May 2011

  • May 12, 2011

    During oral argument this week on the health care challenges before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Judge Diana Gribbon Motz responded to the challengers’ attempt to distinguish between “activity” and “inactivity” for purposes of regulating under the Commerce Clause by saying:

    When Daniel Webster spent four days arguing a case on commerce regulation before the Supreme Court, he never once mentioned 'activity' as a crucial factor.

    In a reaction post to the argument, George Mason University law professor David Bernstein cautioned that embracing an 18th or early 19th century understanding of the Commerce Clause could be dangerous. But blogger and College of Saint Rose professor Scott Lemieux thinks the ACA easily stands up to early 19th century scrutiny  — assuming, of course, “that the most important Supreme Court opinions of that period count.”

    At Lawyers, Guns and Money, he explains:

    The libertarian trick is to pretend that there was a consistent, uncontroversial understanding that the federal government had a very limited ability to regulate interstate commerce that was broken only during the New Deal. But, unless you believe that John Marshall and Alexander Hamilton lack the constitutional authority of Roger Taney and James McReynolds, that’s not the case. Looking at the long sweep of American history, it’s the Jacksonian and Lochner eras that are anomalous, and both were rejected as decisively as can be imagined.

    Lemieux participated in an ACS phone briefing this week for bloggers on judicial nominations, during which he noted that the federal courts have long been skewed to the right due to the many Republic-appointed nominees.

     As a consequence, he notes in a more detailed analysis of the oral argument forThe American Prospect, Tuesday’s oral argument before three judges appointed by Democratic presidents “were not necessarily indicative of the ultimate fate of the ACA.”

    “But,” he adds, “they did reveal how weak the legal arguments against it are.”

  • May 12, 2011

    During yesterday’s confirmation of Arenda L. Wright Allen’s nomination to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy said the Senate is still moving far too slowly to fill vacancies on the federal bench. (Allen’s confirmation makes her the first African American woman to serve on the federal court for the Eastern District of Virginia.)

    Leahy (pictured) noted that Allen’s nomination was unanimously approved by the judiciary committee more than a month ago, and urged his colleagues to stop stalling on 11 other judicial nominations. Specifically Leahy urged the Senate to vote on the nomination of Susan Carney to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Michael Simon “to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the District Court in Oregon.”

    “We should also consider the nomination of Goodwin Liu to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Ninth Circuit, a nomination we have reported favorably three times, and the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to fill a judicial vacancy on the DC Circuit, which we reported favorably over two months ago,” Leahy said.

    Turning to the high number vacancies on the federal bench, Leahy said:

    Regrettably, the Senate has not reduced vacancies as dramatically as we did during the Bush administration. In fact, the Senate has reversed course during the Obama administration, with the slow pace of confirmations keeping judicial vacancies at crisis levels. Over the 8 years of the Bush administration, from 2001 to 2009, we reduced judicial vacancies from 110 to a low of 32. That has now been reversed, with vacancies staying above 90 since August 2009. The vacancy rate – which we reduced from 10 percent at the end of President Clinton’s term to 6 percent by this date in President Bush’s third year and ultimately to less than 4 percent in 2008 – is now back to more than 10 percent.”

    We have a long way to go to do as well as we did during President Bush’s first term, when we confirmed 205 of his judicial nominations. We confirmed 100 of those judicial nominations during the 17 months I was chairman during President Bush’s first 2 years in office. So far, well into President Obama’s third year in office, the Senate has only been allowed to consider 82 of President Obama’s Federal circuit and district court nominees, well short of 205.

    Earlier this week ACS hosted a teleconference for bloggers to discuss the rising number of vacancies on the federal bench. ACS Executive Director Caroline Fredrickson said the recent movement of some of the president’s judicial nominations, such as the confirmation of Judge Edward Chen to a federal court seat in California, “belies the truth that there has been a systematic delay of judicial nominees by Republicans in the Senate; people have gotten bottled up after having a unanimous vote out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, completely uncontroversial nominees who are held up because people can simply hold them up.”

    Audio of the teleconference is available here. For more information and analysis of judicial vacancies and nominations, visit JudicialNominations.org.

