DOCSLIB.ORG

2017 Sixth Circuit Appellate Practice Institute

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2017 Sixth Circuit Appellate Practice Institute October 3, 2017 Cincinnati, Ohio INSTITUTE TOPICS: 2017 Sixth Circuit > Judge’s Perspective on How to Win a Case Appellate Practice Institute > Effective Writing > Preserving Issues The Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky and Dayton Chapters of the Federal > Effective Oral Argument Bar Association and the Litigation Section of the Federal Bar > Class Action Association, in cooperation with the United States Court of Appeals for Practice > A Look Inside the Court the Sixth Circuit, will sponsor the 2017 Sixth Circuit Appellate Practice and Technological Institute on October 3, 2017 at the Renaissance Hotel in downtown Changes Cincinnati. The seminar will provide an opportunity for practitioners to > Other Hot Topics hear directly from several of the Sixth Circuit Judges, court staff, and leading appellate attorneys about how to practice effectively before Renaissance Hotel the Sixth Circuit. The Practice Institute topics include the following: 36 East 4th Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 How to Win a Case From a Judge’s Perspective - A panel of Sixth Circuit and trial judges, along with the chair of the Federal Judicial Center Foundation Board, will lead this practical presentation that will be of interest to a broad range of litigators. Preserving Issues for Appeal - A panel of experienced trial and circuit judges will discuss how to protect your record to preserve issues for appeal. Keynote Speaker: Recent Developments in Class Action and Other Aggregate Litigation - A national class action expert provides an update in this The featured luncheon evolving practice area which includes both class action and multi- speaker will be Chad A. district litigation. Readler, United States Department of Justice A Look Inside the Court - How court processes work. The Sixth Acting Assistant Attorney Circuit Clerk of Court will provide a rare behind-the-scenes glimpse of General for the Civil how the clerk’s office works and how to avoid common mistakes. Division. Mr. Readler oversees the largest Effective Brief Writing - A panel of circuit judges will discuss practical litigation division in the tips for effective written advocacy in the Sixth Circuit. Department of Justice, including 1,100 lawyers Effective Oral Advocacy - Another panel of circuit judges will give an with responsibility for inside look into how judges prepare for and evaluate oral arguments representing the United and how counsel should approach their argument. States in a wide array of civil litigation, including Get Admitted! - For those not yet admitted at the Sixth Circuit, a challenges to Presidential unique opportunity will be provided to be sworn in by the Chief Judge. Executive Orders, Congressional statutes, and federal agency Approval requested for 7.0 hours of CLE by Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. actions. October 3, 2017 SIXTH CIRCUIT PRACTICE INSTITUTE Renaissance Hotel 36 East 4th Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 8:00 YLD Breakfast with Chief Judge R. Guy Scott McIntyre, Esq. Cole, Jr. Baker Hostetler LLP Moderator: James M. Wagstaffe, Esq. 8:30 Registration and Continental Breakfast Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP 9:00 Welcome, United States Magistrate 2:15 Preserving Issues for Appeal Judge Michael J. Newman Honorable Deborah Cook 9:10 Recent Developments in Class Action and Judge, United States Court of Other Aggregate Litigation Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Professor Arthur R. Miller, New York Honorable Michael R. Barrett University School of Law District Judge, United States Introduction: K. Scott Hamilton, Esq. District Court Southern District of Dickinson Wright PLLC Ohio Honorable Thomas M. Rose 10:10 Criminal Appellate Practice Update Senior Judge, United States Mary Beth Young District Court Southern District of Appellate Chief, U.S. Attorneys’ Office Ohio Southern District of Ohio Moderator: Honorable Michael J. Newman Claire Cahoon Curtis Magistrate Judge, United States Attorney, Federal Public Defender’s District Court Southern District of Office for the Northern District of Ohio Ohio Kevin Ritz Introduction: Michael W. Hawkins, Esq, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Memphis Dinsmore & Shohl LLP Tennessee Moderator: Kevin Schad, Appellate Director, 3:15 Afternoon Break Federal Public Defender’s Office for the Southern District of Ohio. 3:30 Effective Brief Writing Honorable Karen Nelson Moore 11:10 Morning Break Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 11:25 Behind the Scenes at the Clerk’s Honorable Jeffrey Sutton Office and How to Avoid Common Judge, United States Court of Appeals Mistakes for the Sixth Circuit Deborah S. Hunt Clerk, United States Court Honorable Bernice B. Donald of Appeals for the Sixth Judge, United States Court of Circuit Appeals, Sixth Circuit Introduction: Timothy G. Pepper, Esq. Moderator: Pierre H. Bergeron, Esq. Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP 12:15 Lunch with Chad Readler, Acting U.S. 4:30 Effective Oral Argument Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Honorable R. Guy Cole Division Chief Judge, United States Court of Introduction: John G. McCarthy, Esq. Appeals, Sixth Circuit Smith Gambrell & Russel, LLP Honorable John M. Rogers Judge, United States Court of 1:15 How to Win a Case From a Judge’s Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Perspective Honorable Jeffrey S. Sutton Honorable Julia S. Gibbons Judge, United States Court of Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Moderator: David B. Rivkin Jr., Esq. Honorable John K. Bush Baker Hostetler LLP Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 5:30 Swearing in and Cocktail Honorable Michael R. Barrett Reception Judge, United States District Court Sponsored by Litigation Section of Southern District of Ohio Federal Bar Association Speakers and Panel Members Honorable Michael R. Barrett. Michael R. Barrett was Cook received both her undergraduate and law degrees from appointed judge of the United States District Court for the the University of Akron. Southern District of Ohio in 2006. Judge Barrett was in private practice from 1984 before joining the federal bench. He also Clair C. Curtis. Claire Cahoon Curtis is an Attorney with the served several years in the Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Federal Public Defender for the Northern District of Ohio, Office. Judge Barrett received both his undergraduate and law where she represents criminal defendants at the trial level and degrees from the University of Cincinnati, where he chaired the on appeal. She is one of less than thirty attorneys in the State Board of Trustees before taking the bench. of Ohio certified as an appellate law specialist. Pierre H. Bergeron. Pierre H. Bergeron is a partner at Squire Honorable Bernice B. Donald. Bernice B. Donald was Patton Boggs (US) LLP in Cincinnati, where he serves as the appointed to the Sixth Circuit in 2011. Judge Donald earned chair of the Appellate and Supreme Court Practice group. He her undergraduate degree and J.D. from the University of previously clerked for the Honorable David A. Nelson of the Memphis. Prior to joining the Court of Appeals, Judge Donald Sixth Circuit, and received his JD from the University of served on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia and his BA from Centre College. Mr. Bergeron has Tennessee, served as Judge of U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the recently argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, and he has Western District of Tennessee from June 1988 to January argued before state and federal appellate courts across the 1996, where she was the first African American woman to country. Mr. Bergeron is a member of the planning committee serve as a federal bankruptcy judge. When she was elected to for the Sixth Circuit Practice Institute the General Sessions Criminal Court in 1982, she became the and has previously served on the Sixth first African American woman to serve Circuit Rules Committee. as a judge in the history of the State of Tennessee. Honorable John K. Bush. John K. Bush was appointed to the Sixth Circuit Honorable Julia S. Gibbons. Julia S. in 2017. Before appointment to the Sixth Gibbons was appointed to the Sixth Circuit, Judge Bush was in private Circuit in 2002. Prior to her practice with the law firms of Bingham appointment to the Sixth Circuit, Greenebaum Doll in Louisville, and Judge Gibbons served as United Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Washington States District Judge for the Western D.C. Judge Bush also clerked for J. District of Tennessee from 1983 - Smith Henley, Senior Circuit Judge, 2002. She was Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, district court from 1994-2000. Prior to and was one of former President becoming a federal district judge, Reagan's attorneys during the Iran- Judge Gibbons served as judge of the contra investigation. Judge Bush Tennessee Circuit Court for the 15th received his undergraduate degree from Judicial Circuit and was Legal Advisor Vanderbilt University and law degree to Tennessee Governor Lamar from Harvard. Alexander. She was also in private practice at the Memphis firm of Farris, Hancock, Gilman, Branan & Lanier Honorable R. Guy Cole, Jr. R. Guy and served as law clerk to the late Cole was appointed to the Sixth Circuit in 1995 and assumed the role of Chief Judge in August of 2014. Hon. William E. Miller, Circuit Judge, He earned his undergraduate degree from Tufts University and United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Judge his law degree from Yale Law School. Before appointment to Gibbons received her undergraduate degree from Vanderbilt the Sixth Circuit, Judge Cole was in private practice with the University and law degree from the University of Virginia law firm Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, served as a trial School of Law. attorney with the Department of Justice’s Civil Division, and was a U.S. Bankruptcy Judge for the Southern District of Ohio. K. Scott Hamilton. K. Scott Hamilton is an attorney and member of the law firm Dickinson Wright PLLC in Detroit, Michigan where he specializes in Appellate and Commercial Honorable Deborah L.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • List of Judges 1985–2017 Notre Dame Law School
