November 2011

  • November 22, 2011
    Guest Post

    By Courtney Joslin, a professor at UC Davis School of Law


    Last week, the California Supreme Court again waded into the issue of marriage for same-sex couples. The California Supreme Court issued an advisory opinion explaining the rights under California state law of the official initiative Proponents to defend the measure in court when state officials decline to do so. What is the impact of the court’s opinion on the pending Perry v. Brown litigation and where does the case go from here?

    Standing

    In May 2009, two same-sex couples sued various California officials in federal district court challenging California’s same-sex marriage ban – Proposition 8 – under the U.S. Constitution. All of the state officials refused to defend Prop 8 (although the Attorney General was the only named defendant to argue affirmatively that Prop 8 is unconstitutional). When the official Proponents of Prop 8 sought to intervene in the litigation, no party opposed their intervention, and the court granted the motion. The Proponents were the only parties who defended Prop 8 in the district court.

    In August 2010, federal district judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Prop 8 violated the U.S. Constitution. The Prop 8 proponents appealed this decision; no state official sought further review. Commentators and the Ninth Circuit itself questioned whether the Proponents had standing to appeal the decision in the absence of the state defendants. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has not definitively resolved the issue, there is language in prior Supreme Court decisions suggesting that the standing of ballot initiative proponents may turn on their rights under state law. Accordingly, after oral argument, the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to the California Supreme Court: “[w]hether under [California law], the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative’s validity or the authority to assert the State’s interest in the initiative validity[.]”

    On November 17, 2011, the California Supreme Court unanimously answered the question in the affirmative. This conclusion, the court explained, was necessary to protect the integrity of the initiative process. A contrary result, the court said, would permit government officials indirectly to “veto or invalidate an initiative measure that has been approved by the voters.”

    The California Supreme Court’s conclusion that the proponents would be permitted to defend the measure in state court was not surprising to anyone who had been following the case. What was at least somewhat surprising, however, was the fact that the court not only purported to explain the rights of ballot initiative sponsors as a matter of state law, but that it went further and offered its assessment of whether they had standing as a matter of federal law. In its analysis, the California Supreme Court assumed that Supreme Court case law addressing the standing of legislative leaders is equally applicable to initiative sponsors; that is, that initiative sponsors have Article III standing if state law authorizes them to represent or act on behalf of the state’s interest. 

  • November 22, 2011

    by Nicole Flatow

    ”I’m here as the official representative of the dark side,” Rutgers University law professor Earl Maltz said during a recent event commemorating the landmark gender equality Supreme Court decision Reed v. Reed.

    Maltz does not think Reed was righty decided, because, per his “originalist” approach, the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment did not contemplate that the equal protection provision would prohibit sex discrimination.

    But U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the featured speaker at the event, had an answer for Maltz’s brand of originalism, highlighted by ABC News.

  • November 21, 2011

    by Nicole Flatow

    Proposed legislation advanced in the House last week that would limit reimbursement of costs and attorneys’ fees in lawsuits seeking to hold the federal government accountable.

    The Government Litigation Savings Act is being called a “de facto bar to the courthouse door for low income citizens and other parties that do not have access to free legal counsel” by a coalition of 25 public interest legal groups.

     “Contrary to the title of the bill, H.R. 1996 is a thinly disguised effort to prohibit litigation against the government by the needy and public interest groups,” said Rep. John Conyers Jr. before the House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to approve the bill.

    The measure seeks to roll back some provisions of the Equal Access to Justice Act, enacted in 1980 with bipartisan support to narrow the disparity in resources when the “little guy” goes up against the federal government in a legal action, by granting the costs of litigation and attorneys’ fees to citizens, nonprofits and small businesses when they can show that the federal government’s position was not “substantially justified.”

    "One of the key insights of the legislators who gave birth to EAJA was recognition of a relationship between encouraging individuals and entities to challenge unreasonable governmental action and the positive effect that such challenges have in implementing public policy for the benefit of Americans generally," explains Brian Wolfman, co-director of Georgetown University Law Center's Institute for Public Representation, in written testimony opposing H.R. 1996.

    But the now-pending bill would roll back several key provisions of the EAJA. It would, among other things, bar lawyers working pro bono from recovering fees, and limit EAJA awards to those with a “direct and personal monetary interest in the civil action,” closing the door to those seeking to vindicate constitutional rights or enforce a right on behalf of the general public, according to a fact sheet by Alliance for Justice, Earthjustice, the Brennan Center for Justice and the National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates.

