ACSBlog

  • July 8, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Mary Kelly Persyn, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe

    “Law serves human values.” 

    Hon. Peter Rubin, ACS founder and (since 2008) justice of the Massachusetts Appeals Court, in an address to the Columbia Law School ACS Student Chapter, January 19, 2006.

    From its founding, ACS has advocated for true equality of opportunity, the taproot of American democracy. Rejecting the formal equality yielded by more conservative readings of our Constitution and laws, instead we seek equity—an authentically fair chance for all.

    But equity evades easy solutions, and inequity is spread so broadly across so many dimensions it’s difficult to know where to start. The answer, as I’ve written previously in this space, may well lie in approaches informed by collective impact—a modern Archimedes’ lever. Consider the work of Nadine Burke Harris, M.D., MPH, FAAP, a pediatrician who started a clinic in the Bayview neighborhood of San Francisco following her residency at Stanford. On Thursday, July 2, Dr. Burke Harris visited Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe to address an audience filled with United Way of the Bay Area Women’s Leadership Council members, ACS Bay Area Lawyer Chapter members, and their guests.

    The Bayview is a neighborhood rich in family and community ties. But it is poor in resources and health, and suffers one of the the highest crime rates in the city. After Dr. Burke Harris opened the Bayview Child Health Center, she began to see the links links between early childhood adversity and health. She began to see children coming to the clinic with high rates of asthma, ADHD, and other childhood illnesses at many times the rate of the general population. “Doctora,” one of her patients explained, “it seems like my daughter’s asthma is worse when her daddy punches a hole in the wall.” That’s obviously terrifying for a child—but why would asthma follow?

    As Dr. Burke Harris recounts, the answer materialized when a colleague came to her with the 1998 Kaiser study called “Adverse Childhood Experiences,” or ACEs. This  was the “aha” moment that would ultimately change the course of her career and lead to creation of the Center for Youth Wellness.

  • July 8, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    David A. Graham writes for The Atlantic about a new study that reveals that most states do not have any black elected prosecutors, a fact that likely contributes to racial gaps in justice.

    At Salon, Matthew Rozsa explains the truth behind the most significant myths about the death penalty.

    Michelle Chen considers at The Nation how the new overtime rules will benefit the large number of “overworked and underpaid” in America’s workforce.

    At Slate, Andrew Kahn examines the different meanings of “dignity” used by Justice Thomas and Justice Kennedy in the marriage equality case.

    Emily Badger reports for The Washington Post on the White House’s new rules aimed at repairing the Fair Housing Act.

  • July 7, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    In The New York Times, Paul Butler discusses how “white supremacy is embedded in our very sense of normalcy” in the United States.

    At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost writes that Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissenting opinion in Glossip v. Gross that suggests the death penalty is unconstitutional is a “genuine surprise.”

    Phyllis Goldfarb also considers Glossip v. Gross at the George Washington Law Review’s On the Docket blo, writing that “the rancor reached extravagant levels” in the lethal injection case.

    ACS Board member Linda Greenhouse argues at The New York Times that after this Supreme Court term, “it’s not the voters, but the Republican presidential candidates, who should be afraid.”

    At NPR, Nina Totenberg looks back at the historic Supreme Court term, calling it both “surprisingly liberal” and extremely contentious. 

  • July 3, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Charlotte Garden, Associate Professor of Law and Litigation Director of the Korematsu Center for Law & Equality, Seattle University School of Law

    The Supreme Court granted cert. on Tuesday in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a case about the constitutionality of union “fair share fees” in the public sector. Friedrichs will be one of next Term’s blockbusters – we can expect a decision in the last part of the Term, when the Court hands down its most closely watched cases. Here’s what’s at stake:

     

    1. What the case is about

    Like many states, California permits its teachers who vote for union representation to bargain collectively over many of their working conditions. (Conversely, California teachers’ unions are not permitted to bargain over some key work rules, such as teacher tenure, which is set by statute.) An elected union must fairly represent every employee in its bargaining unit, and in exchange, the union and the state may agree to require each represented worker to pay his or her share of the union’s representation costs. This is a common way for states to structure their labor relations, and it was approved by the Supreme Court in a 1977 case called Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. On the other hand, Abood also held that unions cannot require workers to pay for their other activities, such as organizing other workplaces, and political advocacy.

