ACS Issue Brief

  • March 5, 2012

    by Nicole Flatow

    A bipartisan duo of law professors emphasized the urgent need for judicial nominations reform in The New York Times this week.

    In a proposal featured in The Times’ “Sunday Dialogue,” the University of Minnesota’s Richard Painter and the University of North Carolina’s Michael Gerhardt lament the “judicial vacancy crisis on our federal courts,” and summarize the reform proposal laid out in their American Constitution Society Issue Brief, “Extraordinary Circumstances: The Legacy of the Gang of 14 and a Proposal for Judicial Nominations Reform.”

    “President Obama has had a lower percentage of his judicial nominees confirmed by the Senate than any other recent president at this point in his term,” they write in The Times. "Filibusters, which have historically been used to block legislation and can be sustained by as few as 41 senators, are part of the problem." 

    Gerhardt and Painter point out that Obama, recognizing the severity of the obstruction problem, recently offered his own proposal for nominations reform: require up-or-down votes on all nominees within 90 days (this proposal was immediately endorsed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid).

    If the Senate adopted this proposal, it would necessarily eliminate much of the long-term obstruction contributing to the vacancy crisis. But, in the event that the Senate is looking for reform with a bit more wiggle room, Gerhardt and Painter have another option for the body to consider:

  • June 14, 2011

    In the midst of new objections from some Republican members of Congress to a patent reform bill recently approved by the House Judiciary Committee, ACS has released a new Issue Brief on the measure at issue in the bill, “Short Term Pain for Long Term Gain: Why Congress Should Stop Diverting U.S. Patent and Trademark Office User Fees.”

    In the Issue Brief, American Continental Group, Inc. Partner Marla Page Grossman explains the importance of ending fee diversion, a practice in which funds paid by patent and trademark applicants are diverted to other programs and agencies “entirely unrelated to the [U.S. Patent and Trademark Office],” significantly slowing down the approval process and thwarting innovation.

    A provision to end fee diversion is contained in the America Invents Act, which was passed by the Senate and approved by the House Judiciary Committee with broad bipartisan support. But the provision encountered new opposition just last week, when House Appropriations Chairman Harold Rogers and House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan sent a letter to House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith opposing the fee diversion provision because it would hand “the Congressional power of the purse” to the Obama administration.

    In the days that followed, “[i]t was Republican leaders who fired back,” Grossman explains, with Rep. Lamar Smith responding that “contrary to putting the USPTO on auto-pilot, H.R. 1249 would actually promote accountability and transparency, creating more channels for oversight than currently exist,” and Sen. Tom Coburn asserting, “[w]e cannot have true patent reform without ending fee diversion and providing the PTO with a permanent, consistent source of funding” and that the “power of the purse does not provide Congress authority of non-taxpayer funds.”

    The Chamber of Commerce also expressed public support for the fee diversion provision this week, and more than 150 companies, schools and groups, including GE and Apple, submitted a letter reiterating the necessity of this provision.

    In her Issue Brief, Grossman explains the importance of encouraging innovation through the patent system to spur needed economic growth, demonstrates the inefficiency and unfairness that comes from diverting patent fees paid by users, and presents a number of ways in which the USPTO could maintain control of their own fees, the best of which “is incorporated in this Congress‘s patent reform bills.”

    She concludes:

    USPTO fee diversion must stop, and must be stopped now, to ensure that the USPTO can engage in the stable, long-term planning necessary for the issuance of timely, high-quality patents. The best legislative solutions will necessitate congressional appropriators prioritizing U.S. innovation, jobs and the economy over “inside the Beltway” politics. But good policies often come with painful politics. If Congress can handle a little pain in the short term, the nation will likely be rewarded with a more efficient USPTO and national prosperity over the long term.

    Read Grossman’s Issue Brief here and read a previous guest post by Grossman on this issue here.

  • June 7, 2011

    With attacks on workers’ rights proliferating both at the state and national level, ACS released two new Issue Briefs today on the critical importance of strong laws that protect workers.

    In “No Rights Without a Remedy: The Long Struggle for Effective National Labor Relations Act Remedies,” Penn State Dickinson School of Law professor Ellen Dannin responds to recent allegations that the National Labor Relations Board improperly allowed a workers’ rights complaint against Boeing to go forward, asserting instead that the National Labor Relations Act contains broad workers’ rights guarantees. Dannin writes: 

    At a moment when the NLRB is being inaccurately criticized for being overly expansive in its decision to issue a complaint against Boeing, I argue that the problem is not that the NLRA is being interpreted too expansively, but rather the opposite—for too long, the Act has been interpreted in a manner that robs it of the flexibility and robust array of remedies intended by those who passed this landmark legislation. 

    A second Issue Brief, “The Assault on Public Sector Collective Bargaining: Real Harms and Imaginary Benefits,” addresses attempts by state lawmakers, such as those in Wisconsin and Ohio, to gut collective bargaining laws.

    “The radical and reactionary amendments to public sector statutes some states have adopted will thus not help budgets, but they will hurt working people and public services,” writes University of Toledo College of Law School Professor Joseph E. Slater.

    He continues:

  • April 9, 2010
    Guest Post

    By Deborah J. Vagins & Erika Wood. Vagins is Legislative Counsel for the Washington Legislative Office of the American Civil Liberties Union; Wood is Deputy Director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.

    In our recent Issue Brief for the American Constitution Society, The Democracy Restoration Act: Addressing a Centuries-Old Injustice, we examine an ongoing and deeply problematic barrier to the fundamental right to vote for millions of Americans. Currently, 5.3 million American citizens are denied this right because of a criminal conviction in their past. Nearly 4 million of those who are disfranchised are out of prison, working, paying taxes, and raising families, yet they are without a political voice.

    With their roots in the Jim Crow era, many of these laws were originally enacted as a way to prevent African Americans from exercising their newly-won rights under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Their intended effects continue today. While 2.5% of the total U.S. voting age population is currently disfranchised, over 13% of African-American men are denied the right to vote on account of past criminal convictions -- this rate is seven times the national average.

    Although in the past decade there have been significant reforms of these laws in the states, there is a compelling need for a federal standard. Some states disfranchise persons on parole or probation while others permanently disfranchise some or all who have completed their sentences. Several states even deny voting rights to persons who have incurred legal financial obligations or have only been convicted of misdemeanors.