  • May 12, 2011
    BookTalk
    Feminist Legal History
    Essays on Women and Law
    By: 
    Tracy Thomas and TJ Boisseau, editors

    By Tracy Thomas, professor of law at the University of Akron.  Thomas co-edited the new book, Feminist Legal History: Essays on Women and Law, with TJ Boisseau, an associate professor of gender and cultural history at the University of Akron. 


    The study of women’s legal history has been more prevalent in the field of women’s studies than in law. A few of the leading cases of women’s history like Roe v. Wade or Frontiero v. Richardson appear in cameos in constitutional law courses, but few conventional treatments of legal history include women, leaving the study of women’s issues to segregated courses on “women and the law.”  The book Feminist Legal History ambitiously seeks to change that. It hopes to integrate the learning about women and gender into the mainstream understanding of legal history. Whether the focus is tort law, constitutional law, or administrative law, women’s history offers a more complete understanding of the operation of that law and its disparate effects. As Felice Batlan, one of the contributors to this collection puts it, the goal of feminist legal history is to “engender the law,” that is, to add gender to the discussion to reframe the dominant narratives of law by offering more factually complete, if analytically complicating, understandings of it.

    Feminist Legal History’s reconceptualization of law and legal history is accomplished through a series of legal stories that few will be familiar with.

  • May 12, 2011

    One of the nation’s largest Tea Party umbrella groups is pushing a curriculum to teach public school kids about the Constitution that American Constitution Society Executive Director Caroline Fredrickson says is so outside the mainstream that even the conservative Federalist Society would likely object to its use.

    The curriculum, which members of the Tea Party Patriots are bringing into schools through an “adopt a school” program during Constitution Week in September, was developed by the National Center for Constitutional Studies (NCCS), founded by the late Cleon Skousen. Skousen promoted the idea that the Constitution is a divine document that may have biblical roots, and authored Glenn Beck’s favorite book on the Constitution, The 5,000 Year Leap, reports Stephanie Mencimer in Mother Jones.

    The American Constitution Society has been participating in Constitution Week for years, by sending volunteers to classrooms with lesson plans that feature the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney, students’ free expression and freedom of religion rights under the First Amendment, and the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.

    NCCS’s lesson plans are likely to have a very different focus, if an NCCS seminar Mencimer attended last year is any indication. She explains:

  • May 12, 2011

    Law firms devoted to the interests of large corporations are not surprisingly taking advantage of a road being forged by the Supreme Court’s conservative wing to hobble efforts of consumers and workers to challenge corporate malfeasance.

    Reporting on the high court’s recent opinion in AT&T v. Concepcion, in which the high court’s conservative wing led by Justice Antonin Scalia shut down a consumer led-class action lawsuit against one of the nation’s largest telecommunications companies,The New York Times noted, “Though the decision concerned arbitrations, it appeared to provide businesses with a way to avoid class-action lawsuits in court. All they need do, the decision suggested, is use standard-form contracts that require two things: that disputes be raised only through the informal mechanism of arbitration and that claims be brought one by one.”

    In May 10 “newsletter” produced by Foley & Lardner LLP, John Douglas suggests that big employers should take advantage of the Concepcion opinion, and notes that the same conservative majority appears ready to continue protecting corporate interests, citing recent oral argument in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes involving the nation’s largest worker class-action lawsuit alleging discrimination against the retailing giant.  

    Douglas writes:

    Based on the behavior of the Justices during the oral argument [in Wal-Mart v. Dukes] of the case (http://tinyurl.com/3g4sxjk), it is already expected that the Supreme Court's upcoming decision involving a nationwide class action against Wal-Mart may throw some sand in the gears of a current juggernaut of class actions already attempting to raise claims of systemic discrimination based on sex and race. AT&T Mobility does the same thing. Particularly in the area of wage and hour class actions, AT&T Mobility should provide some long-awaited music for the ears of employers swamped by wave after wave of wage and hour class actions raising ever more technical, and “creative,” legal theories.

    How is this? Simply put, at least potentially, every employer big enough to face significant class action litigation risk (generally those with more than a couple dozen employees) can now have its employees sign an agreement to arbitrate as a condition of employment — and furthermore, require that any claim brought in arbitration be an individual one.

    As noted here earlier, Constitutional law scholar and professor Erwin Chemerinsky in a piece for the Los Angeles Times blasted the Concepcion majority as “favoring the interests of businesses over consumers, employees and others suffering injuries.”