ACSBlog

  • November 7, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    Robert Barnes reports for The Washington Post on the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to uphold bans on same-sex marriage. According to SCOTUSblog, the ACLU has announced that it will be filing for Supreme Court review right away.

    Chris Geidner of Buzzfeed reports that U.S. District Court Judge Ortrie Smith has ruled Missouri’s ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. 

    In The Atlantic, Olga Khazan explains why personhood amendments continue to fail throughout the country.

    Steven Mazie writes for The Economist about the oral argument for Yates. V. United States, colloquially known as the “fish case.”

    The National Constitution Center provides a podcast featuring Eugene Kontorovich, Michael Ramsey, and Jeffrey Rosen discussing the oral argument for Zivotofsky v. Kerry, the Jerusalem passport case.

    At the blog for Alliance for Justice, Tom Devine writes about Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean, a case that “will have fundamental consequences for whistleblowers and for the country.”

  • November 7, 2014

    by Paul Guequierre

    In what appears to be the circuit split the U.S. Supreme Court has been waiting for, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld same-sex marriage bans in four states Thursday. While this 2-to-1 ruling surely counts as a loss, it may be exactly what proponents of marriage equality have been waiting for. When asked in September when the Supreme Court might take up marriage, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said to keep an eye on the Sixth Circuit. That we did, and now we’re hoping the high court will determine once and for all that marriage equality is the law of the land. 

    Writing for the majority, Judge Joe Sutton said, “When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers. Better in this instance, we think, to allow change through the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way.”

    Thursday’s ruling was the first time a court at that level has upheld a state marriage ban since the historic victories for marriage equality in 2013 – the striking down of Section Three of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the dismantling of California’s Prop. 8. Since then, LGBT advocates have ridden a wave of victories in courts at all levels. (A few weeks ago, in what was clearly the exception, not the rule, a federal judge upheld Puerto Rico’s ban on marriage equality.)

  • November 6, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    Timothy M. Phelps writes in the Los Angeles Times on President Barack Obama’s fading opportunity to influence the ideology of the judiciary.

    At the Harvard Law & Policy Review, Matthew Skurnik considers the worth of a Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage.

    Jess Bravin reports for The Wall Street Journal on Chief Justice John Roberts’ remarks at a celebration for the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta.

    In The New York Times, Adam Liptak reviews the oral arguments for Yates v. United States, which has the Supreme Court considering whether a fisherman can be convicted of violating a federal law aimed at white-collar crime for throwing back undersized fish into the Gulf of Mexico.

    Richard Re at Re’s Judicata lists the top ten moments during oral arguments, which proved to be “hilarious, insightful, and sometimes surreal.”

  • November 5, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    At Salon, Luke Brinker considers the implications of the midterm elections on the fight for marriage equality.

    Sarah Kliff at Vox reports on the five personhood defeats for abortion opponents throughout the country.

    Today the Supreme Court hears oral arguments for Yates v. United States. Nina Totenberg of NPR previews the case, which considers whether a fisherman violated the anti-shredding provision of an act passed after the Enron scandal when he threw undersized fish from his boat.

    At the blog for Southern Poverty Law Center, Booth Gunter interviews a 94 year-old Alabama woman on her reflections on poll taxes, literacy tests, and the new measures to limit voting.

    Leslie Griffin writes for Hamilton and Griffin on Rights about the oral argument in DHS v. MacLean, a case that will help define when federal employees are prohibited by law from revealing information that they believe shows a “substantial and specific danger to public safety.”

  • November 4, 2014
    BookTalk
    Too Big to Jail
    How Prosecutors Compromise with Corporations
    By: 
    Brandon L. Garrett

    by Brandon L. Garrett, Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law. Since the 2011 publication of Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong, Professor Garrett has written widely on issues of criminal procedure, scientific evidence, corporate crime, and the law. This fall, Harvard University Press published his new book, Too Big to Jail: How Prosecutors Compromise with Corporations.

    Prominent cries of “too big to jail” greeted the decision by federal prosecutors in 2012 not to convict HSBC, the international bank headquartered in London.  When HSBC was investigated for violations of international sanctions with countries like Cuba, Iran, Libya, Sudan and Burma, and, if that were not enough, facilitating the laundering of “at least $881 million in drug proceeds,” it paid a then-record penalty of $1.4 billion.  The scale of the violations was shocking.  And prosecutors described concerted efforts to help dirty money transactions avoid detection, with internal notes like:  “care sanctioned country,” “do not mention our name in NY,” or “do not mention Iran.”  Drug cartels used cash boxes “designed to fit the precise dimensions of the tellers’ windows in HSBC’s Mexico branches.”  When HSBC’s compliance officers raised alarms, they were “discouraged” and ignored.

    “We accept responsibility for our past mistakes,” said the bank’s CEO at the time HSBC settled the case.  A corporate monitor would supervise a revamping of compliance.  The bank had hired hundreds of compliance employees and spent millions improving anti-money laundering programs.  But the bank was not convicted of any crime.  This galled advocates, editorial boards, members of Congress, and the public.  The same day prosecutors filed their case, they asked the judge to approve what is called a deferred prosecution agreement.  The case would be put on hold to give the bank a chance to show good conduct.  A money laundering conviction could have resulted in termination of the bank’s U.S. charter.  Yet no employees or officers were prosecuted either.  At the time, Assistant-Attorney General Lanny Brueur explained: “Our goal here is not to bring HSBC down, it’s not to cause a systemic effect on the economy, it’s not for people to lose thousands of jobs.”  And upon announcement of the settlement, HSBC shares rose