview. 212. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview/212 Copyright c 2008 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview V. CIVIL RIGHTS In This Section: New Case: 07-665 Pleasant Grove v. Summum Synopsis and Questions Presented p. 266 Summum v. Pleasant Grove p. 274 "With the Commandments, Must City Make Room?" p. 282 Robert Barnes "No Rehearing in Summum Case" p. 283 Geoffrey Fattah "Summum May Display Aphorisms" p. 284 Amy Choat-Nielsen "Justice Denies a Motion on Summum Display: Religious Group's Battle Likely to Face a Bench Trial" p. 286 Geoffrey Fattah "'Aphorisms' in Pleasant Grove?" p. 288 Leigh Dethman "Monuments in Cross Hairs: Attorney Aims to Rid Public Lands of the Markers" p. 290 Laura Sanderson New Case: 06-1595 Crawford v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee Synopsis and Questions Presented p. 292 "Supreme Court to Hear Key Anti-Discrimination Case" p. 296 David Savage "High Court Hasn't Closed the Book on Retaliation" p. 298 Marcia Coyle "Court Expands Right to Sue over Retaliation on the Job" p. 302 Charles Lane New Case: 07-1125 Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee Synopsis and Questions Presented p. 304 262 "Court Rejects 'Class of One' Argument" p. 312 Linda Greenhouse "Fist Circuit Says School May Be Liable for Student-on-Student Sexual Harassment" p. 313 Lawyers USA "1st U.S. Civil Court of Appeals Rules Civil Rights Claim Over Alleged Student Harassment Precluded" p. 3 14 Eric T. Berkman New Case: 07-543 AT&T v. Hulteen Synopsis and Questions Presented p. 317 "High Court to Take Up Pregnancy Leave Case" p. 328 Christopher Twarowski "AT&T Pregnancy Suit Ruling Is Overturned" p. 330 Bob Egelko "Court Won't Hear Case" p. 332 Jack Thompson "$25 Million Settlement by Pac Bell" p. 333 Harriet Chiang "Working Mothers Score a Major Victory in Court" p. 335 Seth Rosenfeld New Case: 07-869 Ysura v. Pocatello EducationAssociation Synopsis and Questions Presented p. 337 "Court to Weigh Deduction for Union PACs" p. 345 Mark Walsh "Nonunion Educators Organization Applauds U.S. Supreme Court Decision to Review Idaho Voluntary Contributions Act" p. 347 PR Newswire "Union Leaders Welcome Ruling" p. 348 Dean Ferguson 263 New Case: 07-610 Locke v. Karass Synopsis and Questions Presented p. 350 "Court Will Hear Labor Union Fee Dispute" p. 359 Associated Press "First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Rules Nonmembers Can Be Charged for National Union's Litigation Costs" p. 360 Eric Berkman "Justices Curb Unions' Use of Fees for Politics" p. 363 David Savage "Court Ruling Stipulates Kinds of Fees Public Unions Can Assess Nonmembers" p. 365 Ruth Marcus New Case: 07-581 14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett Synopsis and Questions Presented p. 367 "Arbitration of Bias Claims" p. 372 Michael Starr and Christine M. Wilson "Mandatory Arbitration Is Raising Challenges" p. 375 T. Shawn Taylor "High Court Upholds Forced Arbitration" p. 378 Sarah Schafer and Charles Lane "High Court Backs Workers' Right to Sue" p. 380 David Savage New Case: 07-1015 Ashcroft v. Iqbal Synopsis and Questions Presented p. 382 "Court to Hear Challenge from Muslims Held After 9/11" p. 398 Linda Greenhouse "U.S. Officials Fail to Win Release from 9/11 Suit" p. 400 Mark Hamblett "Top Officials Told to Testify in Muslims' Suit" p. 404 Nina Bernstein 264 "Prison Tapes Show Abuse of Terrorism Suspects" p. 406 Dan Eggen New Case: 07-499 Negusie v. Mukasey Synopsis and Questions Presented p. 407 "Fresno Couple in Limbo After Court Withdraws Eligibility for Asylum" p. 409 Bob Egelko "Supreme Court Accepts African Prison Guard's Asylum Appeal" p. 410 Debra Cassens Weiss "Courts Criticize Judges' Handling of Asylum Cases" p. 411 Adam Liptak 265 Pleasant Grove v. Summum 07-665 Ruling Below: Summum v. Pleasant Grove, 483 F.3d 1044 (10th Cir. 2007), cert granted, PleasantGrove