Guest Post

  • April 20, 2018
    Guest Post

    by Sarah Mahmood, Stanford Law School ‘19, ACS Co-President 2017-2018 and Sophia Carrillo, Stanford Law School ‘18, ACS Co-President 2016-2017, Next Generation Leader

    The weekend of January 27, 2017, we didn’t do any of our constitutional law reading. Instead, we swapped the library for the airport for a different kind of legal education. As we sat in circles on the airport floor, holding makeshift signs affirming our support for love and justice, we joined the crowd in its many choruses. And after “No bans, no walls!” came another refrain, one that reminded us of why we had applied to law school in the first place—“Thank you, lawyers!”

    Punctuated by claps, the chant was a moving tribute to the lawyers who had worked all night to free those detained at the airport as a result of President Trump’s travel ban. It was a humbling moment, one that reminded us that even when it seemed like everything was falling apart, we were not helpless, but there to help put things back together—that as lawyers and law students, we had both the immense responsibility and the incredible privilege to pursue justice and uphold the rule of law. 

  • April 19, 2018
    Guest Post

    by Reuben Guttman and Traci Buschner, Partners at Guttman Buschner & Brooks, PLLC*

    **This is part of ACSblog's Symposium on Whistleblowers.

    For centuries, the integrity of healthcare delivery has been premised on the words "first do no harm" which - though not technically part of the Hippocratic Oath - seem to find their origin in teachings of the Greek Physician, Hippocrates, who lived more than two millennia ago. Whatever the origin, it is a phrase which views healthcare delivery through the eyes of the physician; the presumptive gatekeeper of healthcare delivery.

    Today, it is true that physicians are still the gatekeepers. Yet, the swing of their gate is now subject to influences that are beholden to money and not medicine.

  • April 19, 2018
    Guest Post

    by William Funk, Lewis & Clark Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, Lewis & Clark Law School

    For more than a half century since the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) became law, everyone had assumed that a hearing examiner, whose title became Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in 1978, was an employee, not an officer of the United States. Indeed, this belief predated the APA, as hearing examiners had been used by various agencies prior to the APA. Recently, however, that assumption has been questioned in a number of cases challenging the use of ALJs by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

  • April 19, 2018
    Guest Post

    by Eva Paterson, President, Equal Justice Society

    Latino and Black students and their families and local community groups reached a settlement with the Kern High School District (KHSD) about their disproportionate discipline and transfer policies. However, the plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of the California Department of Education from the lawsuit, arguing that the CDE failed in its independent oversight responsibilities by not acting to remedy the disproportionate discipline.

    The state allowed the school district to suspend and expel Latino and Black students in disproportionate numbers. The school reported the highest number of expulsions of any district in the state of California, including school districts with much larger enrollment. KHSD’s average expulsion rate for White students was 18.70 per 1,000 students; for Latino students, 65.85 expulsions per 1,000 students (20.84% higher than the average rate for all students and 352% higher than the average rate for White students); and for African-American students, 110.21 expulsions per 1,000 students (102% higher than the average rate for all students and 589% higher than the average rate for White students).>

  • April 19, 2018
    Guest Post

    by Andy Wright, Associate Professor, Savannah Law School

     The American political and legal scenes continue to be roiled by the FBI’s execution of a search warrant on Donald J. Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen’s legal office and residential hotel room.  In response, President Trump tweeted “Attorney-client privilege is dead!” An FBI raid of an attorney’s office raises sticky issues related to the attorney-client privilege and litigation work product—all the more magnified in the political glare associated with one of the President’s longtime attorneys.  However, the privilege has never applied to communications furthering ongoing or future criminal conduct, or business conversations unrelated to the provision of legal advice. Further, as Sara Kropf explains, the Department of Justice has exacting procedures—apparently followed in this case—designed to protect client equities in validly privileged materials.  For these reasons, President Trump’s and Mr. Cohen’s attorneys are unlikely to prevail in their effort to obtain exclusive privilege review in the aftermath of the raid.