ACSBlog

  • February 18, 2015

    by Jeremy Leaming

    U.S. Senators are again pushing a bill aimed at providing more protection of consumer data stored by American tech companies overseas.

    Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Dean Heller (R-Nev.) recently reintroduced the Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad Act (LEADS Act), which languished in the last Congress. The LEADS Act would change the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and, in part, would prohibit federal officials from using a warrant to obtain information stored abroad, unless the information sought belongs to an American.

    In a press statement, Sen. Coons said, “Law enforcement agencies wishing to access Americans’ data in the cloud ought to get a warrant, and just like warrants for physical evidence, warrants for content under ECPA shouldn’t authorize seizure of communications that are located in a foreign country. The government’s position that ECPA warrants do apply abroad puts U.S. cloud providers in the position of having to break the privacy laws of foreign countries in which they do business in order to comply with U.S. law. This is not only hurts our businesses’ competitiveness and costs American jobs, but it also invites reciprocal treatment by our international trading partners.”

    The senators’ statement on the LEADS Act claims it would “clarify ECPA by stating that the U.S. government cannot compel disclosure of data from U.S. providers stored abroad if accessing that data would violate the laws of the country where it is stored or if the data is not associated with a U.S. person – that is, a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States, or a company incorporated in the United States.”

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is hearing an appeal of a federal court refusal to set aside a government issued warrant to obtain email account information stored by Microsoft in Ireland.

    See here for more information about the LEADS Act.

  • February 18, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Ryan P. Haygood, Deputy Director of Litigation, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

    *This post is part of our two-week symposium on racial inequalities in the criminal justice system.

    The history-making events of “Bloody Sunday” on March 7, 1965, in Selma, Alabama, ultimately freed the vote for millions of Black voters.  But 50 years later, as we commemorate the march that led to passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, we are also reminded that more than two million Black people continue to be denied the right to vote by one of the vestiges of American slavery.

    Black voter registration in Selma in 1965 was made virtually impossible by Alabama’s relentless efforts to block the Black vote, which included requiring Blacks to interpret entire sections of Alabama’s constitution, an impossible feat for even the most learned.  On one occasion, even a Black man who had earned a Ph.D. was unable to pass Alabama’s literacy test.

    On Bloody Sunday, John Lewis and Reverend Hosea Williams led almost 600 unarmed men, women and children in a peaceful march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge from Selma to Montgomery to dramatize to the nation their desire as Black people to participate in the political process.

    As they crossed the highest part of the bridge, the marchers were viciously attacked by Alabama state troopers, who ridiculed, tear-gassed, clubbed, spat on, whipped and trampled them with their horses.  In the end, Lewis’s skull was fractured by a state trooper’s nightstick, and 17 other marchers were hospitalized.

    In direct response to Bloody Sunday, President Lyndon Johnson five months later signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 into law.  Considered by many to be the greatest victory of the civil rights movement, the Voting Rights Act removed barriers, such as literacy tests, that had long kept Blacks from voting.

    Despite the promise of increased political participation by Black people and other people of color created by the Voting Rights Act, which twice led to the election of a Black president, its full potential has not been realized by one of the last excluded segments of our society: Americans with criminal convictions.

    Today, more than 5 million Americans are locked out of the political process by state felon disfranchisement laws that disqualify people with felony convictions from voting.

    The historical record reveals that to prevent newly freed Blacks from voting after the Civil War, many state legislatures in the North and South tailored their felon disfranchisement laws to require the loss of voting rights only for those offenses committed mostly by Black people.

  • February 18, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    On Monday, a U.S. District Court judge temporarily blocked President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration. The White House has indefinitely postponed its immigration reforms in order to comply with the federal judge’s order, report Michael D. Shear and Julia Preston for The New York Times.

    The Editorial Board of The New York Times offers harsh criticism of Federal District Judge Andrew Hanen who temporarily blocked President Obama’s first of several new immigration programs. Both MALDEF and the National Council of La Raza issued statements criticizing the judge’s ruling.

    Zoe Carpenter argues at The Nation that the ruling from Judge Hanen puts millions of immigrants in limbo. Luke Brinker of Salon asserts that the judge’s ruling was a “politically charged move.”

    At The WeekPeter Weber considers when liberals will begin caring more about federal judges. 

    Geoffrey R. Stone, co-faculty advisor for the ACS Student Chapter at the University of Chicago Law School, writes at The Huffington Post on Charlie Hebdo and the First Amendment.

    In The Washington Post, Mark Berman reports that Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf has suspended the death penalty in the state.

  • February 17, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Nazgol Ghandnoosh, Ph.D., Research Analyst, The Sentencing Project; author of Race and Punishment: Racial Perceptions of Crime and Support for Punitive Policies and Fewer Prisoners, Less Crime: A Tale of Three States (co-authored with Marc Mauer).

    *This post is part of our two-week symposium on racial inequalities in the criminal justice system.

    Between 2007 and 2009, black men received federal sentences that were 14 percent longer than those for white men with similar arrest offenses, criminal histories and other prior characteristics.  In their Yale Law Journal article, Sonja B. Starr and M. Marit Rehavi show that prosecutors – not judges – have been the “dominant procedural sources of disparity.”  This is because prosecutors were twice as likely to charge black defendants with offenses that carried mandatory minimum sentences than otherwise-similar whites.  Similar patterns emerge at the state level.  Mandatory minimum sentences have therefore not eliminated sentencing disparities by standardizing judicial decisions as some had hoped.  Instead, mandatory minimums have merely transferred power from judges to prosecutors.

    In my recent report with The Sentencing Project, I outline the major sources of racial disparity in criminal justice outcomes and highlight recent initiatives for targeting these inequities.  Racially biased use of discretion – not just among prosecutors, but also police officers, judges and potentially even public defenders – is just one source of racial disparity in sentencing.

    A second cause is ostensibly race-neutral policies and laws that have a disparate racial impact. For example, drug-free school zone laws mandate sentencing enhancements for people caught selling drugs near school zones.  The expansive geographic range of these zones coupled with high urban density has disproportionately affected residents of urban areas, and particularly those in high-poverty areas – who are largely people of color. A study in New Jersey found that 96% of persons subject to these enhancements in that state were African American or Latino. All 50 states and the District of Columbia have some form of drug-free school zone law.

  • February 17, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Rob Weiner, formerly Associate Deputy Attorney General in the United States Department of Justice, is a partner at Arnold & Porter LLP. This post originally appeared at Balkinization.

    A monument on the Civil War battlefield at Gettysburg identifies the “high water mark of the Confederacy,” where General Pickett’s charge temporarily breached the front lines of the Union Army.  A significant issue in that War was the refusal of Southern states to accept the result of the Presidential election.  The Union’s ultimate victory vindicated the principle of majority rule within our constitutional system.

    More than 150 years later, this democratic principle is still under siege—not by force of arms, but by the persistent efforts of the losers in legislative battles who seek to overturn the majority vote in the courts.  Nowhere are those efforts more relentless and dogmatic than in the profusion of lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care Act.

    The challenges, however, hit their own high water mark when the Supreme Court granted review in King v. Burwell.  Since then, the challengers’ claims, which were insubstantial to start with, have evaporated, laying bare both the absence of any coherent legal basis for the claims and the political nature of the litigation.

    The challenges focus on the State insurance Exchanges required under the ACA.  An Exchange is essentially a Travelocity for insurance, where individuals can compare prices, find the best deal, and purchase their insurance.  Section 1311 of the ACA requires all States to establish an Exchange.  If a State does not establish the “required Exchange,” however, Section 1321 of the Act instructs the Secretary of HHS to establish “such Exchange” for the State.