Tom Goldstein

  • February 27, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    The U.S. Supreme Court’s right-wing bloc appears ready to seriously weaken the integral enforcement provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    During oral argument in Shelby County v. Holder, all of the court’s conservative justices as SCOTUSblog publisher Tom Goldstein reported appeared “committed to invalidating Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and requiring Congress to revisit the formula for requiring preclearance of voting changes.” (Section 5 requires certain states and towns, mostly in the South, to obtain “preclearance” for any changes to their voting laws and procedures to ensure they do not harm minority voters.)

    The New York Times’ Adam Liptak in a piece on today’s oral argument noted that Justice Anthony Kennedy asked attorneys arguing in favor of Section 5, how much longer states like Alabama must live “under the trusteeship of the United States government.” Liptak also noted that Justice Antonin Scalia took a shot at Section 5 saying it produces a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” The Huffington Post's Ryan J. Reilly expounded on Scalia's commentary, noting that the justice flippantly said Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006 because, who could vote against a bill with  such a "wonderful" name.

    Bloomberg’s Greg Stohr also noted Kennedy’s skepticism of Section 5, saying the justice chided Congress for relying on a supposedly outdated formula for deciding what states should be covered.

    Chief Justice John Roberts asked U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli whether the Obama administration believes people in the South “are more racist than citizens in the North.” The Associated Press reported that Verrilli said no.

    As Liptak noted in a piece earlier this morning, it has long been clear that the Court’s conservative wing views with great skepticism the formula Congress has used in determining what states should be covered by Section 5. He noted the 2009 opinion in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder, in which Roberts said Congress should revisit the formula. Congress, however, took no action. Liptak continued that the conservative justices “could stop short of striking down Section 5 itself.” Instead, Liptak said the high court could call for an end to the use of the formula, meaning Congress would need to revise it for “preclearance” to continue to be useful. (During the 2012 elections cycle, Section 5 was used by the Department of Justice to halt potentially discriminatory voting procedures from taking effect in several of the covered jurisdictions, such as Texas, Florida and South Carolina.)

    Goldstein also wrote that it appears “unlikely that the Court will write an opinion forbidding a preclearance regime. But it may be difficult politically for Congress to enact a new measure.”

    Supporters of Section 5 argued in a slew of briefs before the high court that Congress via the 14th and 15th Amendments has great discretion in crafting proper legislation to ensure that states do not violate the rights of minorities, including particularly the right to ensure states do not discriminate in voting. It appeared during oral argument that the court’s five right-wing justices believed Congress has not done its job properly.

    ACS President Caroline Fredrickson said, “With so many recent efforts to suppress the vote, it should be clear that the law remains relevant and necessary. This Court should refrain from deciding unilaterally that Congress has completed its job of ensuring the promise of the 14th and 15th Amendments.”

  • November 30, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    It’s hard to say why marriage matters, why it is different, Edie Windsor says in an ACLU video documenting her struggle to overcome the federal government’s discriminatory treatment of same-sex marriages. But, she continued, marriage is different and does matter. “It has to do with our dignity,” being able to be who we are openly, she said.

    “It was a love affair that kept on and on and on,” Windsor said in describing her deep, loving and lasting connection to Thea Spyer. The couple, more than 40 years into their relationship and after Spyer received a dire diagnosis related to multiple sclerosis, were married in Canada. When Spyer died in 2007, Windsor was required to pay inheritance taxes since the federal government because of the Clinton era law, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, does not recognize same-sex marriages. With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, Edie lodged a lawsuit against DOMA arguing, in part, that it violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause.

    In the fall, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in favor of Windsor, concluding that DOMA does violate the equal protection rights of lesbians and gay men. Edie’s case, Windsor v. U.S. is one of several the Supreme Court could take for review this term. The justices met in a private conference Nov. 30 where the marriage equality cases could have been considered. SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston reported earlier today that the justices “took no action” on any of the same-sex marriage cases that have wended their way through the federal courts. Denniston notes that nothing has “ruled out the possibility that some actions on same-sex marriage could be announced” on Monday. Or it could be, Denniston continues, that the high court will need more than one conference meeting to “decide how to proceed” on handling the marriage equality cases.

  • April 10, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Tom Goldstein has argued more than 20 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, and in a recent interview with “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” delved into one of the cases he has argued, where the high court’s conservative majority rejected a constitutional challenge to jailhouse strip-searches.

    About 4-and-half minutes into part one of the interviews, Jon Stewart asked Goldstein, publisher of SCOTUSblog, about the April 2 opinion upholding broad uses of strip-searches. Stewart said the 5-4 opinion in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders seemed to advance an “incredibly extreme” measure of police power.

    In part two, Goldstein continued that the justices on the right are “really worried about jail security.” In telling the story of Albert Florence – he was arrested for minor fines he had already paid, and then strip searched at two different New Jersey jails – Goldstein said he found the circumstances a “little hardcore,” and that “I wish we would have won, but we didn’t.”

    Goldstein noted that the high court’s Florence decision does not mean that jails have to use strip-searches. But he added, “I think when the jails are allowed to do it, I think they’re pretty much going to do it.” He also lamented the fact that he was unable to persuade the justices that typically people “don’t drive around on the street hoping to get picked up so that they can smuggle something into the jail.”

  • July 8, 2009

    Following his participation at the Supreme Court OT08 review hosted by ACS, Tom Goldstein talked with ACSblog about the high court's most recent term.

    "I think ... that the Court remains quite solidly conservative," Goldstein told ACSblog. "We're seeing an incremental move, over a series of cases over a series of years, by the John Roberts-led Court to the right."

    Watch Goldstein's interview by clicking the image below or download a podcast here.

  • June 2, 2009

    ACS contributor, Tom Goldstein, was profiled in The Washington Post recently. Goldstein (right), who willl be moderating the opening plenary panel at the ACS National Convention, was described as an "attorney, blogger, [and] walking sound-bite machine."

    A graduate of American University's law school, Goldstein founded a small firm -- soon joined by his wife -- in the third bedroom of their Northwest Washington home. He pursued his goal, to become a Supreme Court practitioner, by cold-calling lawyers in cases that might be headed for high court review. Goldstein was denigrated by more credentialed members of the bar as an overeager ambulance chaser, but the strategy worked: He has argued 21 cases before the Supreme Court.