Pamela Karlan

  • August 27, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    Tony Mauro writes for The National Law Journal on the formation of a high-powered legal team to fight for marriage equality that includes former ACS Board member Pamela S. Karlan and Jeffrey L. Fischer, winner of the 2012 ACS Bay Area Lawyer Chapter Academic Award

    In The Nation, Karen Houppert writes on the thousands of children braving immigration courts without parents or lawyers.

    In the Huffington Post, Dave Jamieson reports on the Service Employees International Union victory to represent home care workers in Minnesota, which will make it “the largest bargaining unit of public-sector workers in the state’s history.”

    The Daily Beast’s Sally Kohn writes on Indiana “feticide” charge that illustrates the increasingly harsh anti-abortion measures throughout the country.

    Campbell Robertson and Joseph Goldstein write in The New York Times about widespread doubt among young African Americans and others that the killing of Michael Brown by a white police officer in Ferguson, Mo. will spark significant change, pointing to St. Louis county courts where large numbers of black men are mired in its system.

     John Avignone of Salon explains how conservative media ran a false story on Ferguson. 

  • October 10, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Internet links die, that’s the way technology works. Ask the U.S. Supreme Court where according to a recent study by a Harvard professor, 49 percent of links in Supreme Court opinions no longer work

    National Review Online’s Ed Whelan has kindly pointed out some busted links on the ACS website.  Actually he does so with hyperbole, probably born out of paranoia. He says ACS in “Stalinist airbrushing” fashion is trying to advance the careers of people he claims we’d like to see confirmed to “judicial office.”

    Broken links, however, do not make a conspiracy. Whelan’s legwork has helped us restore links and we’ll make progress quickly on providing access to all our archived video. In 2010 we revamped the ACS website and not all links survived the transition. Again that’s technology and we don’t have an army of people at ACS to restore every link in every blog post or every landing page on the site. With time and capacity many links, especially to video, will be restored. In a small, but growing nonprofit we must prioritize. 

    Whelan accuses ACS of removing video of an event that Nina Pillard, a professor at Georgetown law school and a nominee for a seat on the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, participated in during fall 2010. The event focused on class action lawsuits and arbitration. Thanks for pointing out the busted link, Ed. It has been restored, you can watch it here

    He was also disappointed that he could not access video from the 2006 ACS national convention containing comments from Stanford law school professor and ACS Board member Pamela S. Karlan. That video link has also been fixed. The video quality is awful. I’m not sure what vendor ACS used at that time, but video quality of Convention programming is much better now. But the audio works just fine.

    California Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu, a former ACS Board chair, has spoken at many ACS events. Whelan linked to some transcripts of various Liu speeches, one from 2004, which he says helped defeat his nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Alas, the links to those transcripts have not been restored. But we’re working on it. When and if the links are fixed, I’ll update this blog post.


  • July 10, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    While liberals continue to ponderously ponder how to refute the right’s method of constitutional interpretation called originalism, the right continues to advance a simplistic and destructive story that the Constitution is all about severely limiting the federal government’s reach. 

    For far too long liberals have obsessed over methods of constitutional interpretation, leaving rightists to advance the constitutional storyline, which says the nation’s governing document only promotes individualism, limited government, and of course Christianity.

    As law professor and historian William E. Forbath recently noted in an op-ed for The New York Times liberals have far too often shrugged their shoulders at this narrative, claiming that “rights and wrongs of economic life” are not addressed by the Constitution, but instead through politics.

    “That’s a major failing,” Forbath (pictured) writes, “because there is a venerable rival to constitutional laissez-faire: a rich distributive tradition of constitutional law and politics, rooted in the framers’ generation. None other than James Madison was among its prominent expounders – in his draft of the Virginia Constitution, he included rights to free education and public land.”

    In a more expansive piece for the book, The Constitution in 2020, Forbath explores the “historical heft” of a century-long effort “to make good on the constitutional justice of livelihoods and social and economic rights ….”

    For example, Abraham Lincoln and other founders of the Republican Party argued that equal rights also included “a fair distribution of initial endowments,” and FDR in his State of the Union proposing a Second Bill of Rights, said the government “owes to everyone an avenue to possess himself of a portion of [the nation’s wealth] sufficient for his needs, through his own work.”