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Annual Moot Court Showcase Argument Conferences, Events and Lectures 2017 List of Judges 1985–2017 Notre Dame Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndls_moot_court Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Notre Dame Law School, "List of Judges 1985–2017" (2017). Annual Moot Court Showcase Argument. 1. http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndls_moot_court/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences, Events and Lectures at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Annual Moot Court Showcase Argument by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. List of Judges that Have Served the Moot Court Showcase Argument 2009 to present held in McCarten Court Room, Eck Hall of Law Updated: March 2017 Name Yr. Served ND Grad Court Judge Alice Batchelder 3/3/2017 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit Chief Justice Matthew Durrant 3/3/2017 Utah Supreme Court NDLS 1992 Judge John Blakey 3/3/2017 BA-UND 1988 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Chief Justice Matthew G. Durrant 2/25/2106 Utah Supreme Court Judge Alice Batchelder 2/25/2016 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen Kelly 2/25/2016 BA-UND 1983 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Joel F. Dubina 2/26/2015 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit Chief Judge Frederico A. Moreno 2/26/2015 United States District Court - Miami, FL Judge Patricia O'Brien Cotter 2/26/2015 NDLS 1977 Montana Supreme Court Judge Margaret A.
    [Show full text]
  • Trump Judges: Even More Extreme Than Reagan and Bush Judges
    Trump Judges: Even More Extreme Than Reagan and Bush Judges September 3, 2020 Executive Summary In June, President Donald Trump pledged to release a new short list of potential Supreme Court nominees by September 1, 2020, for his consideration should he be reelected in November. While Trump has not yet released such a list, it likely would include several people he has already picked for powerful lifetime seats on the federal courts of appeals. Trump appointees' records raise alarms about the extremism they would bring to the highest court in the United States – and the people he would put on the appellate bench if he is reelected to a second term. According to People For the American Way’s ongoing research, these judges (including those likely to be on Trump’s short list), have written or joined more than 100 opinions or dissents as of August 31 that are so far to the right that in nearly one out of every four cases we have reviewed, other Republican-appointed judges, including those on Trump’s previous Supreme Court short lists, have disagreed with them.1 Considering that every Republican president since Ronald Reagan has made a considerable effort to pick very conservative judges, the likelihood that Trump could elevate even more of his extreme judicial picks raises serious concerns. On issues including reproductive rights, voting rights, police violence, gun safety, consumer rights against corporations, and the environment, Trump judges have consistently sided with right-wing special interests over the American people – even measured against other Republican-appointed judges. Many of these cases concern majority rulings issued or joined by Trump judges.
    [Show full text]
  • Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules
    ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON APPELLATE RULES Washington, D.C. November 9, 2017 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules, Fall 2017 Meeting 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS MEETING AGENDA…………………………………………………………………………5 TAB 1 OPENING BUSINESS 1A. TABLE OF AGENDA ITEMS…………………………………………………11 TAB 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2A. DRAFT MINUTES OF MAY 2017 COMMITTEE MEETING …………………17 TAB 3 REPORT ON JUNE 2017 MEETING OF STANDING COMMITTEE 3A. REPORT BY GREGORY MAGGS REGARDING THE STANDING COMMITTEE’S ACTIONS ON THE COMMITTEE’S RECENT PROPOSALS, DATED OCTOBER 17, 2017……………………………………………………………………31 3B. EXCERPT OF THE REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE TO THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE …………………………………………………35 3C. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULES 8, 11, 25, 26, 28, 28.1, 29, 31, 39, AND 41, AND FORMS 4 AND 7 ………………………………………………… 45 3D. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULES 3, 13, 26.1, 28, AND 32, AS PUBLISHED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT IN AUGUST 2017…………………………………83 3E. DRAFT MINUTES OF JUNE 2017 STANDING COMMITTEE MEETING ……95 TAB 4 ITEM 09-AP-B (RULE 29) 4A. MEMO BY GREGORY MAGGS REGARDING PROPOSAL TO AMEND RULE 29 TO ALLOW INDIAN TRIBES AND CITIES TO FILE AMICUS BRIEFS WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT OR CONSENT OF PARTIES, DATED OCTOBER 13, 2017..131 4B. LETTER FROM JUDGE SUTTON TO JUDGE LYNCH DATED MAY 29, 2012...137 4C. MEMO BY CATHERINE STRUVE REGARDING ITEM 09-AP-B, DATED MARCH 28, 2012…………………………………………………………..141 4D. EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 2012 MEETING …………173 Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules, Fall 2017 Meeting 3 TAB 5 POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO RULE 5(A)(1), 21(A)(1) AND (C), 26(C), 32(F), AND 39(D)(1) REGARDING PROOF OF SERVICE 5A.
