Kent Greenfield

  • March 24, 2014
    Guest Post
    by Kent Greenfield, Professor of Law and Law School Fund Research Scholar, Boston College Law School; Faculty Advisor, Boston College Law School ACS Student Chapter
     
    I bet you’ve never thought of those three things together. Now, thanks to a couple of ACS board members, you have reason to.
     
    One of the dirty secrets about chocolate is that much of the world’s cocoa production, particularly in west Africa, depends on forced child labor. Chocolate makers around the world have long faced allegations that they know of and benefit from widespread human rights violations. Hershey, for example, controls 42 percent of the U.S. chocolate market, admits that its “major sourcing countries” include The Ivory Coast and Ghana, and acknowledges that abusive child labor practices that violate international law are rampant in those countries. (By some accounts, as much as 89 percent of children in the Ivory Coast are involved in cocoa production.) But there is no mechanism to learn whether Hershey and other like companies are complicit in such abuses, nor is there a meaningful way to hold them accountable if so.
     
    But that may be changing, thanks to ACS board member Reuben Guttman and his colleagues at Grant and Eisenhofer. Last week, Grant and Eisenhofer won an important ruling against Hershey in Delaware Chancery Court, when Hershey lost its summary judgment motion in a "books and records" suit brought on behalf of Hershey shareholders who want to learn more about its role in taking advantage of forced child labor.
     
    An early procedural victory in Delaware business court might not look like much at first glance, but it could turn out to be a significant advance in holding corporations accountable for international malfeasance. And if it does, ACS will have played an important role. Indeed, this story showcases the unique capacity of ACS to bring together the ideas of academics with innovative and visionary litigators who can bring those ideas to bear.
     
  • December 18, 2013
    Guest Post
    by Kent Greenfield, Professor of Law and Law Fund Research Scholar, Boston College Law School
     
    Most cases on the Supreme Court’s docket in any given year are not the likes of Windsor, Shelby County, or Fisher. Those get the headlines, of course, and rightly so. But most of of the Court’s caseload is dedicated to answering various arcane questions in eddies of the U.S. Code. By virtue of its position at the top of the judicial hierarchy, one of the Court’s primary jobs — still — is to be the final arbiter of these kinds of questions when the lower courts disagree. Only the most fastidious Court watchers pay much attention. (Back when I was clerking on the Court almost twenty years ago, I worked on a case that decided the statute of limitations for the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. I’m shocked — shocked! — you don’t remember it.)
     
    So looking over the January argument list, no one would blame you if, at first glance, you assumed Harris v. Quinn falls into this group. The question presented appears to be exceedingly narrow and specific — whether home health care workers in Illinois, paid for by Medicaid, are state employees. If they are, then a union representing state employees will be under a duty to bargain collectively on their behalf, and the workers will be required to pay their “fair share” of the costs of such union representation. The case arose when some health care workers covered by the collective bargaining agreement challenged the mandatory union fees as a violation of the First Amendment.
     
    The Seventh Circuit decided the case in a terse, unanimous opinion. For nearly forty years, since Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the law has been settled that public employees “may be compelled to support legitimate, non-ideological, union activities germane to collective-bargaining representation.” It is the quid pro quo of labor law: the unions are under a duty to represent all employees in the bargaining unit; in return, the employees are prohibited from free-riding.
  • December 10, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Calling balls and strikes, is that what marriage equality will come down to? Arguably one of the more conservative Supreme Court’s in modern history has chosen to wade into a major equality battle, and its Chief Justice once said that judging is akin in some ways to being a baseball umpire.

    Of course since that statement during his confirmation hearings in 2005, the Roberts Court has dealt with matters far weightier than those found on a baseball field. The Court has also shown that judging is a good bit more complicated. Have you read all the opinions, concurring opinions and dissents in the Court’s actions this year on the landmark health care reform law?

    As The New York Times’ Adam Liptak notes public opinion in favor of same-sex marriage may be ahead of where a majority of the Roberts Court is on the matter. And, he notes that the high court’s decision to review both the Ninth Circuit Proposition 8 case and Second Circuit’s DOMA case “has some gay rights advocates bracing for a split decision.” Liptak says the high court could invalidate the so-called Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA on grounds that Congress overreached and strike the Ninth Circuit’s opinion on Prop. 8, holding that the Constitution does not require states to recognize same-sex marriages.

