Progressives face a hostile federal judiciary hand-picked by Donald Trump for the next generation, and the Biden-Harris administration commission tasked with examining court reform options remains in formation. How should the progressive legal community respond to a judiciary stacked with judges that are potentially hostile to its view of the Constitution and law? Is now the time for progressives to assert our own version of the “Constitution in Exile”? Should progressives look to reduce the influence of the federal courts or identify targets of opportunity to achieve progressive gains through the courts where they exist? What other strategies are possible? This panel will address specific subject areas by way of example, such as anti-discrimination and reproductive rights, where recent changes to the Court’s composition are particularly worrisome.
Panelists: David Cole, National Legal Director, American Civil Liberties Union; Hon. George J. Mitchell Professor in Law and Public Policy, Georgetown University Law Center, Moderator Katie Eyer, Professor of Law, Rutgers Law School; Faculty Advisor, ACS Rutgers Law School Student Chapter Jamal Greene, Dwight Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; ACS Board of Academic Advisors Cindy Soohoo, Professor of Law, and Co-Director of the Human Rights and Gender Justice Clinic, CUNY School of Law Franita Tolson, Vice Dean for Faculty and Academic Affairs, and Professor of Law, University of Southern California Gould School of Law; ACS Board of Directors; ACS Board of Academic Advisors
Litigators and lobbyists and advocates, oh my! While many lawyers hope to, and will, serve in the Biden-Harris Administration, there are many careers progressive lawyers can pursue outside the Administration. There’s a more progressive president in office now, but there’s still plenty of work to be done to shape the future of our country. Lawyers will play a key role in promoting progress and correcting the harms done over the past four years. What jobs exist outside the Administration for lawyers who want to further progressive ideals? What other ways can progressive lawyers outside the administration influence policy decisions? How should current law students prepare for a progressive lawyering career?
Panelists: Palak Sheth, Public Policy Manager, Instagram, Moderator Andrea McChristian, Law and Policy Director, New Jersey Institute for Social Justice Jeffrey Sprung, Assistant Attorney General for the State of Washington Estuardo Rodriguez, Principal and Cofounder, The Raben Group Camilla Taylor, Litigation Director, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund
Who should be held accountable for the various transgressions of the Trump administration (or a future administration that similarly transgresses), in what way, and who decides? Where legal and ethics codes are violated, such decisions may be clear, but that may not always be the case. From the former president, down through high-level officials and lower-ranking attorneys who carried out the administration’s agenda, accountability is being sought for the undermining of the 2020 election and ensuing incitement to attack the Capitol, its family separation policy, the travel ban, the attack on Black Lives Matter protesters in Lafayette Park, and much more. Are law firms and universities that hire former administration officials “laundering” their reputations? Issues to be addressed by this panel may include censure, disbarment, civil litigation, and other mechanisms for holding lawyers and public officials accountable.
Panelists: Kimberly Atkins, Senior Opinion Writer, The Boston Globe, Moderator Christine Chung, Steering Committee, Lawyers Defending American Democracy Molly Coleman, Executive Director, People’s Parity Project Erica Newland, Counsel, Protect Democracy Rebecca Roiphe, Trustee Professor of Law, Co-Dean for Faculty Scholarship, New York Law School
Many of the key debates about the health of our democracy concern the concentration of wealth and power. Markedly unequal power in the marketplace has been coupled with the Supreme Court’s weakening of worker rights and protections and the underenforcement of antitrust law. And while institutions like the electoral college and the U.S. Senate were intended to protect against the “tyranny of the majority,” they arguably now cement a “tyranny of the minority.” These developments have led some commentators to call for an “anti-entrenchment” agenda that would counter the cumulative effects of rising economic inequality and the capture of our political system through voter suppression, gerrymandering, and the corrupting influence of “big money.” What would an anti-entrenchment agenda look like? What structural reforms are necessary and what constitutional potholes should reformers plan for so that America’s democratic promise can be realized?
Panelists: Elie Mystal, Justice Correspondent, The Nation Kate Andrias, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School; ACS Board of Academic Advisors; Faculty Advisor, ACS University of Michigan Law School Student Chapter Josh Chafetz, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center Janai Nelson, Associate Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Sandeep Vaheesan, Legal Director, Open Markets Institute
The promise of racial equality remains demonstrably unfulfilled in America. With white nationalists storming the Capitol and racially motivated violent extremism on the rise, COVID-19 ravaging communities of color, and police officers continuing to kill Black people without penalty, the past year has illuminated the myriad ways in which racism permeates every corner of our society. Calls have intensified for a “Third Reconstruction” that would both complete and expand upon the work started in the wake of the Civil War and again by the Civil Rights Movement. What would a successful Reconstruction look like and what policies must be implemented or laws enacted to make it a reality? What structural and institutional changes are necessary? What lessons can we learn from international efforts at racial healing and our own previous attempts to redress wrongs done to racial communities? And how can any of these changes become reality given our increasingly polarized society?
Panelists: Adam Serwer, Staff Writer, The Atlantic, Moderator Maggie Blackhawk, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Dorothy A. Brown, Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Law, Emory Law Katherine Franke, James L. Dohr Professor of Law, Columbia Law School Ian Haney López, Chief Justice Earl Warren Professor of Public Law, UC Berkeley School of Law
As guaranteed by our founding documents, white, property owning men have always enjoyed the benefit of full citizenship and participation in American society, leaving their privilege and wealth to accrue interest over generations. While other groups slowly gained some measure of equal protection of our laws, inequality was already a fundamental characteristic of our society. Racial segregation in housing and schools, persistent to this day, was created by law and reenforced through redlining, the GI Bill, and countless other laws and practices. A persistent wage gap and widening racial wealth divide has pushed the "American Dream" even further away for communities of color. How did we get here? What tools are already available to address these issues? How has the Supreme Court's insistence on "colorblind" laws exacerbated these inequalities
Welcome Remarks: Kara Stein, Vice President of Policy & Program, ACS
Featured Speakers: Vinay Harpalani, Associate Professor of Law, University of New Mexico School of Law Norrinda Hayat, Associate Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Civil Justice Clinic, Rutgers Law School Laura Sullivan, Director of Economic Justice Program, New Jersey Institute for Social Justice Lindsay Langholz, Director of Policy & Program, American Constitution Society (Moderator)
