On June 28, ACS hosted its annual panel discussion at the National Press Club reviewing the current Supreme Court Term as it draws to a close. Leading experts discussed the Court's noteworthy decisions and analyze emerging trends.
Featuring:
Caroline Fredrickson, ACS President
Thomas Goldstein, Partner, Goldstein and Russell, P.C.; Co-Founder and Publisher of SCOTUSblog, Moderator
Charlotte Garden, Co-Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development and Associate Professor of Law, Seattle University School of Law
Gillian Metzger, Stanley H. Fuld Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
Ngozi Ndulue, Senior Director of Research and Special Projects, Death Penalty Information Center
Daniel Tokaji, Associate Dean for Faculty and The Charles W. Ebersold and Florence Whitcomb Ebersold Professor of Constitutional Law, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
Jason Torchinsky, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky PLLC
For CLE Documentation, click here.
Some progressive scholars and advocates have long urged that progressives take up the mantle of textualism, arguing that the text, history, and structure of the Constitution lead to progressive results. This approach may meet with more support in the coming years as progressive litigators, faced with an increasingly conservative federal judiciary, seize upon originalist and textualist arguments in the hope of winning cases. But some scholars and advocates contend that to concede any ground to conservative interpretive methodology is to ignore its fundamental falsehoods and forsake important constitutional interests. Is there a danger in signing on to a textualist or originalist approach to constitutional interpretation? How should progressives reconcile these arguments?
SPEAKERS
Hon. Robert Pratt, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa; Moderator
John Mikhail, Professor of Law and Agnes N. Williams Research Professor; Associate Dean for Research and Academic Programs, Georgetown University Law Center
Victoria Nourse, Ralph V. Whitworth Professor in Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Jed Shugerman, Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law
Robert Tsai, Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law
Elizabeth Wydra, President, Constitutional Accountability Center
View more videos from the ACS 2019 National Convention.
At #ACS2019, this workshop addressed a variety of opportunities through which participants can work to expand the vote. The Campaign Legal Center will cover felon re-enfranchisement efforts in states and how lawyers and law students can help restore voting rights. Workshop participants also learned more about Election Day class cancellation, pre-registration, poll worker recruitment, and census volunteer opportunities.
SPEAKERS
Danielle Lang, Co-Director of Voting Rights & Redistricting, Campaign Legal Center
Paul Smith, Professor from Practice, Georgetown University Law Center; Vice President for Litigation and Strategy, Campaign Legal Center
View more videos from the ACS 2019 National Convention.
Many progressives lament that our constitutional system is inherently undemocratic, with electoral seats awarded to candidates who do not win the popular vote and the explicit denial of voting rights to American citizens based on where they live or because they have felony convictions. Indeed, much of the narrative around voting, democracy, and representation over the last decade has focused on concerted efforts to shrink the electorate and gerrymander political districts, and the progressive response to those efforts. Yet the momentum may be shifting. Innovative ideas are on the table that will expand the electorate and ensure that representatives better resemble their constituents. Are we ready to play offense? Will these strategies ultimately strengthen not only voting rights, but also our democratic institutions? Why are these proposals more likely to gain traction than other ideas, and what can be done to support these efforts?
SPEAKERS
Pema Levy, Mother Jones; Moderator
Joshua Douglas, Thomas P. Lewis Professor of Law, University of Kentucky College of Law
Richard Hasen, Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science, University of California, Irvine School of Law
Marina Jenkins, Litigation Director, National Redistricting Foundation
Bertrall Ross, Chancellor’s Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley School of Law
View more videos from the ACS 2019 National Convention.
The Supreme Court has previously upheld affirmative action at public higher education institutions, ruling in 2003 that a university can consider race as part of a holistic, multi-factor admissions process, and again in 2013 and 2016, that an applicant’s race can be considered, so long as the process is narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling interest of student body diversity. However, a new legal strategy is now being tested in cases pending against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and in a lawsuit seeking admissions data from the University of California system. These lawsuits allege discrimination not against white students, which had been the claim in the previous cases, but against Asian American applicants. Moreover, a Department of Justice investigation is underway at Yale as to whether it discriminates against Asian Americans and treats applicants differently on account of race. The investigation follows the Trump administration’s rescission of Obama administration guidelines that sought to enhance student diversity at colleges and universities. Does/should the fact that plaintiffs belong to a racial minority affect the legal analysis in affirmative action cases? And in light of the Supreme Court’s new composition, how likely is this new legal strategy to prevail?
SPEAKERS
Hon. Denise Page Hood, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; Moderator
Sheryll Cashin, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Law, Civil Rights and Social Justice, Georgetown University Law Center
Kristen Clarke, President and Executive Director, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
Winifred Kao, Litigation Director, Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus
Richard Sander, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
View more videos from the ACS 2019 National Convention.
In the last few election cycles, progressive prosecutors have been elected in places like Chicago, Orlando, Philadelphia, and St. Louis, joining the ranks of progressive prosecutors in other cities. Reform-minded attorneys are also serving as line prosecutors in federal and state prosecutor offices across the country. These attorneys, many of whom are men and women of color, are seeking to leverage their roles as prosecutors to combat racial and economic disparities in the criminal justice system. How can prosecutors use their discretion and influence to pursue racial and economic justice? What constraints, both legal and systemic, limit a prosecutor’s ability to achieve reform? What are the ethical obligations to pursue prosecutions, even in cases where the law disparately impacts people of color or the economically vulnerable?
SPEAKERS
Adam Foss, Founder and President, Prosecutor Impact; Moderator
Hon. Aramis Ayala, State Attorney, Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida
Hon. Wesley Bell, Prosecuting Attorney, St. Louis County, Missouri
Hon. Aisha Braveboy, State's Attorney, Prince George's County, Maryland
Marbre Stahly-Butts, Executive Director, Law For Black Lives
View more videos from the ACS 2019 National Convention.