v. Summum, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 2995 (2008). Summum, a religious organization, requested to place a monument in a Pleasant Grove city park. The monument would display the beliefs of the Summum, known as the "Seven Aphorisms." The park already contained monuments including one of the Ten Commandments donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles. The city denied the request and codified its policy regarding monuments to be displayed in parks. Summum brought suit claiming that the city's policy violated the First Amendment. The district court denied preliminary injunctive relief because Summum could not prove that it would prevail on First Amendment grounds. The Tenth Circuit reversed and ordered the city to immediately erect and display the "Seven Aphorisms" monument. Questions Presented: (1) Whether a monument donated to a city park remains protected speech of the donor, even though the monument is displayed and controlled by the municipality. (2) Is a municipal park a public forum under the First Amendment for erection and permanent display of monuments proposed by private parties? (3) Did the Tenth Circuit err by ordering the immediate erection and display of the plaintiff s monument? SUMMUM, a corporate sole and church, Plaintiff-Appellant V. PLEASANT GROVE CITY, Defendant-Apellee Court of Appeals of the Tenth Circuit Filed April 17, 2007 [Excerpt: Some footnotes and citations omitted.] TACHA, Chief Circuit Judge. § 1292(a)(1) and reverse the District Court's decision. The Plaintiff-Appellant Summum, a religious organization, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § BACKGROUND 1983 for violation of its First Amendment rights against the Defendants-Appellees, the A city park in Pleasant Grove, Utah, contains City of Pleasant Grove, its mayor, city a number of buildings, artifacts, and administrator, and city council members. permanent displays, many of which relate to Summum appeals the District Court's denial or commemorate Pleasant Grove's pioneer of its request for a preliminary injunction. We history. For example, the park contains one of exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Pleasant Grove's first granaries, its first city 266 hall, and its first fire department building. For for the city's violation of the Utah purposes of this appeal, the most important Constitution's free expression and structure is a Ten Commandments monument, establishment provisions. Summum contends donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in that the city violated its rights by excluding its 1971, two years after it established a local monument while allowing other permanent chapter in Pleasant Grove. monuments of an expressive nature (e.g., the Ten Commandments) to be displayed in the In September 2003, Summum, a religious park. In an oral ruling on various motions, the organization with headquarters in Salt Lake District Court denied Summum's request for a City, Utah, sent the mayor of Pleasant Grove preliminary injunction requiring the city to a letter requesting permission to erect a permit the display of Summum's monument monument containing the Seven Aphorisms in the park. Summum subsequently appealed of Summum in the city park. In its letter, this decision, arguing that the District Court Summum stated that its monument would be abused its discretion in denying the injunction similar in size and nature to the Ten based on Summum's First Amendment claim. Commandments monument already present in the park. Approximately two months after DISCUSSION Summum made its request, the mayor sent Summum written notification that the city had I. Preliminary Injunction Standard denied its request because the proposed monument did not meet the city's criteria for We review a district court's decision to deny permanent displays in the park. According to a motion for a preliminary injunction for the letter, all