    [Show full text]
  • Cooperative Judicial Nominations During the Obama Administration
    GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship 2017 Cooperative Judicial Nominations During the Obama Administration David Fontana George Washington University Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Fontana, David, Cooperative Judicial Nominations During the Obama Administration (March 28, 2017). Wisconsin Law Review, Forthcoming; GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 2017-24; GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2017-24. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2942297 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FONTANA – FORTHCOMING – WISCONSIN LAW REVIEW (2017) 3/28/2017 COOPERATIVE JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DAVID FONTANA Introduction ................................................................... 101 I. Naming ..................................................................... 108 II. Numbing ................................................................... 124 III. Numbers .................................................................. 130 Conclusion .................................................................... 138 INTRODUCTION During his eight years in office, President Barack Obama changed
    [Show full text]
  • In Brief Law School Publications
    Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons In Brief Law School Publications 2018 In Brief Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/in_brief Recommended Citation In Brief, iss. 101 (2018). https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/in_brief/100 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Publications at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in In Brief by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. FALL 2018 ISSUE 101 InTHE MAGAZINE OF CASE Brief WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW Law school plays key role in fixing Northeast Ohio’s broken bail system WE CELEBRATED OUR 125TH ANNIVERSARY LAST YEAR. We have so much history, we could write a book! SO WE DID. “Girls can’t be lawyers.” That’s what a male classmate told Alberta Colclaser when she was young. But Colclaser proved that wrong, graduating from the law school in 1936. She was one of three women in her law class of 75 students. Even so, Colcaser said the most interesting part of her life came degree—when she helped pioneer international aviation law. At that time, Amelia Earhartafter had earning made herthe firstlaw flight from Hawaii to North America. Colclaser’s work in the office of Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department of State resulted in setting government policies in this new field. While working in D.C. during WWII, Colclaser earned her pilot’s license and served the Civil Air Patrol.
    [Show full text]
  • Advise & Consent
    The Los Angeles County Bar Association Appellate Courts Section Presents Advise & Consent: A Primer to the Federal Judicial Appointment Process Wednesday, October 28, 2020 Program - 12:00 - 1:30 PM Zoom Webinar CLE Credit: 1.5 Hours Credit (including Appellate Courts Specialization) Provider #36 The Los Angeles County Bar Association is a State Bar of California approved MCLE provider. The Los Angles County Bar Association certifies that this activity has been approved for MCLE credit by the State Bar of California. PANELIST BIOS Judge Kenneth Lee (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) Kenneth Kiyul Lee is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The U.S. Senate confirmed him on May 15, 2019, making him the nation’s first Article III judge born in the Republic of Korea. Prior to his appointment, Judge Lee was a partner at the law firm of Jenner & Block in Los Angeles, where he handled a wide variety of complex litigation matters and had a robust pro bono practice. Judge Lee previously served as an Associate Counsel to President George W. Bush and as Special Counsel to Senator Arlen Specter, then-chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He started his legal career as an associate at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz in New York. Judge Lee is a 2000 magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School and a 1997 summa cum laude graduate of Cornell University. He clerked for Judge Emilio M. Garza of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from 2000 to 2001. Judge Leslie Southwick (Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals) Leslie Southwick was appointed to the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • ACS 2006 National Convention Program Sunday, June 18 Thursday
    A C S 2 0 0 6 N A TIO na L C O N VE N TIO N P R O G R A M Thursday, June 15† 11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. Breakout Sessions A. Is Federal Legislation Closing the Courthouse Door? 12:00 – 6:00 p.m. National Student Leadership Retreat • Paul Bland • Elizabeth Cabraser • Alan Morrison • Margaret Russell 6:30 – 8:00 p.m. Finals of the Constance Baker Motley B. Next Generation Discrimination: Can the Law Address National Moot Court Competition Unintended and Subtle Bias? 8:00 – 9:00 p.m. Welcome Reception • Sam Bagenstos • Jerry Kang • Nina Pillard • Kenji Yoshino C. Domestic Surveillance and the Rule of Law • Mary DeRosa • Leslie Harris • Orin Kerr • Neil Kinkopf • Friday, June 16 David Kris 9:30 – 11:15 a.m. Plenary Panel* D. Leakers and the Press • Viet Dinh • Laura Handman • Jeralyn Merritt • Judge Stephen Separation of Powers: Restoring the Balance Among the Branches Reinhardt • Geoffrey Stone • Senator Gary Hart • Dawn Johnsen • Harold Koh • Douglas Kmiec • E. Constitutional Interpretation and Change Issue Group Beth Nolan Meeting 11:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. Breakout Sessions 12:45 – 2:15 p.m. Luncheon with Featured Speaker A. Challenging the Government’s Post 9/11 Policies • Ann Beeson • Stephen Berzon • David Cole • Neal Kaytal • Marc 2:30 – 4:00 p.m. Breakout Sessions Rotenberg A. The Future of Federal Civil Rights Enforcement B. Redistricting: Where Should We Draw the Lines? • Roger Clegg • Stuart Ishimaru • Bill Lann Lee • Bill Taylor • Mike Carvin • Nina Perales • Paul Smith • Dan Tokaji B.
