The strained relationship between police and communities of color is certainly not new, but has gained renewed attention due in part to several high-profile cases of police misconduct and the resulting public outcry. The Obama Administration responded to the crisis by investigating police departments accused of systematically failing to uphold the Constitution, sending mediators to communities in crisis, and establishing a Task Force to recommend best practices that maintain public safety while building public trust between communities and police. Now, after years in which the federal government took an active role in trying to address police misconduct and accountability, the Trump Administration has signaled a return to more traditional law and order policies.
On March 9, 2017, ACS and New America hosted a symposium with a cross section of policing experts who discussed the current state of policing, the institutional and legal critiques central to the debate around police accountability, and the reforms that are needed and politically feasible to address police misconduct.
Mark Schmitt, director of the program on political reform at New America, welcomed the audience, and Christopher Wright Durocher, director of policy development and programming at ACS, introduced the panels.
Panelists included:
Panel 1 – Diagnosing the Problem: A Few Bad Apples or a Blighted Orchard?
- Kimberly Atkins, Chief Washington Reporter and Columnist, Boston Herald, Moderator
- Kami Chavis, Professor of Law and Director of the Criminal Justice Program, Wake Forest University School of Law
- Justin Hansford, Visiting Professor of Law, Georgetown Law Center; Associate Professor Saint Louis University School of Law
- Thomas Nolan, Associate Professor of Criminology and Director of Graduate Programs in Criminology, Merrimack College
- Lisa D. Robinson, President, Vanguard Justice Society, Inc.; Lieutenant, Baltimore Police Department
- Ekow Yankah, Professor of Law, Cardozo School of Law
Panel 2 – A Conversation with…
Panel 3 – Finding Solutions: Exploring the Necessary and the Possible Reforms
- Jamiles Lartey, Reporter, The Guardian, Moderator
- Brian Corr, President, National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement; Executive Director, Cambridge Peace Commission
- Robert N. Driscoll, Member, McGlinchey Stafford PLLC; former Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Chief of Staff, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice
- Christy Lopez , Distinguished Visitor from Practice, Georgetown Law Center; former Deputy Chief, Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice
- Denise W. Ross, Public Interest Technology Fellow, New America
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley has announced his intention to begin hearings on March 20th for President Trump’s nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, Judge Neil Gorsuch. Numerous questions about Gorsuch’s record remain, given his decade on the federal bench, private law practice, teaching at the University of Colorado Law School, and service in the Department of Justice. What have been the major themes of his writings and jurisprudence and how do they reflect his vision of the law? How would his confirmation affect the Supreme Court institutionally and jurisprudentially? How should the unprecedented obstruction of President Obama’s nominee to fill the seat, D.C. Circuit Chief Judge Merrick Garland, play into the Senate’s consideration of Gorsuch? At a time when attacks on judicial independence by the administration are a disturbingly regular occurrence, how does Gorsuch understand the role of the judiciary and its relationship to the other branches of government? And what questions should Senators ask to make sure they and the public have answers to all of the above?
Welcome:
Caroline Fredrickson, President, American Constitution Society for Law & Policy
Panelists:
Amy Howe, Editor and Reporter at SCOTUSblog, Moderator
Christopher Kang, National Director, National Council of Asian Pacific Americans and Deputy White House Counsel to President Barack Obama
Louise Melling, Deputy Legal Director and Director of Center for Liberty, ACLU
Matthew Wessler, Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLC
In late 2015 InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times laid out groundbreaking reports showing ExxonMobil’s deliberate campaign to spread misinformation about climate science in spite of knowing about the problem since the 1970s. Since then, state and local leaders have initiated investigations and are taking the oil giant to court, seeking justice for investors, communities, and the public.
On Nov. 30, 2016 the American Constitution Society for Law & Policy, the Center for American Progress Action Fund hosted distinguished panelists for a discussion of the legal foundations for seeking accountability from fossil fuel companies, as well as the importance of state attorney general investigations in the face of federal opposition or inaction.
Winnie Stachelberg, executive vice president, External Affairs, Center for American Progress, welcomed the audience. Caroline Fredrickson, president, American Constitution Society for Law & Policy, introduced the keynote speaker, Hon. Douglas F. Gansler, former attorney general of Maryland; partner, BuckleySandler LLP.
The panelists included:
Ben Hulac, reporter for ClimateWire, Moderator
Veronica Eady, vice president, Conservation Law Foundation
Neil Kinkopf, professor of law, Georgia State University
Bevis Longstreth, former commissioner of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Elizabeth Wydra, president, Constitutional Accountability Center
ACS, along with the Campaign Legal Center and Georgetown Law, launched the Voting Rights Institute (VRI) in 2014. The VRI is a groundbreaking resource providing attorneys with the specialized trainings and tools they need to respond to emerging challenges and cases in the quickly-evolving field of voting rights and elections law, and using our existing local networks to connect those attorneys directly with voters in need. On Nov. 15, 2016, the VRI hosted experts in the voting rights field to discuss voter suppression in the 2016 election and how to ensure easier access to the right to vote in future elections.
The panelists included:
The Honorable Kathleen Clyde, Ohio House of Representatives, District 75;
Anita Earls, Executive Director, Southern Coalition for Social Justice;
Julie Fernandes, Advocacy Director for Voting Rights and Democracy, Open Society Foundations; and
Paul Smith, Chair, Appellate and Supreme Court Practice and Co-Chair of the Media and First Amendment; Election Law and Redistricting Practices, Jenner and Block
On Wednesday, Sept. 21, ACS hosted a panel discussion at the National Press Club where a diverse group of experts offered their insights on the Supreme Court Term that begins October 3. The discussion highlighted the impact of the continuing vacancy on the Supreme Court in addition to reviewing key cases on the docket.
Panelists:
Garrett Epps, Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law and contributing editor for The Atlantic, Moderator
Kristen Clarke, President & Executive Director, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Professor of Law, Georgetown Law
Carolyn Shapiro, Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States, Chicago-Kent College of Law; Former Illinois Solicitor General
Paul Smith, Partner, Jenner & Block
On Sept. 12, ACS hosted a panel discussion on the issues surrounding voter challengers and Election Day observers. Where is the line between acceptable poll watching and voter intimidation? What are the rights of poll watchers, and do they conflict with the right of voters? What kinds of voter challenges does the law allow, and should it allow more or less? Does the possibility of voter fraud justify the risk of voter intimidation that such challenges create?
