Recently, ACS released a one-of-a-kind dataset on the state judiciary, making available to scholars, policymakers and the public for the first time data on the biographical characteristics (including age, race and gender) of the judges on every general jurisdiction court in the United States. This panel, which includes one of the lead researchers for the study, will provide a special preview of the data and explore what reforms can be made to achieve a more diverse and effective judiciary. Are certain states doing a better job of selecting a judiciary that reflects the demographics of their residents than others? If so, what can we learn from these states? The panel will also consider the implications for the justice system of courts that do not reflect the diversity of the communities they serve.

 

Speakers

 

Kate Berry, Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice (moderator) 

Hon. Anna Blackburne-Rigsby, District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Tracey George, Charles B. Cox III and Lucy D. Cox Family Chair in Law and Liberty; Professor of Political Science; Director, Cecil D. Branstetter Litigation & Dispute Resolution Program, Vanderbilt Law School

Michele Jawando, Vice President, Legal Progress, Center for American Progress

Hon. Peter Reyes, Jr., Minnesota Court of Appeals

Administrative agencies in the Executive Branch are a primary source of our nation’s public policy, creating regulatory frameworks under the guidance of congressionally enacted statutes. These expert institutions’ primary purpose is to protect the safety and well-being of all Americans by ensuring that our air and water are clean, our food safe, and financial institutions do not run amok, among many other things. However, the deference traditionally afforded to agencies is currently under attack in the courts and elsewhere. The assault on the administrative state comes not only in the form of doctrinal attacks on Chevron deference, but through regulatory capture by regulated industries, budget cuts that prevent agencies from fulfilling their mandates, and technical hurdles to administrative rulemaking. What responses to these attacks are possible, and can we identify new paths forward to provide for democratic inclusion in the regulatory process and ensure accountability of agencies in pursuing the public good?

 

Speakers

 

Kate Shaw, Assistant Professor of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law (moderator)

Boris Bershteyn, Partner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

K. Sabeel Rahman, Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School; Fellow, New American Foundation; Four Freedoms Fellow, Roosevelt Institute 

Christopher Walker, Assistant Professor of Law, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law 

Allison Zieve, General Counsel and Director of the Public Citizen Litigation Group, Public Citizen

An increasing number of federal judges are publicly expressing dismay with federal sentencing policy. Critics express concern that mandatory minimums take much needed discretion away from judges. Reform advocates have also cited mandatory minimum sentences, particularly those for non-violent drug offenses—along with the sentencing guidelines—as contributing to the country’s mass incarceration crisis. Have the guidelines and mandatory minimums contributed to the explosive growth in the federal prison population over the past few decades? Do they achieve the goal of fairer, race-neutral sentencing, or exacerbate existing racial disparities? This panel will examine how judges engage these issues.

 

Speakers 

 

Kevin Ring, Vice President, Families Against Mandatory Minimums (moderator)

Hon. Lynn Adelman, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin

Hon. P. Kevin Castel, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York

Hon. George J. Hazel, U.S. District Court, District of Maryland

Hon. Beryl Howell, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia

Conceptions of racial justice have been revolutionized in recent years by the discovery and documentation of implicit racial bias—subconscious negative associations about people of color that affect conscious behavior— within wide segments of the American population. Legal scholars and practitioners have begun to explore how implicit racial bias affects the development and application of the law. Can the law meaningfully address implicit racial bias, and if so, how? What concrete actions can law students, law professors, practitioners and judges take to increase awareness of implicit racial bias and develop legal solutions to minimize the impact of it on the daily lives of people of color?

 

Speakers -

 

Hon. Mark Bennett, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa (moderator)

Roger Clegg, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity

Rachel Godsil, Eleanor Bontecou Professor of Law, Seton Hall University School of Law

L. Song Richardson, Professor of Law, University of California, Irvine School of Law