September 2017

  • September 18, 2017
    Guest Post

                                                                                                                                                            by Patrick Kibbe, Associate, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton and co-chair of the Constitution in the Classroom Committee for the ACS DC  Lawyer Chapter.

    This past Sunday, September 17, marked Constitution Day – a day to celebrate and commemorate the 230th anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution was the first of its kind – a document enshrining the roles and limits of government, created and adopted by “We the people” of an independent nation. Its promise and the responsibilities it imposes on the people of this nation endure to this day.

  • September 18, 2017
    Guest Post

    by Christina Beeler, ACS Student Board member

    President Donald Trump seemingly endorses police brutality of suspects. He said, “like when you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over? Like, don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody – don’t hit their head. I said, you can take the hand away, okay?” Although defenders insisted his remarks were made in jest, police departments all over the country rushed to condemn Trump’s remarks.

    Trump’s words brought up an old debate: should the protections of the Constitution extend only to those we deem worthy of empathy or is the Constitution there to protect even those who we may find abhorrent?

  • September 18, 2017

    by Christopher Kang, ACS Board member and former Deputy Counsel to President Barack Obama

    *This piece was originally posted on Huffington Post

    It’s not who you think.

    Senator McConnell blocked her nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

    By refusing to return his blue slip.

  • September 14, 2017
    Guest Post

    by Pamela S. Karlan, Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School

    *This piece was originally posted on Stanford Law School Blog

    Edie Windsor had a signature set of pearls and a signature set of advice: “Don’t postpone joy” and “Keep it hot.” In the five years I knew her, no one followed that advice more resolutely.

    I began working on Edie’s challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on July 4, 2012, when Robbie Kaplan, who was representing her, sent me an email asking if I was interested in helping out. We often say about the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic (which I co-direct with Jeff Fisher) that we serve as local counsel, only our locale is the U.S. Supreme Court. Robbie brought me in to help with a petition for cert. before judgment; Edie was 83 years old and there was then no telling how long proceedings in the Second Circuit might take. (As it turned out, the Second Circuit issued a ruling in our favor with unusual dispatch.)

  • September 13, 2017
    Guest Post

    by Matt Lynch, Special Counsel, Foley & Lardner LLP and Steering Committee member, ACS Madison Lawyer Chapter

    Few are willing to defend the practice of partisan gerrymandering on its merits.  Republican lawmakers, Democratic lawmakers, historians, political scientists, law professors, partisan interest groups, and nonpartisan interest groups alike all agree that gerrymandering—drawing legislative districts for the purpose of political advantage—is a pox on representative government. But stopping the practice requires legislators to voluntarily harm their own chances for re-election.  And so gerrymandering continues, now aided by more precise voter data than we have ever had, and the technology to use it on a broad, state-wide scale.

    Gill v. Whitford, a case arising from Wisconsin’s heavily gerrymandered districts, presents the United States Supreme Court with a clean opportunity to rein in that despised practice.  The only question is whether the justices—namely swing Justice Anthony Kennedy—believe it is a problem that warrants a judicial solution.