    [Show full text]
  • ACS 2019 NATIONAL CONVENTION SCHEDULE Visit
    ACS 2019 NATIONAL CONVENTION SCHEDULE Visit www.acslaw.org/convention for most updated schedule and program. THURSDAY, JUNE 6 2:00 p.m. – 3:45 p.m. Student Retreat…………….….…………K&L Gates, 1601 K Street, NW 4:00 p.m. – 5:30 p.m. Speed Networking…………….……………Congressional/Senate Room 5:30 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. Attendee Happy Hour………………….………………Capital Terrace 5:30 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. VIP Reception*…….…....……..........………South American A/B Room 7:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. Welcome Dinner…………………………………Presidential Ballroom • Welcome, ACS President Caroline Fredrickson • Presentation of the David Carliner Public Interest Award to Amaha Kassa, Founder and Executive Director of African Communities Together, by Sarah Remes • Presentation of the ACS Progressive Champion Award to the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project by Stephanie Bello-Gálvez • Introduction of Raising the Bar: The Lawyers Come to Washington by Hon. Keith Harper SPEAKERS Kimberly Atkins, Senior News Correspondent, WBUR, and Contributor, MSNBC, Moderator Hon. Colin Allred, 32nd Congressional District of Texas Hon. Sharice Davids, 3rd Congressional District of Kansas Hon. Jennifer Wexton, 10th Congressional District of Virginia • Concluding Remarks, ACS Board Chair Pamela Karlan 9:30 p.m. – 11:00 p.m. Student Chapter Happy Hour……Black Finn, 1620 I (Eye) Street, NW 9:30 p.m. – 11:00 p.m. Faculty Advisor Mixer*……American Constitution Society, 1899 L Street, NW 1899 L Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20036 | 202.393.6181 | [email protected] | acslaw.org FRIDAY, JUNE 7 7:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. Judicial Nominations Task Force Breakfast*….South American A/B Room 9:00 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Does the Evolving Concept of Due Process in Obergefell Justify Judicial Regulation of Greenhouse
    Does the Evolving Concept of Due Process in Obergefell Justify Judicial Regulation of Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change?: Juliana v. United States Bradford C. Mank,1 (Copyright 2018) Word Count: 17,588 Draft, Do not Quote, Use or Cite Without Express Permission Abstract Justice Kennedy’s Obergefell opinion, which held that same sex marriage is a fundamental right under the Constitution’s due process clause, reasoned that the principles of substantive due process may evolve because of changing societal views of what constitutes “liberty” under the clause, and that judges may recognize new liberty rights in light of their “reasoned judgment.” In Juliana v. United States, Judge Aiken used her “reasoned judgment” to conclude that evolving principles of substantive due process in the Obergefell decision allowed the court to find that the plaintiffs were entitled to a liberty right to a stable climate system capable of sustaining human life, and, furthermore, that these same evolving principles of substantive due process led the court to interpret the public trust doctrine to now include a similar right to a sustainable climate system. Relying on Chief Justice Robert’s dissenting opinion in Obergefell and a decision by Judge Sutton of the Sixth Circuit, one may criticize the Juliana decision for giving judges too much discretion to invent new due process rights and usurp the role of the legislature. Professor Kenji Yoshino has argued that the Obergefell decision should be interpreted as “antisubordination liberty” that protects “historically subordinated groups.” Following the “antisubordination liberty” principle, alleged victims of climate change are arguably not entitled to special protection from the judiciary because the impacts of such harms affect every person in the United States rather than singling out under-represented minority groups, even if certain “historically subordinated groups” are affected to a greater degree by climate change.