permanent displays in this abuse of discretion, which we have particular park must "directly relate to the characterized as "an arbitrary, capricious, history of Pleasant Grove" or be "donated by whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable groups with long-standing ties to the Pleasant judgment." Schrier v. Univ. of Colorado, 427 Grove community." The following year, in F.3d 1253, 1258 (10th Cir. 2005). "A district August 2004, the city passed a resolution court abuses its discretion when it commits an codifying and expanding upon its alleged error of law or makes clearly erroneous policy for evaluating requests for permanent factual findings." Wyandotte Nation v. displays in the park. The resolution contains a Sebelius, 443 F.3d 1247, 1252 (10th Cir. number of factors the city council must 2006). In reviewing the district court's consider in deciding whether a proposed decision, "[w]e examine the . court's display meets a historical relevance underlying factual findings for clear error, and requirement. In May 2005, Summum renewed its legal determinations de novo." Davis v. its request, sending the mayor another letter Mineta, 302 F.3d 1104, 1111 (10th Cir. with substantially the same language as the 2002). first letter. To prevail on a motion for a preliminary When the city did not respond to its second injunction in the district court, a moving party request, Summum filed suit in federal district must establish that: court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages, for (1) [he or she] will suffer irreparable Pleasant Grove's violation of Summum's free injury unless the injunction issues; speech rights under the U.S. Constitution and (2) the threatened injury .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Symposium:Jurocracy and Distrust:Reconsidering The
    User Name: Tyler Cooper Date and Time: Monday, May 20, 2019 6:05:00 PM EDT Job Number: 89258756 Document (1) 1. SYMPOSIUM:JUROCRACY AND DISTRUST:RECONSIDERING THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS PROCESS:JUDICIAL SELECTION AND DEMOCRATIC THEORY: DEMAND, SUPPLY, AND LIFE TENURE, 26 Cardozo L. Rev. 579 Client/Matter: -None- | About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2019 LexisNexis Tyler Cooper SYMPOSIUM:JUROCRACY AND DISTRUST:RECONSIDERING THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS PROCESS:JUDICIAL SELECTION AND DEMOCRATIC THEORY: DEMAND, SUPPLY, AND LIFE TENURE January, 2005 Reporter 26 Cardozo L. Rev. 579 * Length: 27441 words Author: Judith Resnik* * Arthur Liman Professor of Law, Yale Law School. © Judith Resnik 2005. This article stems from presentations at the Symposium, Jurocracy, at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in March of 2004 and at the Symposium, Judicial Appointments in a Free and Democratic Society, at the University of Toronto Law School in April of 2004, and builds on my articles "Uncle Sam Modernizes his Justice System": Inventing the District Courts of the Twentieth Century, 90 Geo. L.J. 607 (2002), Trial as Error, Jurisdiction as Injury: Transforming the Meaning of Article III, 113 Harv. L. Rev. 924 (2000), and Changing Criteria for Judging Judges, 84 Nw. U. L. Rev. 889 (1990), as well as on testimony that I submitted to subcommittees of the United States Senate and of the Canadian House of Commons on the topic of judicial nominations. I benefited from comments of other participants, the exchanges at these symposia and hearings, and from discussions with Seyla Benhabib and Deborah Hensler. My thanks to Joseph Blocher, Andrew Goldstein, Paige Herwig, Johanna Kalb, Alison Mackenzie, Jennifer Peresie, Bertrall Ross, Kirby Smith, Laura Smolowe, and Steven Wu for research assistance, to Gene Coakley for all his efforts to locate relevant materials, and to Denny Curtis, Vicki Jackson, Roy Mersky, Roberta Romano, and Albert Yoon for helpful comments on earlier drafts.