    “For three decades, veterans, seniors, the disabled, small businesses, and groups from across the ideological spectrum have relied on EAJA to challenge illegal government actions,” explains the fact sheet. 

  • November 20, 2011

    by Jeremy Leaming

    As has been the case for too many involved in the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, so it was at UC Davis, where a group of students engaging in peaceful, political assembly was confronted with excessive use of force by authorities.  

    OWS’s website states, in part, “Such incidents are unfortunately common,” and a “daily reality” of the country’s “marginalized communities.”

    As noted here, police actions to suppress OWS demonstrations have turned brutal in New York City, Boston, and Oakland, among others. The pepper-spraying of a group of University of California, Davis students involved in peaceful OWS protests, was captured on video, showing, as The Huffington Post reports, “the students seated on the ground as a UC Davis police brandishes a red canister of pepper spray, showing it off for the crowd before dousing the seated students in a heavy, thick mist.”

    The university’s chancellor, The New York Times reports, suspended some of the campus officers involved in the incident, and that “students and others affiliated with the Occupy U.C. Davis protests have called for the chancellor’s resignation.

    Glenn Greenwald, for Salon, says the “The now-viral video of police officers in their Robocop costumes sadistically pepper-spraying peaceful, sitting protesters at UC-Davis (details here) shows a police state in its pure form.”

    Greenwald says the brutality against OWS protestors, in demonstrations nationwide, is far too common a response, but highlights some “points to note about this incident,” such as:

    Despite all the rights of free speech and assembly flamboyantly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, the reality is that punishing the exercise of those rights with police force and state violence has been the reflexive response in America for quite some time. As Franke-Ruta put it, “America has a very long history of protests that meet with excessive or violent response, most vividly recorded in the second half of the 20th century.” Digby yesterday recounted a similar though even worse incident aimed at environmental protesters.

    The country’s history of allowing this type of reaction to political protests has been exacerbated, Greenwald continues, by developments “in the post 9/11 world,” such as the government’s aggressive “para-militarization” of the ”nation’s domestic police forces by lavishing them with countless military-style weapons and other war-like technologies, training them in war-zone military tactics, and generally imposing a war mentality on them. Arming domestic police forces with para-military weaponry will ensure their systematic use even in the absence of a Terrorist attack on U.S. soil; they will simply find other, increasingly permissive uses for those weapons."

    See Greenwald’s entire comments here.

    UC Davis Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi said in statement that she feels the students “outrage,” adding she was “deeply saddened that this has happened on our campus ….”

    Meanwhile, others on campus are calling for the chancellor’s resignation. As The Huffington Post notes, an English professor, Nathan Brown, has released an open letter to the chancellor, calling for her resignation. He wrote, "You are responsible for it because this is what happens when UC Chancellors order police onto our campuses to disperse peaceful protesters through the use of force: students get hurt."

    Other commentators note that the brutality against OWS protestors is unlikely to oppress the messages being amplified about the nation’s growing wealth gap and the out-of-control power that Wall Street holds over policymakers.

  • November 18, 2011

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Earlier this week Congress agreed on a drastic cut of funding for the Legal Services Corporation, the nation’s largest provider of civil legal help for low-income people.

    As noted at Daily Kos, the LSC, which helps an ever-growing pool of people, “has fallen under the chopping block of Congress.”

    CLASP, a public advocacy group for the nation’s poor, in a press statement says the House and Senate conferees agreed earlier this week to a nearly 14 percent cut. “The agreement reduced funding for LSC in 2012 to $348 million from $404.19 million in 2011. The last time LSC was funded at $348 million was in 2007,” a statement from CLASP reads.

    The draconian cut comes, of course, as more people are now living in poverty, and much of the nation continues to struggle from aftershocks of the Great Recession. Earlier this year, Daily Kos’ Adam Bonin, an attorney in Philadelphia and former ACS Lawyer Chapter leader, wrote that the proposed cut to LSC funding “would prove to be especially damaging to low-income persons whose health and safety are at risk – the elderly, the victims of domestic violence, the disabled, children, veterans, and others – by denying them access to justice.”

    Following the agreement to cut funding, LSC Board Chair John G. Levi said, “The nation’s poverty population has never been this large, and, as a consequence, requests for civil legal assistance are increasing.” And unless Congress would agree to “restore and enhance” LSC funding, services to low-income persons will dwindle.

    “Many LSC-funded programs,” Levi said, “will have no choice but to lay off staff and reduce the legal assistance they provide low-income Americans.”