ACSBlog

  • April 27, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Eric J. Segall, Kathy and Lawrence Ashe Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law. Follow Professor Segall on Twitter @espinsegall.

    *This post is part of ACSblog’s symposium on the consolidated marriage equality cases before the Supreme Court.

    On April 28, the Supreme Court will hear arguments challenging the same-sex marriage bans currently in place in Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee and Michigan.  Here are my predictions for both the argument and the ultimate decision (in ascending order of certainty).

    1.      After the questioning stops and Chief Justice Roberts officially closes the oral argument with his consistent mantra, “The case is submitted,” no human being will ever be able to see any video recording (or photograph) of this historic day at the Court.  Sadly, this is a fact, not a prediction.

    2.      During the argument, Justice Thomas will 1) not utter a syllable; 2) look uncomfortable for most of the argument; and 3) eventually write a dissent saying he would of course not vote for the bans on same-sex marriage if he were a legislator but nothing in the Constitution prevents states from adopting them.  This could be avoided if Justice Thomas would just re-read the Equal Protection Clause (no “person” shall be denied the “equal protection of the laws”).

    3.      Justice Kennedy will try to out gun Judge Posner’s shredding of lawyers who tried to defend the same-sex marriage bans on the basis that they somehow further the states’ interests in the welfare of children and the family.  Kennedy will come close to matching Posner’s witty ire but he won’t succeed.

    4.      Justice Kennedy will eventually write a decision striking down the same-sex marriage bans on the basis that there are no rational reasons for the bans other than unconstitutional dislike of gays and lesbians.  His decision will not be as entertaining or persuasive as Posner’s, but it will count a whole lot more.

    5.      No Justice will ask about the perplexing amicus brief filed by “same-sex attracted” men (and their wives) arguing that overturning same-sex marriage bans would be an affront to their “dignity.”  Please don’t ask me to explain this brief.

  • April 27, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    On Friday, April 24, ACS hosted a panel discussion on the marriage equality cases. Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor discusses whether the Supreme Court will issue a landmark decision on the cases in June, and references Paul Smith’s comments from the panel. Michael Doyle of McClatchy quotes Steve Sanders from the panel in a preview of the oral arguments.

    Tom Watts of the Harvard Law & Policy Review previews the same-sex marriage oral arguments scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

    In the Huffington Post, Geoffrey R. Stone examines the historical arc of the fight for gay rights and the future of same-sex marriage in the United States.

    At SCOTUSblog, Lyle Denniston considers the decisive questions of the same-sex marriage cases before the Supreme Court.

    Nina Totenberg considers at NPR the Justices’ previous comments and opinions related to same-sex marriage.  

    In The New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg discusses on how Jim Obergefell, one of the plaintiffs in the challenge to Ohio’s marriage law, shows “how far the gay rights movement has come in one of the most traditionally conservative corners of the Midwest.”

    Alan B. Morrison, faculty advisor to the ACS Student Chapter at George Washington University Law School, argues at the Huffington Post that the proposed nuclear weapons deal with Iran is fair to both Congress and the President.

  • April 27, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Adam Winkler, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law. Follow Professor Winkler on Twitter @adamwinkler.

    *This post is part of ACSblog’s symposium on the consolidated marriage equality cases before the Supreme Court.

    Oral argument in the Supreme Court can be opaque, especially for those who aren’t well versed in the legal issues at stake or the precedents likely to be considered.  During oral argument, the justices aren’t interested in educating the citizenry.  They are trying to gain a better understanding of the case or subtly influencing the votes of their colleagues, so the questions and comments fly  quickly—and usually right over the heads of anyone but the experts.  Because oral argument in the same-sex marriages cases will draw an extraordinary amount of public attention, here’s a list of five things to watch for when the justices hold Court on April 28.