    [Show full text]
  • Confirmed Fears
    CONFIRMED FEARS The Judicial Record of Amy Coney Barrett 1 2 Confirmed Fears: The Judicial Record of Amy Coney Barrett Since Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Senate made Amy Coney Barrett a federal judge on the Seventh Circuit in 2017, she has not disappointed them. As reported in People For the American Way’s Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears series, Barrett has been a reliable vote to deny people their legal rights in areas such as health care, racial equity, criminal justice, immigrants’ rights, and the rights of working people. This report focuses on divided Seventh Circuit decisions in which other judges have dissented from harmful rulings Barrett has written or joined, or in which she has dissented to try to push the law further to the right. Health Care Before she was a judge, Barrett sharply criticized the Supreme Court for upholding the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, and she agreed with Justice Scalia’s dissent in King v. Burwell that “the statute known as Obamacare should be renamed ‘SCOTUScare’ in honor of the Court’s willingness to ‘rewrite’ the statute in order to keep it afloat.” She specifically criticized Chief Justice Roberts for “push[ing] the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.” She also argued that the ACA’s contraceptive coverage provision unlawfully violated religious liberty. While these high-profile issues affecting the entire nation have not come before her as a judge, she has shown the damage a judge can do when someone tries to vindicate their right to adequate health care.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett As an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court
    REPORT ON THE NOMINATION OF JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT AS AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 1 ABOUT THE LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW The principal mission of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law is to secure equal justice for all through the rule of law, targeting in particular the inequities confronting African Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities. The Lawyers’ Committee is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to enlist the private bar’s leadership and resources in combating racial discrimination and the resulting inequality of opportunity – work that continues to be vital today. Among its major areas of work are Educational Opportunities, Fair Housing & Community Development, Voting Rights, Criminal Justice, Economic Justice and Judicial Diversity. Since its inception, the Lawyers’ Committee has been committed to vigorous civil rights enforcement, the pursuit of equal justice under law, and fidelity to the rule of law. Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 1500 K Street, N.W., 9th Fl. Washington, DC 20005 [email protected] 2 Judge Amy Coney Barrett Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Nominated September 26, 2020 to United States Supreme Court 3 Table of Contents I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 II. BIOGRAPHY 2 III. ANALYSIS OF JUDGE BARRETT’S JUDICIAL OPINIONS 4 A. Workers’ and Civil Rights 4 B. Criminal Justice 5 C. Reproductive Rights 6 D. Second Amendment 7 E. Immigration 8 F. LGBTQ Rights 9 G. Healthcare 9 IV. ANALYSIS OF JUDGE BARRETT’S THEORY OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION 10 V.
    [Show full text]
  • Trailblazers and Those That Followed : Personal Experiences, Gender, and Judicial Empathy
    University of Louisville ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository Faculty Scholarship 9-2015 Trailblazers and those that followed : personal experiences, gender, and judicial empathy. Laura P. Moyer University of Louisville, [email protected] Susan B. Haire Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.louisville.edu/faculty Part of the American Politics Commons, Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Courts Commons, Judges Commons, and the Law and Gender Commons Original Publication Information This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Moyer, Laura P. and Susan Haire. "Trailblazers and Those That Followed: Personal Experiences, Gender, and Judicial Empathy." 2015. Law and Society Review 49(3): 665-689. which has been published in final form at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12150. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Trailblazers and Those That Followed: Personal Experiences, Gender, and Judicial Empathy Laura P. Moyer University of Louisville Susan B. Haire University of Georgia Version: May 6, 2015 Abstract This paper investigates one causal mechanism that may explain why female judges on the federal appellate courts are more likely than men to side with plaintiffs in sex discrimination cases. To test whether personal experiences with inequality are related to empathetic responses to the claims of female plaintiffs, we focus on the first wave of female judges, who attended law school during a time of severe gender inequality.