    [Show full text]
  • Certiorari and the Marriage Equality Cases
    University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Caveat Volume 48 Issue 1 2015 Certiorari and the Marriage Equality Cases Carl Tobias University of Richmond Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr_caveat Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, Family Law Commons, Sexuality and the Law Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Carl Tobias, Certiorari and the Marriage Equality Cases, 48 U. MICH. J. L. REFORM CAVEAT 28 (2014). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr_caveat/vol48/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Caveat by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN JOURNAL of LAW REFORM CAVEAT CERTIORARI AND THE MARRIAGE EQUALITY CASES Carl Tobias∗ Marriage equality has come to much of the nation. Over 2014, many district court rulings invalidated state proscriptions on same- sex marriage, while four appeals courts upheld these decisions. However, the Sixth Circuit reversed district judgments which struck down bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. Because that appellate opinion created a patchwork of differing legal regimes across the country, this Paper urges the Supreme Court to clarify marriage equality by reviewing that determination this Term. I. The New Cases United States v.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes for Report Re Confirmed Bush Judges
    CONFIRMED JUDGES, CONFIRMED FEARS A Preliminary Look At How Appellate Judges Nominated By President Bush Are Already Threatening The Rights Of Ordinary Americans People For the American Way Foundation January 23, 2004 Ralph G. Neas President 2000 M Street NW ♦ Suite 400 ♦ Washington, DC 20036 Telephone 202.467.4999 ♦ Fax 202.293.2672 ♦ [email protected] ♦ Web site-http://www.pfaw.org CONFIRMED JUDGES, CONFIRMED FEARS A Preliminary Look At How Appellate Judges Nominated By President Bush Are Already Threatening The Rights Of Ordinary Americans _________________________________ In selecting nominees for the federal courts, President George W. Bush has often stated that he is looking for judges who will interpret the law, not make it. In fact, however, Senators and many others have expressed serious concern that many of the Administration’s nominees violate that standard. Particularly with respect to such controversial nominees as William Pryor and Priscilla Owen, opponents have contended, many of the Administration’s nominees have a record of trying to re-make the law to undermine civil and consumer rights, constitutional liberties, environmental protections, and the authority of Congress to protect these and other rights. Pursuant to its constitutional responsibility, the Senate has declined to consent to several Administration nominees because of such concerns. Contrary to the claims of some, however, the vast majority of Bush nominees — 169 out of 175 who have reached the Senate floor — have been confirmed, most without controversy. This report provides a preliminary look at the record so far of the most important of those confirmed judges, those who now sit on the federal courts of appeal, in the significant areas of concern raised about Administration nominees.1 Because the Supreme Court takes so few cases, the federal appellate courts are effectively the courts of last resort for the vast majority of Americans.
    [Show full text]
  • Does the Evolving Concept of Due Process in Obergefell Justify Judicial Regulation of Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change?: Juliana V
    Does the Evolving Concept of Due Process in Obergefell Justify Judicial Regulation of Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change?: Juliana v. United States Bradford C. Mank* Justice Kennedy’s Obergefell opinion, which held that same sex marriage is a fundamental right under the Constitution’s due process clause, reasoned that the principles of substantive due process may evolve because of changing societal views of what constitutes “liberty” under the clause, and that judges may recognize new liberty rights in light of their “reasoned judgment.” In Juliana v. United States, Judge Aiken used her “reasoned judgment” to conclude that evolving principles of substantive due process in the Obergefell decision allowed the court to find that the plaintiffs were entitled to a liberty right to a stable climate system capable of sustaining human life, and, furthermore, that these same evolving principles of substantive due process led the court to interpret the public trust doctrine to now include a similar right to a sustainable climate system. Relying on Chief Justice Robert’s dissenting opinion in Obergefell and a decision by Judge Sutton of the Sixth Circuit, one may criticize the Juliana decision for giving judges too much discretion to invent new due process rights and usurp the role of the legislature. More appropriately, Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of * Copyright © 2018 Bradford C. Mank. James Helmer, Jr. Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, University of Cincinnati College of Law, P.O. Box 210040, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0040, Telephone 513- 556-0094, Fax 513-556-1236, e-mail: [email protected].
    [Show full text]