American Constitution Society

Skip to content

Access to Justice

The Access to Justice Group addresses barriers to access to our civil justice system, including, among other issues, efforts to strip courts of jurisdiction, raise procedural hurdles, remove classes of cases from federal court, insulate wrongdoers from suit, limit remedies and deprive legal aid services of resources. It focuses attention on ways to ensure that our justice system is truly available to all.

The Issue Group's Co-Chairs are:


To get involved in the work of the Access to Justice Issue Group, please fill out the Issue Group Sign-Up Form.

Also, please note that ACS ResearchLink features a number of topics related to the Access to Justice Issue Group’s work on which law students are encouraged to focus their academic scholarship.
Featured Stories

ACS Convention Panel: Legal Services for Low-Income People

On June 18, at the 2010 ACS National Convention, a panel of experts discussed "Legal Services for Low-Income People." The panel featured:

  • Judge Stephen Reinhardt, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Moderator;
  • Peter B. Edelman, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center;
  • Justice Earl Johnson, Jr., Scholar in Residence, Western Center on Law and Poverty, Former Justice, California Court of Appeals;
  • Chief Judge Robert W. Pratt, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa;
  • Judge Inez Smith Reid, District of Columbia Court of Appeals;
  • Frank B. Strickland, Partner, Strickland Brockington Lewis LLP;
  • Laurence H. Tribe, Senior Counselor for Access to Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

ACS Convention Panel: Access to Federal Courts after Iqbal and Twombly

 On July 18, at the ACS National Convention, a panel discussed Iqbal and Twombly. The panel featured: 

 

  • Debo P. Adegbile, Director of Litigation, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund;
  • Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Partner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP;
  • John A. Freedman, Partner, Arnold & Porter LLP;
  • Barbara J. Hart, Shareholder, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C.;
  • Suzette M. Malveaux, Associate Professor of Law, Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America;
  • Arthur R. Miller, University Professor, New York University School of Law; 
  • Andrew J. Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown; 
  • Judge W. Louis Sands, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia;
  • Judge Diane S. Sykes, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

 

ACS Symposium: Access to Justice in Federal Courts

 

On Thursday, January 21, 2010, ACS hosted a half-day symposium on Access to Justice in Federal Courts at New York University School of Law.  The symposium focused on recent decisions, including Ashcroft v. Iqbal, Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, and various class action decisions, that have curtailed access to federal courts and limited the types of claims and relief that plaintiffs can pursue.  The event featured:

  • A keynote address by Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
  • Two lively panel discussions moderated by Professor Arthur R. Miller of New York University School of Law:

Panel 1 - The Iqbal and Twombly Cases:

  • Moderator, Arthur R. Miller, University Professor, New York University School of Law;
  • Steven E. Fineman, Managing Partner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP;
  • Brad N. Friedman, Partner, Milberg LLP;
  • Faith E. Gay, Partner, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP;
  • Barbara J. Hart, Shareholder, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C.;
  • Richard T. Joffe, Of Counsel, Labaton Sucharow LLP;
  • Andrew J. Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown;
  • Alexander A. Reinert, Assistant Professor of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law; Counsel to Javaid Iqbal before the U.S. Supreme Court;
  • Teresa Wynn Roseborough, Chief Litigation Counsel, MetLife, Inc.;
  • Vincent Warren, Executive Director, Center for Constitutional Rights.

Panel 2 - Class Action Restrictions and Other Limitations:

  • Moderator, Arthur R. Miller, University Professor, New York University School of Law;
  • John H. Beisner, Partner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP;
  • Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Partner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP;
  • Jay W. Eisenhofer, Managing Partner, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.;
  • Theodore H. Frank, President and Founder, Center for Class Action Fairness;
  • Myriam Gilles, Professor, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law;
  • Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP;
  • Salvatore J. Graziano, Partner, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP;
  • Adam T. Klein, Partner, Outten & Golden LLP;
  • Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Partner, Whatley Drake & Kallas.

2009 ACS National Convention Plenary -- "Improving the Courts: The Perspective from the Bench"

This text will be replaced

The Future of the Civil Jury System

This text will be replaced

Immigration Reform and Enforcement

This text will be replaced

Addressing the Epidemic of Domestic Violence in Indian Country by Restoring Tribal Sovereignty


Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Mon, 03/23/2009

ACS is pleased to distribute an Issue Brief by Matthew L.M. Fletcher, Director of the Indigenous Law and Policy Center and Associate Professor at the Michigan State University College of Law, entitled, “Addressing the Epidemic of Domestic Violence in Indian Country by Restoring Tribal Sovereignty.” In this Issue Brief, Professor Fletcher argues that American Indian women residing on Indian reservations suffer from domestic violence and physical assaults at rates that far exceed those faced by other women, and that the perpetrators of these crimes often go unpunished. Professor Fletcher contends that the current state of federal Indian law has contributed to this epidemic of domestic violence in Indian Country. The author first notes that the Supreme Court has held that tribal governments do not have jurisdiction over domestic violence misdemeanors committed by non-Indians in Indian Country, and second that although federal and state authorities may prosecute these crimes, they often do not do so because of a lack of resources and other factors.