    [Show full text]
  • Decision Making in Us Federal Specialized
    THE CONSEQUENCES OF SPECIALIZATION: DECISION MAKING IN U.S. FEDERAL SPECIALIZED COURTS Ryan J. Williams A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science in the College of Arts and Sciences. Chapel Hill 2019 Approved by: Kevin T. McGuire Isaac Unah Jason M. Roberts Virginia Gray Brett W. Curry © 2019 Ryan J. Williams ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Ryan J. Williams: The Consequences of Specialization: Decision Making in U.S. Federal Specialized Courts (Under the direction of Kevin T. McGuire) Political scientists have devoted little attention to the role of specialized courts in the United States federal and state judicial systems. At the federal level, theories of judicial decision making and institutional structures widely accepted in discussions of the U.S. Supreme Court and other generalist courts (the federal courts of appeals and district courts) have seen little examination in the context of specialized courts. In particular, scholars are just beginning to untangle the relationship between judicial expertise and decision making, as well as to understand how specialized courts interact with the bureaucratic agencies they review and the litigants who appear before them. In this dissertation, I examine the consequences of specialization in the federal judiciary. The first chapter introduces the landscape of existing federal specialized courts. The second chapter investigates the patterns of recent appointments to specialized courts, focusing specifically on how the qualifications of specialized court judges compare to those of generalists. The third chapter considers the role of expertise in a specialized court, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and argues that expertise enhances the ability for judges to apply their ideologies to complex, technical cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Changes to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Over a Third of a Century
    CHANGES TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT OVER A THIRD OF A CENTURY Collins T. Fitzpatrick* There have been many changes in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit since I arrived in September, 1971, to begin a one year clerkship with Circuit Judge Roger Kiley. In this article I want to do two things: one is to describe the changes and the second is to analyze those changes for their impact on justice. COMPOSITION OF COURT When I came to the Court of Appeals, there had never been a woman circuit or district judge in the Seventh Circuit. District Judge James Parsons was the only African American on either bench. He had been appointed in 1961 by President Kennedy. Chief District Judge Barbara Crabb was the first woman appointed in this circuit in 1979. There would not be a woman on the Court of Appeals until 1993 when Judge Ilana Rovner was appointed. It would not be until 1999 when the first African American, Circuit Judge Ann Claire Williams, would be appointed to the Court of Appeals. Two interesting side notes are that Circuit Judge Ilana Rovner was hired as a law clerk by Judge Parsons and Circuit Judge Ann Claire Williams, the first African American on the Seventh Circuit, was interviewed as a Notre Dame law student by then Chief Judge Luther Swygert and myself. Chief Judge Swygert recommended her and she accepted a clerkship with Circuit Judge Robert Sprecher. Judge Swygert was a leader as a district judge and as a circuit judge in recruiting and hiring women and African Americans.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Selection and Democratic Theory: Demand, Supply, and Life Tenure
    JUDICIAL SELECTION AND DEMOCRATIC THEORY: DEMAND, SUPPLY, AND LIFE TENURE Judith Resnik* ABSTRACT How ought a democracy select its judges? Critics in Canada, England, and Wales invoke the democratic values of accountability and transparency to call for a diminution in prime ministerial control over judicial appointments. In the United States, Article III of the Constitution's text directs that the President nominate- with the advice and consent of the Senate-life-tenured federal judges. Bitter conflicts about particular nominees have produced many proposals for changes of that system. And in those states that rely on various forms of judicial election, concerns focus on funding and campaigning. In short, both globally and locally, democracies debate the legitimacy and wisdom of various methods used to endow individuals with the state's power of adjudication. This diversity of techniques for judicial selection illuminates the complex relationship of adjudication to democracies. Democracy tells one a good deal about rights to justice, equality before and in the law, and constraints on the power of the state, its courts included. But absent a claim that all government officials in a democracy must be elected, it is difficult to derive from democracy any particular process for picking judges. In contrast, democratic principles do rule out a few procedures for judicial selection-such as by inheritance or through techniques that systematically exclude persons by race, sex, ethnicity, and class. In addition to examining the interaction between democratic theory and * Arthur Liman Professor of Law, Yale Law School. © Judith Resnik 2005. This article stems from presentations at the Symposium, Jurocracy, at the Benjamin N.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 ELECTION LITIGATION: the Courts Held
    Published by the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law. Reprinted with permission. © 2021 Duke University School of Law. All rights reserved. JUDICATURE.DUKE.EDU 8 Vol. 105 No. 1 2020 ELECTION LITIGATION: The Courts Held BY DAVID F. LEVI, AMELIA ASHTON THORN & JOHN MACY Published by the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law. Reprinted with permission. © 2021 Duke University School of Law. All rights reserved. JUDICATURE.DUKE.EDU Judicature 9 WE HAD AN EXTRAORDINARY ELECTION IN and federal, Northern and Southern, Eastern and Western. NOVEMBER 2020. More Americans voted than in any The federal judges who heard these cases were appointed other election, even though an infectious virus still stalked by recent presidents of both parties — Barack Obama and the nation. Immediately following election day, we then Donald Trump, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton experienced an unprecedented series of challenges to the and George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. outcome, launched by a sitting president. Like so many of our Despite their different backgrounds, judges came to the institutions, our state and local election systems were not same conclusions and rejected the Trump campaign’s alle- designed for a broad-based “stress test” such as President gations. Across more than 60 cases in 12 states, judges Donald Trump put into place. It was unclear if these systems found that the challenges to the election outcome came up would withstand the pressure. But our courts and judges, short. (A database of election cases is available at Democracy over our long history, have been repeatedly tested, and, once Docket, www.democracydocket.com.) again, they came through this challenge with flying colors — The resoluteness of the judiciary in this time of turmoil inspiring confidence, demonstrating their impartiality, and provided inspiration and calm to the country.
