BookTalk

  • January 29, 2018
    BookTalk

    by Lisa Manheim, Associate Professor of Law, and Kathryn Watts, Jack R. MacDonald Endowed Chair, University of Washington School of Law 

    Over the course of the past year, a seemingly endless stream of questions have emerged concerning what the law does, and does not, allow the President of the United States to do. For example, can the president build his promised wall along the U.S.-Mexico border? Can he impose a “shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States? Can he rollback various Obama-era environmental regulations, such as the Clean Power Plan? Can he fire Robert Mueller?

    Notably, these sorts of questions are being asked not only by lawyers and others in the legal arena. They are being asked by people all across the country.

    In response to these types of questions, we wrote a guide aimed at a general audience that provides a crash course on the laws that both empower and limit the President of the United States. That book, The Limits of Presidential Power: A Citizen’s Guide to the Law, is now available. We hope that our book provides an accessible and understandable guide to the what, why, and how of the laws that both govern the president and empower citizens.

  • August 25, 2017
    BookTalk

    Book by Sandra F. Sperino and Suja A. Thomas

    Reviewed by Katie Eyer, Associate Professor, Rutgers Law School

    Employees who believe that they have experienced discrimination face long odds in bringing discrimination litigation against their employers. Less than 5% of discrimination plaintiffs ever achieve any form of litigated relief. Discrimination cases are dismissed at startlingly high rates across virtually every procedural juncture (including after a plaintiff-favorable jury verdict).  The rates of dismissal in discrimination cases are much higher than the rates of dismissal for virtually any other substantive category of federal claims. And yet debate remains regarding the causes of these low levels of success, with some contending that discrimination lawsuits are unfairly dismissed, while others argue that a glut of non-meritorious lawsuits is to blame.

  • May 5, 2017
    BookTalk
    The Missing American Jury
    By: 
    Suja A. Thomas

    by Suja A. Thomas, Professor of Law, University of Illinois

    Since Trump took office, several issues, including immigration, have highlighted the importance of checks and balances between the branches of the government and between the federal government and the states.

    My book The Missing American Jury argues that the jury was intended to serve as a similar check on the government, but its authority has shifted to other parts of the government, making the jury’s independent governmental role precarious.

    While statistics from the founding are rare, there’s no question that the jury decides far fewer cases now than in the past. Juries decide less than four percent of criminal cases and less one percent of civil cases filed in federal and state court. And in many states, grand juries do not decide whether serious cases should proceed against criminal defendants.

    So what has happened to the jury? Over 95 percent of criminal cases are plea bargained, with some set of these pleas actually later resulting in innocence findings. In civil cases, judges may dismiss cases on summary judgment. For example, in factually intensive employment discrimination cases (discussed in another recent book), judges often conclude that a reasonable jury could not find for the employee—dismissing claims in whole or in part at a rate of 70 percent or more in some districts. 

    These stark statistics do not even account for the cases that are decided outside of court—those determined through settlement, arbitration or administrative agencies. 

    Often inefficiency, cost, inaccuracy and incompetence are proffered for why the jury decides few cases—why we use procedures like plea bargaining, summary judgment and administrative determinations, instead of juries. My book freshly examines this issue of why the jury has fallen.

  • March 6, 2017
    BookTalk
    Sex and the Constitution
    Sex, Religion, and Law from America's Origins to the Twenty-First Century
    By: 
    Geoffrey Stone
    by Geoffrey Stone, ACS Board of Advisors Member and Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago Law School
     
    My new book, Sex and the Constitution, will officially be released on March 21, but is now available for pre-order on Amazon at a discount. I have worked on this book, on-and-off, for roughly a decade. My goal was to explore the history of sex, religion, law and constitutional law from the ancient world to the 21st century. It was probably a crazy goal, which is no doubt at least partly why it took so long to complete. Now that it is complete, though, I have to admit that I am quite pleased with the result, and the early reviews have been glowing, including from such folks as Lawrence Tribe, Linda Greenhouse, Cass Sunstein, Erwin Chemerinsky, David Cole and George Chauncey.
     
    I have been invited to write this ACS BookTalk in order to inform readers about the work and, hopefully, to entice your curiosity. Rather than writing something “new” for this purpose, I decided that the best way to accomplish the goal is simply to set forth below the opening paragraphs of the Prologue. Hopefully, that will give you a sense of what this work is all about.
     
    We are in the midst of a constitutional revolution. It is a revolution that tests the most fundamental values of the American people and that has shaken constitutional law to its roots. It has bitterly divided citizens, politicians and judges. It is a battle that has dominated politics, inflamed religious passions and challenged Americans to rethink and reexamine their positions on issues they once thought settled. It is a story that has never before been told in its full sweep. And, best of all, it is about sex.
     
  • June 14, 2016
    BookTalk
    Corporate Citizen?
    An Argument for the Separation of Corporation and State
    By: 
    Ciara Torres-Spelliscy

    by Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Associate Professor of Law at Stetson University College of Law; Brennan Center Fellow.

    Corporations are strange bedfellows to have in a democracy. My new book, Corporate Citizen?, explores how, over the course of American history, corporations have aggressively sought to expand their constitutional rights.  And, American courts, especially the U.S. Supreme Court, have often obliged - enabling the slow, yet steady, expansion of corporate rights since near the founding of the nation. But the current Roberts Supreme Court has taken this enabler role to new heights and earned the nickname the “Corporate Court” because of its solicitude towards corporate litigants. 

    My basic thesis in Corporate Citizen? is that corporations have gained more rights that previously, and appropriately, only applied to human beings, like religious and political speech rights. This could have been palatable if human style responsibilities were also being given to corporations. Instead corporations get to have their cake and eat it too. They are spared concomitant responsibilities, as they are given a First Amendment veto to shoot down reasonable regulations of their economic activity.

    By contrast, when we conceptualize real (human) citizenship, typically there are a cluster of rights and responsibilities that are mixed together. We pay taxes, and we get a Congress to represent us. We serve on juries, and we get a fair trial. We sign up for the selective service (if we are men), and we get the protection of the military. If we are victims of a crime, we can seek justice. If we are guilty of committing a crime, we can expect to be held accountable under the rule of law.

    But with corporations, which are at their essence just a pile of papers, U.S. courts have granted them more and more rights, and then simultaneously, absolved many firms from responsibilities. The book examines the lack of accountability in areas including environmental stewardship, paying taxes and respecting human rights.