 

Professor Fletcher explains that among the traditional powers retained by Indian tribes under tribal sovereignty is the power to establish tribal courts and to prosecute criminal offenders for acts committed within Indian Country. He notes that traditionally, tribal sovereignty is inherent and undiminished unless the tribe has voluntarily divested itself of some aspect of its sovereignty or if Congress has affirmatively acted to divest the tribes of a part of their sovereignty. He argues, however, that the Supreme Court unilaterally changed these rules when it held that Indian tribes may be divested of their sovereignty by implicit divestiture (by Supreme Court decree). The Supreme Court has held that tribal governments do not have jurisdiction over domestic violence misdemeanors committed by non-Indians in Indian Country, leaving Indian women who are the victims of domestic violence and physical assault by non-Indians in Indian Country in a quandary when federal and state authorities do not prosecute these crimes, which they often are not able to do.

 

The Issue Brief proposes that Congress ameliorate this situation by enacting legislation that recognizes tribal court jurisdiction over domestic violence and related misdemeanors committed by non-Indians in Indian Country. Under Professor Fletcher’s proposed plan, tribal prosecutions for these crimes would proceed as do other tribal prosecutions. The author proposes that Congress condition the recognition of tribal sovereignty on a requirement that Indian tribes provide adequate constitutional and criminal safeguards. Professor Fletcher concludes that Congress has the constitutional authority to untie the hands of Indian tribes and permit them to once more enforce criminal laws against non-Indians in Indian Country and stop the epidemic of violence against Indian women.

AttachmentSize
Fletcher Issue Brief.pdf247.9 KB

Financial Regulation, Corporate Governance, and Securities Litigation: What Does the Future Hold?

 

 

On Wednesday, February 11, 2009, the American Constitution Society and Columbia Law School hosted a symposium that included two panel discussions and a keynote address regarding the turmoil that has gripped the financial markets and possible reforms that may be pursued by the Obama Administration. Experts in financial regulation, corporate governance, and securities litigation from a variety of different perspectives discussed these and related issues.

The symposium featured remarks by New York City Comptroller William C. Thompson, Jr. (video here), regarding the investor perspective on the crisis and how we can get out of it.

New Data Unveiled: How the Federal Courts Are Treating Employment Discrimination Plaintiffs


ACS hosted a panel discussion on a new article published in the Harvard Law and Policy Review that concluded that workers bringing employment discrimination lawsuits increasingly fare poorly in the federal courts.

Studying data from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, authors Stewart J. Schwab, dean of the Cornell Law School, and Kevin M. Clermont, law professor at the Cornell Law School, found that “the federal courts disfavor employment discrimination plaintiffs, who are now forswearing use of those courts.” The authors concluded that they’ve “unearthed an anti-plaintiff effect that is troublesome.”

Assessing the Indigent Defense System


Erica J. Hashimoto

Wed, 09/01/2010

ACS is pleased to distribute "Assessing the Indigent Defense System," an Issue Brief by Erica J. Hashimoto, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Georgia School of Law. Professor Hashimoto's Issue Brief is the third in a series that ACS will be publishing focused on ideas for a role that the federal government can play in helping improve the indigent defense system around the country. Attorney General Eric Holder, Congress, and other federal policymakers have taken notice of the crisis in indigent defense that has existed since 1963 when the U.S. Supreme Court held in Gideon v. Wainwright that each state has an obligation under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to provide a criminal defendant with an attorney when he or she cannot afford one, and they have specifically identified reform of the system as a priority. Professor Hashimoto examines the significant gaps that exist in the data available to evaluate the operation of the system and offers specific recommendations as to what the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), through its Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), can do to help improve the state of the data and assist with reform.

 

Professor Hashimoto observes that, "in spite of the fact that we live in an era that is preoccupied with data, we still lack data on the most basic questions related to the indigent defense system." She points out that we do not have the data to tell us "how many defendants are represented by the indigent defense systems" or "how many misdemeanor defendants have a right to counsel." As a result, we cannot determine "what percentage of defendants who are entitled to court-appointed representation go unrepresented." Professor Hashimoto asserts that the limited available data point to regular violations of the Constitution, but that "[w]ithout more complete data, it is impossible to adequately assess this fundamental constitutional right and know the extent of any violations around the country." She discusses several sets of data that are needed and ways in which DOJ and BJS could make significant improvements by collecting and analyzing these data. Professor Hashimoto recognizes that this will not be an easy or costless process, and that data cannot solve all of the problems with the indigent defense system, but concludes that "until we have data establishing the nature and magnitude of the problems and the most effective mechanisms for addressing those problems, we cannot begin the process of systematically solving them."

 

All of the Issue Briefs that ACS has published as part of this series, as well as other materials related to indigent defense, can be found by clicking here.

 

Click Here to Download the Issue Brief

AttachmentSize
Hashimoto Indigent Defense.pdf173.11 KB
More Stories
Contact | Privacy Policy
Close✕