Access to Justice

  • June 19, 2017
    Guest Post

    *This piece originally appeared on JOTWELL.

    by SpearIt, Associate Professor of Law, Thurgood Marshall School of Law

    Devon W. Carbado, From Stopping Black People to Killing Black People: The Fourth Amendment Pathways to Police Violence, 105 Cal. L. Rev. 125 (2017), available at SSRN.

    Why is it so easy for police to kill Black people?

    The answer to this question is urgent in light of ongoing police violence across the country. Virulent videos of Blacks subjected to police aggression have spread nationwide by phones, computers, TVs and tablets. These troubling, yet spectacular visuals, have pulled the covers back to allow mainstream America to see the dark and ruthless nature of law enforcement. Unarmed Blacks have senselessly died by strangling, tasing, and shooting in the back at the hands of police. Recently reported was an unarmed man shot despite his being on the ground with hands raised in surrender. Another was reportedly killed despite lawfully carrying a firearm. The ample proof of police wrongdoing raises alarming flags about the status quo, where police killing of Blacks is prevalent and successful prosecution of police is not.

    In this article, Devon Carbado offers a compelling answer. He asserts that Fourth Amendment doctrine paves a path for police to engage civilians, especially Blacks, in ways that escalate into violence and death. Police officers are embodied with various levels of discretion in their enforcement efforts, and can be motivated by social motives, including cultural biases. Carbado shows, with meticulous detail, how Fourth Amendment doctrine leaves racism virtually unchecked in policing practices. Rulings by the Supreme Court on search and seizure make it clear that where police have a pretext to stop a person on the street or in a vehicle, the seizure is lawful so long as the officer has a requisite level of suspicion to make the stop. That there is little constitutionally to curb the police’s use of discretionary power when choosing one person over another puts a sarcastic twist on the meaning of “con” law.

  • June 13, 2017
    Guest Post

    *This piece originally appeared on the Public Justice Blog.

    by Arthur Bryant, Chairman, Public Justice

    Throughout America, government officials and corporate wrongdoers are working to shut down access to the courts and limit or eliminate class actions. Why? Because the courts are often the only place they can be held accountable. And, when they are hurting, cheating or violating the rights of large numbers of people, class actions are often the only thing their victims can use to get justice.

    This year’s four finalists for Public Justice’s nationally-prestigious Trial Lawyer of the Year Award make that clear. In each case, government officials or corporate wrongdoers were breaking the law and hurting the poor and the powerless – prisoners, minorities, low-income consumers or the disabled. In each case, lawsuits were the only way to make them stop. And, in each case, unlike in many past years, a class action was essential for justice to be done.

    The Trial Lawyer of the Year Award is given annually to the lawyers who made the greatest contribution to the public good by trying or settling a case. This year’s finalists, who brought the cases listed below, will be honored—and the winner will be announced—on Monday, July 24, at Public Justice’s Awards Dinner & Gala at the Fairmont Copley Park in Boston. If you want to understand why access to the courts and class actions are so important, just read the case summaries below.

    For additional details on each case, and the complete legal teams behind these impressive, impactful victories, click here.

  • April 5, 2017
    Guest Post

    by Nat Stern, John W. & Ashley E. Frost Professor, Florida State University College of Law

    The ability of politicians to utter falsehoods with legal impunity is evident today to perhaps an unprecedented degree. Less appreciated is that the overwhelming majority of judges in America qualify as politicians in the basic sense that they are chosen through some form of popular election. In the case of candidates for judicial office, however, nearly half of states codes contain a “misrepresent clause” barring deliberately false factual statements by judicial candidates.

    The basis for this ban is understandable and even admirable. In contrast to legislators and elected executive officers, judges are expected to serve as detached and impartial arbiters of the law. Dishonest campaign tactics may then be viewed as impairing the administration of justice, tarnishing the public image of the judiciary or even revealing a disqualifying character trait. Nevertheless, the misrepresent clause—as opposed to generally applicable bans on certain kinds of dishonesty like defamation and fraud—probably violates the First Amendment. This conclusion derives mainly from the confluence of three Supreme Court doctrines: stringent protection of political speech, application of this doctrine to restrictions on judicial campaign speech and refusal to regard false expression as categorically unprotected.

    It is a commonplace that unhindered political speech is essential to self-government and therefore lies at the heart of the First Amendment. Thus, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the privileged place of political expression in the hierarchy of First Amendment freedoms. Nor has the Court left any doubt that political campaign speech falls squarely within this protection. Accordingly, the Court has subjected restrictions on political expression to rigorous scrutiny.

  • March 31, 2017
    Guest Post

    by Dan Karon, Karon LLC

    A German auto manufacturer lies about its cars’ emissions and swindles billions. Too bad. An energy company cooks the books and steals millions of people’s retirement money. So sad. A chemical company dumps toxic waste into a river and kills thousands of children downstream. Pound sand.

    If Congress passes H.R. 985—the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act—these horrifying scenarios will be just the beginning. The bill reads like a Chamber of Commerce wish list because it is. It will kill all class actions and will sacrifice the valuable, necessary and commendable work that consumer attorneys have performed for decades. It will gut human-rights cases, eviscerate employment-abuse cases and kill defective-drug and products cases. Its carnage is too expansive to list here. The bill will leave nothing but an unpoliced wasteland, where unaccountable corporations will exploit their new world order, knowing that no one can stop them.

    If this all sounds too horrible to be real, I am sorry—it is. Despite all the scares that the class-action bar has agonized through, this congressional blow not only will crush people’s right to justice, but also will decimate plaintiffs’ and defense firms overnight. If you think I am kidding, read the bill.

    How did we get here? Simple. Bad plaintiffs’ lawyers brought too many bad cases. But these sewer lawyers neither resemble nor represent the plaintiffs’ bar—lawyers who risk comfort, safety, and security every day by committing to a contingent-fee model, where the upside of bygone days no longer exists. We do this because it is important, because we care, and because we want to make a difference. These motivations may seem silly or unimaginable to lawyers who have never done this type of work, who have never risked their practice, and who favor getting paid per hour to getting paid perhaps. Plaintiffs’ work is not for everybody.

  • August 10, 2016
     
    Since discontinuing “Stop and Frisk” policies, which disproportionately target African and Latino Americans, New York City’s crime rate has decreased dramatically, reports Brentin Mock at City Lab.
     
    Adam Liptak at The New York Times cites a new study showing criminal defendants appearing in front of the Supreme Court are less likely to have expert counsel than any other type of defendant. 
     
    J. Lester Feder and Nikki Tsukamoto Kininmonth explain in a recent article on BuzzFeed how, even after a 2003 law allowed for individuals to change their legal gender, doctors in Japan are using an antiquated and oppositional diagnosis to help Transgender people.
     
    According to an article by Elizabeth Olson in The New York Times, the American Bar Association is considering an amendment to its model rules of professional conduct that would prohibit harassment and discrimination by practicing lawyers.