ACSBlog

  • January 8, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Steve Sanders, Associate Professor of Law, Maurer School of Law, Indiana University Bloomington.

    * This piece originally appeared on The Huffington Post.

    The Supreme Court has been reluctant to jump into the question of same-sex marriage, preferring to let the issue percolate through state-by-state litigation in the lower federal courts.  But the time has come for the justices to come out of hiding.  The denial of marriage equality is a national problem, not a state-level problem, and it requires a national resolution that only our nation’s constitutional court can provide.

    At the moment, 35 states allow marriage equality, while 15 forbid it.  The anti-equality states not only refuse to allow same-sex marriages to be licensed and celebrated; 14 of them also refuse to recognize marriages from sister states where such unions are perfectly legal.  Petitions from cases in four of those states – Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee – will be considered by the justices at their next private conference this coming Friday.

    One reason marriage equality is a national issue is that our current patchwork of marriage laws imposes unreasonable, indeed absurd, burdens on same-sex couples’ security in their marriages and their freedom to move from state to state.  A married gay couple from a pro-equality state can relocate for job, education or family reasons to an anti-equality state – as long as they’re willing to give up their marriage, and perhaps even their property and parental rights.  A rational legal regime cannot tolerate this state of affairs.

    In a 2012 article in the Michigan Law Review, I first proposed that the Constitution provides not only a right to get married, but a right to remain married.  Multiple federal court decisionsincluding one from the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appealsinvolving Utah’s marriage laws, have since endorsed this principle.  There is also an argument to be made that denial of interstate marriage recognition offends the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause.

  • January 8, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    Katy Reckdahl reports in The Nation on how the collateral damage of mass incarceration often includes the children left behind.

     At The New Republic, Brian Beutler argues that conservative efforts to introduce Obamacare alternatives are aimed at persuading the Supreme Court more than helping voters.

    Jennifer Ludden reports for NPR on a recent hearing on whether a Texas abortion law places an undue burden on women seeking abortions.

    Linda Greenhouse profiles in The New York Times Justice Samuel Alito Jr. and “the increasingly distinctive role he is carving out form himself” at the Supreme Court.

    In The Atlantic, Ryan Park writes about what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg taught him about being a stay-at-home dad.

  • 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."

  • January 7, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    At NPR, Joseph Shapiro examines how driver’s license suspensions unfairly harm the poor.

    Lincoln Caplan considers in The New Yorker whether the Supreme Court’s greater willingness to hear appeals from a small group of elite lawyers is creating an advocacy gap.

    Dahlia Lithwick of Slate writes that the Supreme Court is slowly embracing new technology, but is still significantly behind the times.

    In The New York Times, Cliff Stone explores the path to closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.

    Brianne Gorod argues in The Courier-Journal that 2015 will be an important year for Chief Justice John Roberts

  • January 6, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Peter Jan Honigsberg, professor of law at the University of San Francisco and founder and director of the Witness to Guantanamo project.  

    January 11 is the 13th anniversary of the opening of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Nearly six years have passed since President Obama announced on his second day in office that he would shutter the detention center within one year. 127 detainees still remain at Guantanamo, 59 have been cleared for release, many for years.  Over these 13 years, Guantanamo has been a black stain on America, a stain that Obama himself has acknowledged. Because of Guantanamo, people around the world have come to question the United States’ position as world leader in human rights and the rule of law.

    Several times during his administration, Obama has said that he wanted to close Guantanamo.  Although he has blamed the Republicans for placing restrictions on his ability to release the men, he has repeatedly signed legislation passed by Congress restricting release of the detainees. He cannot blame the Republicans. He has two more years to be true to his word and close the detention center. However, perhaps something is changing.  Since Election Day, he has released 22 people.  It took him three and one-half years (from May 2011 to November 2014) for him to release another 22 detainees. 

    However, it is easier said than done. Congress has continually prohibited detainees from being brought to the U.S. Until Obama can place the men who will be prosecuted, as well as those who are considered “forever” detainees, in prisons outside Guantanamo he cannot close the prison. If he does not close the prison, it is possible that the next president will be equally stymied, and that Guantanamo will only close when the last detainee has died.