    [Show full text]
  • PAUL CLEMENT on the RECORD a Leading Supreme Court Lawyer on National Security Cases, Preparing for Arguments, and His Wisconsin Hometown
    MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL MAGAZINE FALL 2013 PAUL CLEMENT ON THE RECORD A leading Supreme Court lawyer on national security cases, preparing for arguments, and his Wisconsin hometown ALSO INSIDE: The complex legacy of the landmark MPS special education lawsuit Arti Rai on DNA patenting Phoebe Williams on change Don Layden on Marquette An Old Medium in the Midst of the New The opening page of the Marquette Law Review Yet even today the role of print media in 1916 observed that “the institution which would remains important. Consider, again, the FROM THE DEAN expand and fulfill its mission must make known its development of the Marquette Law Review. ideals and communicate its spirit,” and it suggested Its citation by Wisconsin courts countless that “[t]he most effective way of doing both is by times in just the past three decades should means of a suitable magazine.” In the ensuing make plain that the publication continues to century, the media available to institutions and help the Law School “fulfill its mission.” At individuals have multiplied. the same time, over the decades, the journal Much of this multiplication has occurred within has ceased to be a “magazine” in the precise my time in the legal profession, and some of it sense originally envisioned. even during the 10-plus years of my deanship. In these circumstances, we have great The Internet has been the primary driver, of confidence in the importance of this magazine, course, and blogs, Facebook, and Twitter have Marquette Lawyer. It is a rich, substantive T supplemented publication, which the Law School uses to means such as “make known its ideals and communicate its home pages spirit” not just to Marquette lawyers but also to and email.
    [Show full text]
  • American Courts and the Sex Blind Spot: Legitimacy and Representation
    Fordham Law Review Volume 87 Issue 6 Article 3 2019 American Courts and the Sex Blind Spot: Legitimacy and Representation Michele Goodwin University of California, Irvine School of Law Mariah Lindsay If/When/How Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Courts Commons, Law and Gender Commons, Law and Society Commons, and the Privacy Law Commons Recommended Citation Michele Goodwin and Mariah Lindsay, American Courts and the Sex Blind Spot: Legitimacy and Representation, 87 Fordham L. Rev. 2337 (2019). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol87/iss6/3 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AMERICAN COURTS AND THE SEX BLIND SPOT: LEGITIMACY AND REPRESENTATION Michele Goodwin* & Mariah Lindsay** We argue the legacy of explicit sex bias and discrimination with relation to political rights and social status begins within government, hewn from state and federal lawmaking. As such, male lawmakers and judges conscribed a woman’s role to her home and defined the scope of her independence in the local community and broader society. Politically and legally, women were legal appendages to men—objects of male power (vis- à-vis their husbands and fathers). In law, women’s roles included sexual chattel to their spouses, care of the home, and producing offspring. Accordingly, women were essential in the home, as law would have it, but unnecessary, and even harmful and sabotaging, to a participatory democracy.
