Erwin Chemerinsky

  • April 29, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the School of Law, Distinguished Professor of Law, and the Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law, University of California, Irvine School of Law

    *This post is part of ACSblog’s symposium on the consolidated marriage equality cases before the Supreme Court.

    Nothing in the almost two and a half hours of oral arguments altered my prediction that at the end of June 2015 the Supreme Court will hold that state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage deny equal protection to gays and lesbians. The only question is whether it will be 5-4 or 6-3 to declare unconstitutional laws prohibiting marriage equality and whether the opinion will be written by Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Anthony Kennedy.

    Why the certainty of this prediction? To begin with, the states that are defending their bans on same-sex marriage – Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee –failed to articulate any legitimate justification for their laws. In reality, the laws prohibiting same-sex marriage stem from a moral condemnation of homosexuality, but the Supreme Court has been explicit that it will not accept such a justification for laws discriminating against gays and lesbians.

    So the states are trying to defend their laws by stressing tradition and the historic definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. But a tradition of discrimination is not an acceptable reason in the courts for continuing to discriminate. In 1967, in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a state law that prohibited interracial marriage. Such laws had existed throughout American history, even in California until the 1940s. But the Court rightly gave no deference to this tradition and rejected the argument that the definition of marriage should be left to the political process.

    The primary argument made by the states is that marriage is linked to procreation and that only opposite sex couples can procreate without artificial assistance. Michigan, for example, declares in its brief:   “Separating marriage from procreation dramatically changes the state’s interest in the institution. . . .  It is the state’s interest to encourage opposite-sex couples to enter into a permanent, exclusive union within which to have and raise children that motivates state marriage laws.”

  • February 27, 2015

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Yes, King v. Burwell is fundamentally a case dealing with a statutory matter, not a lofty constitutional claim, but at the end of the day one must not forget that this statutory-based case, if handled improperly by the Supreme Court, will harm millions of Americans, making economic inequalities worse in this country and sending the nation’s health care system into chaos. That’s according to Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law and one of the nation’s leading legal scholars, who along with Yale Law School Professor Abbe Gluck were featured in a February 26 ACS briefing on King, which the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in on March 4.

    “I think it’s important for us to focus on who is going to suffer from a result of this [a ruling by the Supreme Court that would buy the Obamacare challengers’ argument],” Chemerinsky said toward the end of the discussion. “There are millions of individuals who will no longer have health insurance because they won’t be able to afford it without” the tax credits. Such an outcome would bring down the Affordable Care Act, leaving millions without health care coverage and millions more with higher costs to keep it, he said.

    Gluck noted the highly politicized nature of King, but focused on the statutory challenge and the role of the Supreme Court.

    “The case at bottom is about how the Supreme Court is going to do textual interpretation of four words in a two-thousand page law that is very complex. The challengers want the Court to look at these four words – the words are ‘established by the state,’ … in a vacuum, and the government is saying just as the court has done time and time again … that you have to look at statutory language in context and against the backdrop of all of the other legal principles, including federalism and agency deference that the Court has traditionally used to interpret statutes.”

    Gluck said there is a lot of extra textual narrative and history being invoked in the case, but not by the government. “There is a whole blogosphere set of activity, that is aimed to construct a narrative to convince the Court that what the challengers are arguing is true – that it is actually possible that Congress could have written a statute into which it sowed the seeds of its own destruction,” Gluck continued.

    Without that narrative, Gluck said, “it is impossible to think that any court would buy that story because it is so destructive to the statute as a whole and it is implausible to think Congress would have ever intended it.”

    Listen to the entire discussion here. For more on King v. Burwell, see Chemerinsky’s recent ABA Journal piece and Gluck’s Feb. 27 article for Politico Magazine.

  • November 21, 2014
    Guest Post

    by Erwin Chemerinsky and Samuel Kleiner. Chemerinsky is Dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law; Kleiner is a fellow at the Yale Law Information Society Project.

