As the Supreme Court prepares to hear Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. on Mar. 25, the companies refusing to provide contraception insurance coverage to their employees prepare to “frame their objections narrowly.” Emily Bazelon at Slate reveals “what the religious right really thinks of birth control.”
Jeffrey Thompson, a government contractor, pleaded guilty to funneling large amounts of campaign contributions to several political candidates, including Washington, D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray. Zoe Tillman at Legal Times reports on the growing controversy surrounding Thompson’s trial and the implications for the 2014 mayoral election.
A group of Californians filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court in an effort to “block a city ordinance banning gun ammunition-holders (‘magazines’) that contain more than ten bullets.” Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog breaks down Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale.
A same-sex couple filed for divorce in Alabama, causing a plethora of legal questions to arise in a state that refuses to recognize gay marriage. Brian Lawson of The Huntsville Times describes how the state’s marriage ban is “[leaving] the couple without an easy way to untie the knot.”
At The New York Times, Paul Krugman explains why “taking action to reduce the extreme inequality of 21st-century America would probably increase, not reduce, economic growth.”
Staci Zaretsky at Above the Law comments on the U.S News & World Report 2015 law school rankings.
As same-sex marriage ascends through the judiciary, GOP lawmakers are working ardently to slow its progress. In an effort to “defend their religious liberties,” Republican legislatures across six states have introduced bills that would discriminate against gay couples. Dylan Scott of TPM’s Editor’s Bloghas the story.
The European Union’s stance against the death penalty is influencing the role of capital punishment in America. Matt Ford of The Atlantic explains how the EU’s embargo on the lethal-injection drug sodium thiopental is “changing how America
executes the men and women it sentences to death.”
Writing for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse celebrates the life of the late Yale Law School professor Robert Dahl and his “pathbreaking study of the Supreme Court” as a legal and political institution.
Robert F. Kennedy’s tragic presidential run – he was assassinated June 5, 1968 – was also extraordinary in that a major political figure was trying to focus the nation’s attention on the most vulnerable among us, those living in dire poverty. One of his top aides, Peter Edelman was instrumental in RFK’s efforts to arouse the national conscience about poverty. Edelman is now a Georgetown law school professor and a nationally recognized figure, devoted to improving our society by helping the large numbers of Americans who have for far too long been overlooked.
And, until recently, Peter was also ACS’s Board Chair. His term ended this month, but he remains on the Board. His leadership and guidance as Board Chair were deeply appreciated and we will look forward to his continued partnership with ACS for years to come.
Peter’s illustrious career has included not only his work for RFK, but also as Issues Director for the late Sen. Edward Kennedy’s presidential campaign and service in the U.S. Department of Justice as Special Assistant to Attorney General John Douglas.
But Peter above all, has devoted great amounts of energy and time to fighting poverty. If you’ve not done so, you should read Edelman’s 2012 book, So Rich, So Poor for a compelling, albeit disheartening, examination of why ending poverty in this nation has been a constant uphill battle. Bill Moyers called the book a must-read “for anyone who wants to understand why, in one of the richest nations in the world, millions of people, even those with jobs, are teetering just a medical bill or missed paycheck from disaster.”
We’re grateful Peter has given some of his remarkable energies and talent to support and advance the work of ACS.
by Erik Lampmann, Senior Fellow for Equal Justice, the Roosevelt Institute Campus Network. This post is part of an ACSblog symposium on the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.
In many ways, the March punctuated the Civil Rights Movement. Coming two months after the assassination of NAACP Field Secretary Medgar Evers in Mississippi and one month after a church bombing which led to the death of four young black girls in Birmingham, the convening power of the March was able to unify the voices of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the Congress for Racial Equality (CORE), and the Negro American Labor Council under one banner.
In the face of mainstream media debates on the merits of the March, its aims, and its successes, it’s important to remember the first march 50 years ago was originally conceived as an economic justice mobilization. It’s entirely accurate to argue that the March was situated within the Civil Rights Movement writ-large. That said, it’s perhaps more accurate to focus on the March’s unparalleled critique of economic inequality.
by William E. Forbath, Associate Dean for Research, Lloyd M. Bentsen Chair in Law, University of Texas at Austin School of Law. This post is part of an ACSblog symposium on the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.
Not only conservatives, but we liberals and progressives have forgotten much about the kinds of rights and the kinds of equality demanded by the March on Washington half a century ago today. Conservatives have fastened on the famous line in King’s “I Have a Dream” speech – that one day black children will “be judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character” – and tied the March and King’s “Dream” to their color-blind Constitution. But liberals and progressives also have fashioned a story-line that ties the March to a narrower vision than the one that actually animated the organizers and marchers that day. Our standard accounts tend to slight the links that the March forged between racial equality and economic justice. They say that the March focused on the right to vote and an end to segregation and discrimination in employment, education and public accommodations. In that way, they too suggest that the marchers’ main demands for legal change were met.
For conservatives, the March stood for color-blindness, which is already within our grasp, if all of us only shared the courage of the Chief Justice’s convictions about our over-reaching civil rights laws and doctrines. For liberals and progressives, the March stood for the advances in civil rights embodied in the great civil rights statutes of 1964 and ’65. So, for us, too, if only the venerable 1960s civil rights laws were enforced to the hilt, the “Dream” of 1963 would be within reach.
Our standard liberal accounts, in other words, depict the March as a great landmark in what we have come to depict as the hopeful “early” phase of the civil rights movement, demanding the kinds of laws that Congress soon would enact. Only later – in this familiar “early”/ “later” phase narrative of the civil rights movement – did the civil rights movement “go North” and confront for the first time the “intractable problems” of urban poverty and economic deprivation, on which the movement foundered. This is the narrative that informs such liberal classics as the great “Eyes on the Prize” documentary series; one finds it in most constitutional law casebooks; and it also shapes the contrasts President Obama has drawn between the “economic populism” of the New Deal, with its focus on jobs and economic justice, and the 1960s battle for civic equality and an end to Jim Crow, as the core of what the civil rights movement was about.
In fact, however, economic injustice, joblessness and exploitation were squarely on the March on Washington’s agenda back in 1963. If the March is a landmark of the “early” phase of civil rights movement history – its demands a key source for our accounts of the original, core meaning of the movement’s vision of rights and equality, then we must include economic enfranchisement in the original mix. The March’s demands were riveted on what its organizers called the “twin evils of racism and economic degradation.”