    [Show full text]
  • Choosing the Next Supreme Court Justice: an Empirical Ranking of Judge Performance
    ARTICLES CHOOSING THE NEXT SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: AN EMPIRICAL RANKING OF JUDGE PERFORMANCE STEPHEN J. CHOI* & G. MITU GULATI** ABSTRACT The judicial appointments process has grown increasingly frustrating in recent years. Both sides claim that their candidates are the “most * Roger J. Traynor Professor, U.C. Berkeley Law School (Boalt Hall). ** Professor of Law, Georgetown University. Kindly e-mail comments to [email protected] and [email protected]. Erin Dengan, Jennifer Dukart, Édeanna Johnson-Chebbi, Alice Kuo, Margaret Rodgers, and Rishi Sharma provided research assistance. Kimberly Brickell deserves special thanks for her work. Aspects of this draft benefited from discussions with Alex Aleinikoff, Ian Ayres, Scott Baker, Barbara Banoff, Devon Carbado, Lee Epstein, Tracey George, Prea Gulati, Vicki Jackson, Mike Klarman, Kim Krawiec, Paul Mahoney, Kaleb Michaud, Greg Mitchell, Ed Kitch, Un Kyung Park, Jim Rossi, Jim Ryan, Mark Seidenfeld, Howard Shelanski, Paul Stefan, Eric Talley, and George Triantis. For comments on the draft itself, we are grateful to Michael Bailey, Suzette Baker, Bill Bratton, James Brudney, Brannon Denning, Dan Farber, Phil Frickey, Michael Gerhardt, Steve Goldberg, Linc Kaplan, Joe Kennedy, Vikram Khanna, Pauline Kim, Don Langevoort, Jim Lindgren, Bill Marshall, Steve McBundy, Eric Mueller, Jeff Rachlinksi, Judith Resnik, Steve Salop, Michael Seidman, Peter Seigelman, Keith Sharfman, Pat Shin, Michael Solimine, Larry Solum, Gerry Spann, Nancy Staudt, Mark Tushnet, David Vladeck, David Walker, Robin West, Kathy Zeiler, Arnold Zellner, Todd Zywicki, and participants at workshops at Berkeley, Boston University, Florida State, Georgetown, Virginia, and UNC-Chapel Hill. Given the unusually large number of people who have e-mailed us with comments on this project, it is likely that there are some who we have inadvertently failed to thank.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Vesting Option: Opting out of Nomination and Advice and Consent
    The Judicial Vesting Option: Opting Out of Nomination and Advice and Consent TUAN SAMAHON* It is a well-worn mantra that our judicial selection process is broken, not only because senators may exercise their advice and consent power in ways that seek to direct the outcomes of Article III adjudication, but also because Presidents nominate judges with a view to bending adjudication toward their preferred policy outcomes. This Article argues that there is a partial solution readily authorized in the Constitutionfor those disenchanted with the appointments status quo: opt out of presidential nomination and senatorial advice and consent, and vest the appointments power in the Courts of Law. This arrangement, what this Article terms the Judicial Vesting Option, is permissible because the judges of the inferior courts constitute "inferior officers" within the meaning of the Appointments and Excepting Clauses. This solution might be desirable because it would place the appointments process beyond the reach of the President, Senate, or interest groups to influence; and would realisticallyprovide an opportunity for judges to emphasize merit as the principal consideration in appointment. Such an approach to inferior court appointments may be desirable because, as reaffirmed by the successful Roberts and Alito confirmations and the failed Miers nomination, service on the inferior courts has become apoliticalsine qua non for appointment to the Court. I. INTRODUCTION In the days running up to Samuel Alito's confirmation vote, Senators John Kerry and Edward Kennedy attempted to mount a filibuster of the proposed successor to Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court. The attempt to block an up-or-down confirmation vote was largely symbolic.
    [Show full text]