    Janson Wu, a staff attorney for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), noted some concern, telling ACSBlog, “The fact that the Court decided to hear both a challenge to DOMA and Proposition 8 presents obvious opportunities and risks. All of us fighting for LGBT rights obviously hope for the best case scenario and realize that there is so much work to make that happen. Now is not the time to wait and see how the Court decides. Instead, it is more important than ever for use to continue to achieve victories at both the state and federal level in the next few months, before the Supreme Court decides these cases.”

    While those pushing for marriage equality are rooting for the demise of DOMA, a blatantly discriminatory law that has treated same-sex couples as second class citizens denying them scores of federal benefits that their straight counterparts enjoy or take for granted, others are concerned about a potentially disastrous ruling in the Proposition 8 case.

  • August 1, 2012
    Guest Post

    By Kent Greenfield. Greenfield is a Professor of Law, and Law Fund Research Scholar at Boston College Law School.


    Before the end of the latest SCOTUS term, flush with the excitement of the right’s anticipated victory in the ACA case, a small bank in Texas and a few additional plaintiffs sued to contest the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOB), two new agencies created by the Dodd-Frank legislation in 2010. 

    Few would have noticed except that the main lawyer for the plaintiffs is C. Boyden Gray, the White House counsel for George H.W. Bush. The Wall Street Journal printed an op-ed the day they filed suit, and several other right-leaning media outlets gave it mention. One commenter on the WSJ page said the lawsuit is more important for the future of the country than the presidential election.

    If the lawsuit were to be victorious, it would disembowel the most important innovations of the Dodd-Frank legislation, which, even with its numerous flaws, was an important legislative victory during Obama’s first term. [image of president signing legislation in summer 2010] 

    Should progressives worry? 

    I read through the complaint, and I don’t think we should. 

    If you separate out all the sturm und drang, the main focus of the constitutional claim is that Dodd-Frank created independent agencies that have too much discretion to regulate, especially using post-hoc adjudication. While the arguments against such independence, discretion, and post-hoc adjudication could occupy several hours of discussion in an introductory constitutional law class, they are hardly questions of first impression in the courts. On the contrary, the questions of whether administrative agencies (1) may be insulated from political control by the president, (2) may define operative regulatory terms, and (3) use adjudication to make law have been answered in the affirmative for decades. 

    So this lawsuit is not like the suits brought against the ACA that arguably raised new arguments about the scope of the commerce clause (action versus inaction, broccoli, and all that). This is a lawsuit wanting to re-litigate decades of settled law. 

  • October 6, 2011
    BookTalk
    The Myth of Choice
    Personal Responsibility in a World of Limits
    By: 
    Kent Greenfield

    By Kent Greenfield, a law professor and Law Fund Research Scholar at Boston College Law School.


    Americans love to be able to choose. The typical grocery store has more than 45,000 different items; the average American family has access to about 120 television channels. Glenn Beck opines, “for us to be able to choose, that’s a blessing.”

    An analogue to the fixation on choice is the focus on personal responsibility.  Because people make choices, they should be able to take personal responsibility for those they make. This sounds like something all of us could agree on, even in this especially tendentious moment in political history.

    My new book, The Myth of Choice: Personal Responsibility In a World of Limits, articulates some reasons to question this mantra of choice and personal responsibility.

    Choice is limited in all kinds of ways. Humans are limited by brain science, habit, authority, culture, and the so-called “free” market, which restricts as much as it empowers. We are easily overwhelmed by choice. Consider the grocery store and television statistics mentioned above -- studies show that people are happier when they choose among fewer, not more, items; television viewers may want lots of channels but actually watch only a handful. 

    Acknowledging the limits on choice is the first step toward recognizing the insidious nature of “personal responsibility” rhetoric. More and more, those on the right equate “personal responsibility” with choice. It is not about maturity or accountability but simply another way of saying that individuals get to make choices for themselves; they are masters of their fate.

    This brand of personal responsibility is used to oppose health care reform, support tort reform, and explain away problems of homelessness or delays in hurricane response. It uses a respect for individual choice to make the political point that government should be small, uninvolved, and deferential to individual decisions.