Access to Justice

  • August 27, 2013
    Guest Post


    by Scott Michelman, attorney, Public Citizen Litigation Group Michelman wrote the plaintiffs’ successful petition to appeal in Roach v. T.L. Cannon, and will brief and argue the case before the Second Circuit.

    When big corporations have a legal problem, they usually have no shortage of legal help - from lawyers on their own payroll or from large law firms to whom they pay hundreds of dollars an hour.

    When ordinary wage-earners have a legal problem - such as being underpaid at work - obtaining relief can be a bigger challenge. Most people can't afford to hire a big law firm, and even if the amount of a legal dispute is significant to the individual, it may not be large enough to entice a for-profit lawyer to take the case.

    One of our system's most important tools for leveling the playing field and providing access to the courts is the class action. This device enables people who have been wronged in a similar way to join together to pursue relief in court. Even if the value of the case to each individual is small, the aggregation of the claims makes the case big enough for a lawyer to pursue it.

  • August 5, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Brandon L. Garrett. Since the 2011 publication of Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong, Professor Garrett has written widely on issues of criminal procedure, forensic science, and the law. Below, he outlines three recent Supreme Court rulings whose importance has been overshadowed by the term’s several high profile and historic decisions. This piece is cross-posted on the Harvard University Press Blog.

    With the past Term’s Supreme Court’s decisions behind us, commentators, scholars, and judges, are still processing the implications of the major decisions on race, voting rights, and same sex marriage. Understandably less noticed have been three decisions with real implications for criminal justice. In cases concerning the procedural barriers to relief when evidence of innocence arises after conviction, the expanded collection and storage of DNA, and the conduct of police interrogations, the Court issued rulings that bear on the accuracy of our criminal justice system.

    First, the Court continues to recognize that innocence should be an important consideration for federal judges reviewing prisoners’ habeas petitions. In McQuiggan v. Perkins, the Court recognized for the first time that evidence of a prisoner’s innocence can provide an exception to the restrictive one-year statute of limitations imposed in 1996 by Congress in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). However, the Court somewhat gratuitously emphasized that this innocence exception would be “severely confined” and that the class of prisoners able to show that a jury presented with new evidence would be likely not to convict may be quite small.

  • August 2, 2013
    Guest Post
    Harry Baumgarten is a Juris Doctor and Master of Public Policy Candidate at Georgetown University where he serves as the ACS Chapter President. He also currently serves as a summer law clerk at Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP and the National Whistleblowers Center.
     
    If the debate over Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden has taught us anything, it is that the term whistleblower still carries with it undeserved negative connotations of greed, spite, narcissism and disloyalty. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, whistleblowers are by and large highly principled individuals with an undying loyalty to the truth and public welfare— frequently at great personal cost.
     
    President Obama acknowledged as much in 2009, stating that, “[o]ften the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and speaking out.” Such was the case for FBI whistleblower Fred Whitehurst who, while serving as head of the FBI crime labs, alerted the public to widespread evidence contamination that contributed to the wrongful conviction of an untold amount of people and the complete perversion of justice. The case of Fred Whitehurst reveals that for a society based upon the rule of law and public accountability, nothing is nobler than lawfully reporting violations of the public trust. This is and has always been a fundamental precept of our national ethos.
  • July 25, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Brian Korpics, Law Fellow at the Environmental Law Institute

    For three decades, the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) has enhanced parties’ ability to hold government agencies accountable for their actions and inaction. EAJA allows individuals, small businesses and nonprofits to recover attorney fees from the federal government. Fee awards are available only in cases where plaintiffs prevail and the government cannot demonstrate that its legal position was “substantially justified.”The law is used to vindicate a variety of federal rights, including access to Veterans Affairs and Social Security disability benefits, as well as to secure statutory environmental protections: it promotes public involvement in laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. EAJA also helps deter government misconduct and encourages all parties, not just those with resources to hire legal counsel, to assert their rights. The lawhas generally enjoyed bipartisan support since its enactment in 1980.

  • July 3, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Professor Anthony F. Renzo. Professor Renzo is teaching Constitutional Rights at the University of New Mexico School of Law.

    The close of the latest term of the Roberts Court provided more evidence of the conservative majority’s interest in protecting corporate America and government officials from being held accountable for violating the rights of everyday Americans. This includes hostility to challenges to abusive and unconstitutional actions by the federal government in its perpetual war on terror and the massive spying network that this war has spawned.

    The prime example from the latest term is the high court’s opinion in Clapper v. Amnesty International, which slammed the courthouse doors on a challenge to the broad and unchecked spying powers authorized by Congress in the 2008 Amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)(50 U.S.C. § 1881a.)  That Amendment, §1881a, vastly expands the government’s electronic surveillance powers by authorizing sweeping wiretaps even if the targets are not foreign agents or linked directly to terrorism. These powers include dragnet type surveillance operations of large categories of phone or email addresses that are not limited to any one individual or any particular place. While the statute limits targets to “non-U.S. persons,” the private conversations of those targets with American citizens and residents are not excluded from its scope. In any event, to the extent the statute imposes any meaningful limitations on the scope of the surveillance it authorizes, these limitations do not have the force of law because §1881a eliminates the requirement of a judicial warrant based on individualized probable cause. In effect, §1881a  strips the FISA Court of its checking power, replacing independent judicial review with a certification process that effectively makes the assertions of the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence conclusive evidence of the legality of the Executive’s own spying operations with no meaningful judicial oversight or constitutional scrutiny.