Civil rights

  • December 11, 2013
    Guest Post

    by David M. Brodsky, principal of Brodsky ADR LLC, and Chair of the ACS Board of Directors.

    As new Board chair, and on behalf of the ACS Board, staff, and extended family, I want to bid a fond farewell to retiring Board members Jay Eisenhofer, Faith Gay, Ted Shaw, and Steve Susman, each a legal legend and significant contributor to ACS's growth and impact, and each a lifelong member of the ACS family.

    Jay Eisenhofer joined the ACS Board in 2009 and is the co-founder of one of the most successful law firms in the country, regularly representing major pension and investment funds and others in shareholder class and derivative litigation for the protection of shareholders. Jay is consistently ranked as one of the leading securities and corporate governance litigators in the country. On a personal level, Jay has been a generous and committed supporter of ACS, as well as numerous other organizations. Jay chaired the Judicial Nominations Task Force and helped make it a vibrant and effective player in the efforts to counter the obstructionism of judicial nominations and educate the public about the need for filling longstanding judicial vacancies. We will truly miss Jay's always practical advice and his enormous energy but we know we aren't losing his relationship with ACS, as we are very pleased to have invited him to join the Board of Advisors.

    Faith Gay joined the ACS Board in 2006 and is Co-Chair of the National Trial Practice Group at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP. Over her 25-plus years as a litigator, she has been repeatedly recognized as one of the leading trial, appellate and white collar lawyers in the United States. Her practice is divided between complex civil litigation and corporate governance/white collar matters. She has also devoted significant time and energy to public interest litigation, such as her successful defense of a constitutional amendment establishing a state minimum wage before the Florida Supreme Court, as well as immigration and housing matters on a pro bono basis. She played an equally important role on the ACS Board and, especially, our Annual Conventions, devoting time and her enormous creative energy to making each of them a memorable event. We will miss her ideas and her energy but are grateful that she has agreed to join our Board of Advisors.

  • November 21, 2013
     
    Editor’s Note: On Tuesday, November 19, ACS held a panel discussion on constitutional protections of privacy in a time of rapid technological innovation and increasing surveillance, featuring Dahlia Lithwick of Slate, Chris Calabrese of the ACLU, Stephen Vladeck of American University Washington College of Law and others. You can watch video of the event here.
     
    These days, according to an array of public interest groups, civil liberties appear to be taking a hit from a growing and seemingly unwieldy national security apparatus.
     
    U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who misled Congress on domestic surveillance, attempted to quote Casablanca at a recent hearing about surveillance abroad. “My God, there’s gambling going on here!” he joked, mocking the umbrage of Senate Intelligence Committee who are regularly offered closed-door briefings on the government’s mass surveillance programs, even if they don’t always attend.
     
    And the Obama administration, which has touted itself as “the most open and transparent in history,” was forced into sunlight following extensive leaks by former C.I.A. analyst Edward Snowden.
     
    Potential harms to privacy do not end there. For example, students of all ages are being subjected to what the headmaster of Phillips Academy calls “National Security Agency-style surveillance.” Large corporations are accepting handouts from the government in exchange for turning over sensitive information. And even journalists, historically in the vanguard of free speech fights, are suggesting tools like anonymity are “a big mistake.”
     
  • November 14, 2013
    Guest Post
    by Valerie Schneider, Assistant Professor of Law and Director of Fair Housing Clinic, Howard University School of Law
     
    Less than one year after the Supreme Court ended its term with the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, it is clear that at least four of the members of the current Supreme Court (the number needed for a case to be heard by the highest court) are eager to limit the reach of another pillar of the Civil Rights legislation from the 1960s -- the Fair Housing Act.
     
    In the past two years, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in two Fair Housing Act cases, both of which would have required the Supreme Court to determine whether acts that are not intentionally discriminatory, but still have a disproportionate negative impact on minority communities, may be prohibited by the Fair Housing Act.  Each of these cases -- first Magner v. Gallagher and then, just this week, Township of Mt. Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens In Action, Inc. – settled just weeks before oral arguments were scheduled.
     