    In the face of an ongoing humanitarian crisis as families are broken up by deportations, President Obama’s bold executive action is legally permissible and morally necessary. The angry Republican rhetoric is misguided both as a matter of constitutional law and as a matter of desirable social policy.

    In terms of the Constitution, President Obama drew a careful distinction based on what he can and can't do without congressional action. The President cannot bestow citizenship on individuals except as authorized by law. President Obama’s executive order does not attempt to do this. 

    But what a president may do is set enforcement priorities, choosing who to prosecute or who to deport. No government brings prosecutions against all who violate the law. Resources make that impossible and there are laws on the books that should not be enforced. Nor has any administration, Democratic or Republican, sought to deport every person who is illegally in the United States.   For humanitarian reasons or because of foreign policy considerations or for lack of resources, the government often chooses to focus deportations along certain criteria.

    In fact, as recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court in United States v. Arizona recognized that an inherent part of executive control over foreign policy is the ability of the President to choose whether or not to bring deportation proceedings. On numerous other occasions, the Supreme Court and lower federal courts have recognized prosecutorial discretion to decide when to bring criminal prosecutions or immigration enforcement actions.

    The overblown Republican rhetoric fails to recognize that what President Obama announced was enforcement priorities. He has instructed the executive branch, which is under his control, to prioritize deportation proceedings against felons and those who pose a public danger, but not to deport parents of young children who are United States citizens and who present no threat.   Such discretion is clearly and unquestionably part of the president’s power.     

    Nor is there any realistic chance that any court will find otherwise. No one is likely to have standing to challenge President Obama’s policy. And even if a court were to address the issue, the law is well established that presidents have discretion to decide whether to prosecute or bring deportation actions. Contrary to the Republican rhetoric, President Obama is violating no law and is acting within his constitutional authority.

  • October 22, 2014
    Guest Post

    by Jason Steed, Associate at Bell Nunnally, and president of the Dallas-Ft. Worth Lawyer Chapter

    *This is part one of a three part series.

    There’s been a lot of talk lately about term limits for Supreme Court justices. Norm Ornstein brought renewed attention to the issue in May. Erwin Chemerinsky has proposed term limits in his new book, The Case Against the Supreme Court. And a recent poll asked about it, and shows nearly 70% of the public thinks term limits are a good idea.

    I was invited to write a blog post on this topic because I have a short article forthcoming in the December issue of The Federal Lawyer, which also makes a case for term limits. But unlike Ornstein and Chemerinsky, my primary focus isn’t the politics or ideology of the Court. My focus is on the 1968 presidential election.

    In a nutshell, a confluence of circumstances turned the 1968 election into a watershed for the Supreme Court. The newly elected Nixon was suddenly able to appoint four new justices to the Court—in his first term—transforming the progressive Warren Court into the moderately conservative Burger Court, and setting a trajectory (through the appointment of William Rehnquist) for the much more conservative Court that we have today. (You’ll have to read the article when it comes out, to get my full take on the story.)

    Yes, this transformation of the Court—politically and ideologically—has been deeply troubling for progressives over the last 40 years. But it would be a mistake, when making an argument for term limits, to spend too much time complaining about the longevity of the Court’s rightward bent. Imposing term limits will require a constitutional amendment, which will require support from both sides. And you can’t get support from both sides if you’re complaining about something that one side really, really likes.

  • September 30, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    Robert Barnes of The Washington Post discusses Erwin Chemerinsky’s new book and bold criticisms of the Supreme Court. Chemerinsky recently contributed to the ACSblog Book Talk to discuss his work.

    In The Atlantic, Dawinder Sidhu looks at the next religious freedom case facing the Supreme Court and how it will test how the justices apply Hobby Lobby to minority religions.

    Adam Liptak writes in The New York Times that an answer from the Supreme Court on same-sex marriage is likely to come next June.

    Bloomberg writer Greg Stohr reports that the Supreme Court has blocked an early voting period in Ohio and reinstated voting limits the state passed this year.

    John Nichols writes for The Nation on the Ohio early voting decision and what it says about the Supreme Court’s priorities.