ACSBlog

  • October 16, 2017
    Guest Post

    by Taylor Loynd, VP of Administration, ACS Student Chapter, and 2L, University of Texas School of Law and Marcus Martinez, VP of Programming, ACS Student Chapter, and 2L, University of Texas School of Law

    *Loynd and Martinez are co-directors of the 2017 GRITS Conference

    GRITS. It’s not just our favorite breakfast meal. It’s also our favorite way of getting radical in the South. The GRITS (getting radical in the south) Conference started at the University of Texas School of Law in 2015 by a group UT law students who wanted to provide an opportunity for dialogue on the inherent challenges of social justice work in the region, and strategies to overcome them, among public interest law students, practitioners, and activists in the South.  The 2017 GRITS Conference just wrapped at the University of Texas School of Law on September 22-23 and served as the ACS Texas Regional Convening.

  • October 16, 2017
    Guest Post

    by Brad Smith, President and Chief Legal Officer, Microsoft

    *This piece originally appeared on Microsoft on the Issues on October 16, 2017.

    In July 2016, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed with Microsoft that U.S. federal or state law enforcement cannot use traditional search warrants to seize emails of citizens of foreign countries that are located in data centers outside the United States.  Today, the Supreme Court granted the Department of Justice’s petition to review Microsoft’s victory.  This is an important case that people around the world will watch.  We will continue to press our case in court that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) – a law enacted decades before there was such a thing as cloud computing – was never intended to reach within other countries’ borders.

  • October 13, 2017

    by Christopher Wright Durocher, Director of Policy Development and Programming, ACS

    A coalition of 88 groups concerned with gun violence in the United States has released an open letter to the elected leaders of America, calling for meaningful legislative action in the wake of the shooting earlier this month in Las Vegas that left 59 people dead and more than 500 injured.

    The letter assails Congress for considering two bills that would liberalize gun regulations—one removing restrictions on the sale of firearm silencers and the other effectively nationalizing the most permissive state concealed carry permit laws through federal mandated reciprocity between states. Though the National Rifle Association (NRA) and its gun industry allies defend these measures as commonsense and necessary to meet Second Amendment principles, these bills go far beyond the protections of the Second Amendment the Supreme Court laid out in the seminal case District of Columbia v. Heller.

  • October 13, 2017
    Guest Post
    by Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, Ph.D., president of the American Sociological Association

    *This letter was originally published by the American Sociological Association.

    During oral arguments in the gerrymandering case Gill v. Whitford, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts referred to social science as "sociological gobbledygook." ASA President Eduardo Bonilla-Silva has responded in a letter, the content of which is below.


    Dear Chief Justice John Roberts:

    I write today on behalf of the American Sociological Association, the nation’s largest scholarly professional association of sociologists, to respond to a comment you made during oral arguments on Tuesday, October 3rd for the case of Gill v. Whitford. You said: “It may be simply my educational background, but I can only describe it [social science data] as sociological gobbledygook.” 

  • October 12, 2017
    Guest Post

    by Barry H. Berke, co-chair, Litigation Department, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP; Noah Bookbinder, executive director, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington; and Norman Eisen, Senior Fellow - Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution

    *This piece was originally published by The Brookings Institution.

    There are significant questions as to whether President Trump obstructed justice since taking office. We do not yet know all the relevant facts, and any final determination must await further investigation, including by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. But as we demonstrate in a new paper, “Presidential obstruction of justice: The case of Donald J. Trump,” the public record contains substantial evidence that President Trump attempted to obstruct the investigations into Michael Flynn and Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election through various actions, including the termination of James Comey.