    Those who would have liked the case to move forward argue that, unless plaintiffs can prove that a defendant harbored racial animus or intended to discriminate, the law should not recognize that discrimination has taken place. This proposition is countered by widely accepted social science, not to mention human experiences, that indicates that intent actually has very little to do with whether discrimination occurred.  Regardless, to those displaced by discriminatory redevelopment decisions or lending policies, it is little comfort that the decision-makers may have had no conscious intent to cause harm based on race. What is in the mind of those engaged in discriminatory actions is of no comfort to the victims of discrimination and should be of limited import under the Fair Housing Act.
     
  • September 6, 2013

    by Samantha Batel, James Colligan, Nicandro Iannacci and Jane Wang Williams, the 2013 ACS Fellows. Also see the ACSblog’s symposium on the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.

    On the morning of August 24, tens of thousands of people assembled to commemorate the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. That march, which sought to secure civil and economic rights for all Americans, paved the way for the modern civil rights era. Those who gathered last month reflected on how far we have come since Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his famous “I Have a Dream” speech, but even more attention was given to the progress we have yet to make.

    Dr. King and others in the Civil Rights Movement accomplished a remarkable feat, setting a standard for equality that would resonate not just with African-Americans but with all Americans facing injustice. This year’s march embodied this living movement, acknowledging the struggles of the present while remembering the victories of the past. Speeches and signs emphasized that there is still much more to be done for U.S. minorities, highlighting immigration reform, mass incarceration, LGBT rights and educational equity.

    The contemporary civil rights movement echoed its predecessor as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, borrowing rhetoric from Dr. King, emphasized “the fierce urgency of now.” Representative John Lewis, the youngest speaker at the original march 50 years ago, also called the crowd to action. “You cannot stand by. You cannot sit down. You got to stand up. Speak up. Speak out, and get in the way,” he said. His comments echoed those he gave earlier this year at the ACS National Convention.

  • September 3, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Sam Kamin, Director, Constitutional Rights & Remedies Program and Professor, University of Denver Strum College of Law

    The Department of Justice recently announced how it would enforce federal marijuana law in those states seeking to legalize marijuana under their own laws. In a memo to United States Attorneys around the country, Deputy Attorney General James Cole set out the priorities that govern the federal government’s enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act’s (CSA) marijuana prohibition. The government, Cole wrote, was primarily concerned with the distribution of marijuana to minors, the involvement in marijuana trafficking of organized crime, the distribution of more serious drugs along with marijuana, and the transfer of marijuana from states where the drug was legal under state law to those where it was not.  So long as those states seeking to legalize marijuana had robust regulatory regimes in place to address these concerns, businesses acting in conformance with state law would generally not be an appropriate target of federal enforcement, whether criminal or civil.

    The DOJ memo marks a major change in direction for the federal government. As recently as 2010, Attorney General Holder had made clear to the people of California that the federal government would not countenance a state decriminalizing and regulating recreational marijuana manufacture and sale. Furthermore, previous enforcement memoranda from the DOJ had drawn a distinction between legitimate medical use of marijuana on the one hand (which the government stated would not be an enforcement priority) and large-scale commercial production (which remained a valid target for federal prosecution). The 2013 Cole Memo makes clear that the size and for-profit nature of marijuana establishments was but one factor to be considered by United States Attorneys in determining whether to enforce the CSA in states that had sought to legalize marijuana. 

    For state officials in Washington and Colorado – which both passed marijuana legalization initiatives in 2012 – this word from the DOJ was long-overdue good news; with this announcement, the states could complete the final stages of their marijuana regulations and begin licensing businesses to open their doors in early 2014.

    But the memo can do only so much to alleviate the uncertainty and confusion caused by the continuing federal marijuana prohibition. In the first place, the memorandum is a unilateral act of the executive and can always be undone by other unilateral executive actions; when a new presidential administration takes over in January 2017, there is no telling how it will view the federal government’s marijuana enforcement priorities.