    1.    Justice Kennedy

    The first and most obvious thing to pay careful attention to is the questioning by Justice Anthony Kennedy.  With four justices who lean liberal and four who lean conservative, the Supreme Court has long been the Kennedy Court.  Because Kennedy has written all the major pro-gay rights decisions of the Supreme Court in recent years, many people assume he’ll vote in favor of marriage equality.  If I were a betting person, that’s where I’d put my money, too.  Yet it’s worth remembering that Kennedy’s opinions in those cases have always been compromises.  In Romer v. Evans, he declined to say that sexual orientation was a suspect classification.  In Lawrence v. Texas, he didn’t say gay intimacy was a fundamental right that triggered strict scrutiny.  In U.S. v. Windsor, half his opinion rested on states’ rights.  If Kennedy was serious in Windsor’s ode to the traditional autonomy of states over marriage, it could spell trouble.  That’s why it’s worth paying close attention to what Kennedy says at oral argument.  Is he skeptical of the state’s arguments?  Does he express concern about the implications of overturning the marriage bans?  Or does he emphasize the harms that come from denying LGBT couples marriage?  Kennedy, in this as in most other cases, is the vote that counts.

    2.    Baker v. Nelson

    Often lost in the current debate over marriage is that the Supreme Court has already held there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage.  Or at least that’s one way to read Baker v. Nelson, a 1971 case that raised the issue.  The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld that state’s restriction of marriage to one man and one woman, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.  The justices summarily affirmed the lower court decision “for want of a substantial federal question.”  In other words, the challenge to the marriage ban didn’t even raise a colorable constitutional claim.  Will the justices treat Baker as binding precedent warranting their deference under the principle of stare decisis?  There are good reasons to believe they won’t.  The law and society has changed immensely since 1971.  Back then, laws discriminating against women didn’t even trigger any form of heightened review.  Besides, do the justices ever really treat any prior decision as binding?

  • April 24, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Meredith Wilensky. Wilensky was the 2013-2014 associate director and fellow at Columbia Law School's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. She currently clerks for Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California.

    The Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade and Globalization Agreement (TPP) is currently being negotiated by 12 Pacific Rim countries: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam. The Obama Administration maintains that it will promote strong environmental protection in the TPP and “insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter.” To that effect, the United States is advocating that the agreement include commitments to effectively enforce domestic environmental laws and provisions to address wildlife trafficking, illegal logging and illegal fishing practices.

    A strong environment chapter is an admirable goal, but it does not discount the potential threats to the environment posed by other chapters of the agreement, especially the investment chapter.  Modern international investment agreements (IIAs) impose standards of conduct on host countries in their dealings with foreign investors. For example, expropriation provisions require governments to compensate for all takings and “Fair and Equitable Treatment” obligations set a minimum standard of treatment for all foreign investors.  While these provisions are intended to ensure fair and ethical dealings with foreign investors, they can have sweeping repercussions for host states’ environmental policy.

    Investor protection provisions are particularly powerful because they are usually accompanied by an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism, which permits aggrieved investors to initiate arbitration in ad hoc international tribunals for compensation of losses that the tribunals find have arisen from the host country’s violation of the investor protection provisions. Under preexisting IIAs, investor protection provisions have been interpreted broadly to require compensation for a number of actions taken by governments to protect the environment and public health.

  • April 24, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    The U.S. Senate made another judicial confirmation on Monday. In a vote of 91-0, the Senate confirmed the nomination of George C. Hanks, Jr. to be a United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas. Additionally, in unanimous voice votes, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted out two more nominees.  Kara Stoll, nominated to be a United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, and Roseann A. Ketchmark, to be a United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, were both voted out of committee. 

    Overall, the Senate continues to delay on confirming nominees. Republican leadership has refused to accept responsibility for the judicial vacancies. Texas, for example, has ten current vacancies according to the Alliance for Justice. Senate Republicans have done little to alleviate this pressing problem, and have they failed to accept their part in creating judicial emergencies. 

    U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley announced that he will recommend two Iowans for District Court vacancies this week, and it looks as though he will move quickly to move the nominees through the process. The Des Moines Register argues that the senator should apply this same sense of urgency to other nominees.

    Senator Mitch McConnell may be slowing down judicial nominations as means of getting back at Democrats for previous filibuster reforms. But as ACS President Caroline Fredrickson points out in a recent article at Talking Points Memo by Sahil Kapur, these delays may offer an opportunity for progressives to mobilize their base.

    After the confirmation of Loretta Lynch, the Senate now needs to consider Sally Yates to be Deputy Attorney General. Senator Patrick Leahy issued a statement on the nomination and the importance of moving more quickly on judicial nominations.

    There are currently 53 vacancies, and 23 are now considered judicial emergencies. There are 17 pending nominees. For more information see judicialnominations.org.