    Moreover, Forbath noted, African Americans during the Civil Rights Movement strived to “craft a broader social rights agenda,” including the right to a decent income. During the Civil Rights movement, the federal courts took note of the efforts in “undoing the exclusion of black women from welfare rolls,” he continued.

    The Supreme Court in its 1970 Goldberg v. Kelly opinion, said, “From its founding the Nation’s basic commitment has been to foster the dignity and well-being of all persons within its borders. We have come to recognize that forces not within the control of the poor contribute to their poverty.”

  • June 29, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Reading from the bench during the announcement of the Supreme Court’s decision on the Obama administration’s landmark health care reform law, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg declared, “In the end, the Affordable Care Act survives largely unscathed.”

    Yes, the Obama administration’s signature legislative achievement and the strongest effort in many decades to repair the nation’s tattered social safety did survive Supreme Court scrutiny.

    But as noted here yesterday, it did so barely, and not in the manner that many constitutional law experts and the high court’s four moderate to left-of-center justices had thought it would. And the opinion also included a shrill dissent that envisions a vastly ineffective federal government. As former U.S. Solicitor General Walter Dellinger said during yesterday’s ACS press briefing if the dissent had carried the day it would have marked and “extraordinary revolution” in constitutional law jurisprudence.

    Although the federal government argued that the law’s integral measure, the minimum coverage provision, was constitutional on two major fronts, it was largely thought that it would be upheld as a valid regulation of commerce. The activity of the health care market represents nearly 18 percent of the nation’s economy.  

    But that did not happen. And some constitutional law scholars say that fact should not be ignored.

    Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion provides some language suggesting the high court was not radically re-reading precedent on the commerce clause. But a careful reading of his opinion reveals that the libertarian argument for a vastly cramped interpretation of the commerce power carried the day.

    As The New York Times’ Adam Liptak put it, “Five justices accepted the argument that had been at the heart of the challenge brought by the 26 states and other plaintiffs: that the federal government is not permitted to force individuals not engaged in commercial activities to buy services they do not want. That was a stunning victory for a theory pressed by a small band of conservatives and libertarian lawyers. Most members of the legal academy view the theory as misguided, if not frivolous.”

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her concurring opinion also took the chief justice to task for a “rigid reading” of the commerce clause that “makes scant sense and is stunningly retrogressive.”

  • September 15, 2011
    Keeping Faith with the Constitution
    Goodwin Liu, Pamela S. Karlan & Christopher H. Schroeder

    This post, first published September 15, 2010, is part of the ACSblog Constitution Week Symposium. The author, Pamela Karlan, a law professor at Stanford Law School and co-director of the law school’s Supreme Court Clinic. The book she coauthored with Goodwin Liu and Christopher H. Schroeder, Keeping Faith with the Constitution, provides the framework for a new ACS webinar series, “What the Constitution Means and How to Interpret It.”

    Keeping Faith with the Constitution wades into a long-running debate about how we should interpret our Constitution. This debate is an important part of public policy discussions on everything from judicial nominations to health care reform. For a long time, conservatives have framed this debate by portraying themselves as strict adherents to the text and original understanding of the Constitution, while claiming that liberals and progressives ignore the text and decide cases based on their own values or policy preferences.

    That characterization is, of course, a caricature. In our book, we approach the topic through a different set of questions: How have judges, elected officials and citizens actually gone about the process of constitutional interpretation? What explains the enduring character of our Constitution in light of the profound economic, social and political changes that our nation has gone through? And how does this 220-year-old document retain its legitimacy, authority and relevance over time? Simply put, our thesis is that the Constitution has endured because judges, elected officials and citizens throughout our history have engaged in an ongoing process of interpretation. That interpretation reflects fidelity to our written Constitution. To be faithful to the Constitution is to interpret its words and to apply its principles in ways that sustain their vitality over time. Fidelity to the Constitution requires us to ask not how its text and principles would have been applied in 1789 or 1868, but rather how they should be applied today in light of the conditions and concerns of our society.