    The Friedrichs plaintiffs are asking the Court to overrule Abood and hold that public sector workers have a First Amendment right not to pay for union representation at all. (I described the case for ACSBlog in more detail here.) If the plaintiffs win, it would not mean that unions could stop representing non-paying workers; instead, it would mean that unions would have to represent them for free. One danger, then, is that so many workers might decide to free ride that their unions will collapse. That would harm workers, for whom unions help provide a route to the middle class, and also state employers who rely on collective bargaining as an effective method of workforce management.

     

    1. Why now?

    Twice in the last three years, in Knox v. SEIU Local 1000 and Harris v. Quinn, Justice Alito has authored majority opinions calling Abood into doubt. In response, groups opposed to public sector unions filed cases around the country arguing that Knox and Harris should be extended. Friedrichs was one of these cases; the plaintiffs are represented by the Center for Individual Rights and Michael Carvin, who also argued King v. Burwell and NFIB v. Sebelius. Their litigation strategy was to get to the Supreme Court as quickly as possible, and they accomplished it by admitting that their claims were foreclosed below and pressing for quick adverse decisions. But the lack of discovery in the district court will make for a thin record in front of the Supreme Court, which might have ultimately benefitted from evidence on topics like whether it is difficult to opt out of the non-mandatory portion of union fees, or the role of agency fees in promoting stable labor relations.

     

  • July 2, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Kelli Garcia, Senior Counsel, National Women’s Law Center

    The Supreme Court earlier this week stayed enforcement of key provisions of HB2—Texas’ sweeping anti-abortion law—pending the Court’s decision whether to hear an appeal in the case.  Only 9 abortion clinics would have remained open in the state had the law gone into effect leaving over 1.3 million women of reproductive age more than 100 miles from the nearest abortion clinic.

    The Fifth Circuits Unsound Reasoning

    Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, the Fifth Circuit had overturned most of a district court’s decision striking down this dangerous requirement. The law requires that abortion providers obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic and the requirement that clinics providing abortion services meet the standards for ambulatory surgery centers. The Fifth Circuit also held that the requirements could be applied to the sole abortion provider in El Paso, Texas because women in that region would be able to travel to an abortion provider in Santa Teresa, New Mexico. However, the Court did enjoin the state from requiring the sole abortion provider and clinic in the Rio Grande Valley to comply with the admitting privileges requirement and two of the requirements for ambulatory surgery center.

    These restrictions, often called targeted regulations of abortion providers or TRAP laws, are opposed by major medical organizations including  the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Medical Association (AMA) because they “imposes[] government regulation on abortion care that jeopardizes the health of women.” As both ACOG and the AMA note, abortions are an extremely safe procedure and complications requiring hospitalization are incredibly rare. There is no medical reason to require abortion providers to have admitting privileges nor is there any reason for abortion facilities to comply with more stringent requirements than other medical facilities that perform procedures with similar, or even greater, risks.

    Yet in upholding the abortion restrictions, the Fifth Circuit ignored the medical evidence, stating that the district court erred in weighing the burdens imposed by the restrictions against the medical efficacy of the restrictions.  The Supreme Court has never upheld a law that limits abortion services without first establishing that the law furthers a valid state interest. In addition, both the Ninth and Seventh Circuits have held that the courts must “weigh the burdens against the state’s justification, asking whether and to what extent the challenged regulation actually advances the state’s interest.” Such an inquiry is necessary to determine whether the restrictions impose an undue burden on a woman’s constitutionally protected right to abortion. As the Supreme Court stated in City of Akron, “The existence of a compelling state interest in health . . . is only the beginning of the inquiry. The State’s regulation may be upheld only if it is reasonably designed to further that state interest.”

    Texas Abortion Restrictions Threaten Womens Health

    Although the stay is good news for Texas women, it doesn’t undo the damage done by other abortion restrictions including provisions of HB2 that have already gone into effect.  Since 2013, when HB2 was passed, more than 20 abortion clinics in the state have closed.  As a result of these closures, many women seeking abortions were turned away from clinics and some of those women were unable to obtain abortions.