Geoffrey R. Stone

  • January 7, 2015

    by Geoffrey R. Stone. He is the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law for the University of Chicago, the former ACS Board Chair and current Co-Chair of the Board of Advisors for the ACS Chicago Lawyer Chapter, and a Co-Faculty Advisor for the University of Chicago Law School ACS Student Chapter

    *This post originally appeared on the Huffington Post.


    In light of recent events that have tested the commitment of colleges and universities across the nation to free and open discourse on campus, University of Chicago President Robert J. Zimmer appointed a faculty committee, chaired by me, to prepare a statement articulating the University of Chicago's commitment "to free, robust, and uninhibited debate and deliberation among all members of the University's community."

    After carefully reviewing the University's history, examining events at other institutions, and consulting a broad range of individuals both inside and outside the University of Chicago, the committee crafted the following statement, which "reflects the long-standing and distinctive values of the University of Chicago and affirms the importance of maintaining and, indeed, celebrating those values for the future." I thought it might be instructive to share this statement more generally.

    From its very founding, the University of Chicago has dedicated itself to the preservation and celebration of the freedom of expression as an essential element of the University's culture. In 1902, in his address marking the University's decennial, President William Rainey Harper declared that "the principle of complete freedom of speech on all subjects has from the beginning been regarded as fundamental in the University of Chicago" and that "this principle can neither now nor at any future time be called in question."

    Thirty years later, a student organization invited William Z. Foster, the Communist Party's candidate for President, to lecture on campus. This triggered a storm of protest from critics both on and off campus. To those who condemned the University for allowing the event, President Robert M. Hutchins responded that "our students . . . should have freedom to discuss any problem that presents itself." He insisted that the "cure" for ideas we oppose "lies through open discussion rather than through inhibition." On a later occasion, Hutchins added that "free inquiry is indispensable to the good life, that universities exist for the sake of such inquiry, [and] that without it they cease to be universities."

  • September 26, 2014

    by Paul Guequierre. This post is part of our 2014 Constitution Day symposium.

    In terms of constitutional law, it might seem these days like we take two steps forward and then two steps back. Last year we saw significant victories for marriage equality in the Supreme Court opinions of Hollingsworth v. Perry and U.S. v. Windsor, but the day after the high court issued those opinions, it dealt a major blow to Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder. We have conservative activist judges and a conservative activist movement hell-bent on reframing the Constitution and what it stands for. Last week we celebrated Constitution Day, the 227th anniversary of the singing of the Constitution. And as we near the end of Constitution month, it’s worth taking a look back at what the Constitution means and where we are going.

    Three years ago, legal scholars  Geoffrey R. Stone and William P. Marshall wrote in an ACS Issue Brief titled “The Framers’ Constitution: Toward a Theory of Principled Constitutionalism,” that “The Framers of the American Constitution were visionaries. They designed our Constitution to endure. They sought not only to address the specific challenges facing the nation during their lifetimes, but to establish the foundational principles that would sustain and guide the nation into an always uncertain future.

  • September 26, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    Harry Enten of FiveThirtyEight challenges the assertion that someone like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg could not be confirmed to the Supreme Court today.

    In the New Republic, Yishai Schwartz looks at the possible cases the Supreme Court could hear on same-sex marriage and argues the Court should follow the lead of the U.S. Court for the Tenth Circuit.

    The current Supreme Court is primarily concerned with protecting majority rights argues Garrett Epps for The Atlantic.

    Geoffrey R. Stone writes for The Daily Beast on the mixed legacy, particularly on issues of civil liberties, of Eric Holder.

    In Slate, Jamelle Bouie presents a more positive message of Eric Holder’s record, and argues that the partisan environment was his major challenge. 

  • September 25, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    The Constitutional Accountability Center offers a review of Chief Justice John Roberts’ tenure on the Court with an introductory chapter penned by Brianne Gorod.

    Amy Davidson argues in The New Yorker that Democrats should stop focusing on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s retirement.  

    Geoffrey R. Stone finds evidence of a more politically polarized Supreme Court in The Huffington Post.

    In Rolling Stone, Tim Dickinson profiles the Koch brothers and how they acquired both their fortune and political influence.

    The Editorial Board of The New York Times decries the long lines at polling places in black and Hispanic neighborhoods, arguing that these areas are systematically deprived of resources. 

  • September 9, 2014
    Guest Post

    by Geoffrey R. Stone. He is the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law for the University of Chicago, the former ACS Board Chair and current Co-Chair of the Board of Advisors for the ACS Chicago Lawyer Chapter, and a Co-Faculty Advisor for the University of Chicago Law School ACS Student Chapter

    *This post originally appeared on the Huffington Post. 

    In the context of ongoing deliberations over a proposed amendment to the Constitution to authorize the government to enact laws regulating campaign expenditures and contributions, a sharp, even bitter, rift has emerged between different generations of the ACLU's leadership over the ACLU's understanding of the First Amendment. The rift is not about whether to adopt the proposed constitutional amendment (neither side of the intra-ACLU debate has endorsed it), but about the ACLU's position on the constitutionality of campaign finance reform today.

    The current leadership of the ACLU takes a strong pro-free speech position that, like the position of Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts, looks askance at most forms of campaign finance regulation that would limit the freedom of individuals to spend as much as they want in the political process to advance their political beliefs.

    The six individuals who led the ACLU from 1962 to 1993 endorse a rather different view. In a letter sent on September 4 to the leadership of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, they embraced a position that, like the position of Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, recognizes that limitations on campaign expenditures and contributions may be necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the democratic process.