Shedding Light on the PRISM of Government

Recent revelations regarding the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs have ignited a fierce national debate over core fundamental constitutional privacy principles that underpin American democracy. What is the impact of the NSA surveillance programs on democratic governance, and what do measures by the President and activity in the courts portend for the program, privacy rights and constitutional jurisprudence? How does the existence of these programs, along with post 9-11 detention and interrogation measures, covert targeted killings, and a surreptitious FISA court inform our national conversation regarding government accountability and transparency? This panel explored these questions and whether it is truly possible to balance the government’s interest in national security and the public’s interest in privacy and transparency.

Speakers:

Jamie S. Gorelick, Partner, WilmerHale
Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director, ACLU Foundation; Director, ACLU Center for Democracy
Neomi Rao, Associate Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law
Peter Swire, Nancy J. and Lawrence P. Huang Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology, Scheller College of Business
Stephen I. Vladeck, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Scholarship, American University Washington College of Law

Is There a Better Way to Appoint Federal Judges?

This year witnessed the complete meltdown of the federal judicial appointment process, with Republicans in the Senate continuing to obstruct President Obama’s judicial nominees at an unprecedented rate, and the Democratic response being to change the Senate rules so as to prevent regular filibusters. Debate is ongoing about the future of the blue slip practice, which affords home state senators the opportunity to prevent the consideration of nominees—nominees that in some cases they initially supported. What reforms can be adopted that would improve this process? Would implementing term limits instead of lifetime tenure on all federal judges, including the Supreme Court, help to diminish partisan rancor and obstruction?

Speakers:

James Lindgren, Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law
Honorable Theodore A. McKee, Chief Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Alfreda Robinson, Associate Dean for Trial Advocacy, Professorial Lecturer in Law, and Co-Director of the Litigation and Dispute Resolution Program, George Washington University Law School
Ryan W. Scott, Associate Professor, Maurer School of Law, Indiana University
Russell R. Wheeler, Visiting Fellow, Governance Studies Program, Brookings Institution; President, Governance Institute; Adjunct Professor, American University Washington College of Law

Polluted Equality? The State of Environmental Justice

In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed an executive order to focus federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income populations with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities, thus solidifying a legal framework for the growing environmental justice movement. Two decades later, in view of reports of many American urban centers facing depleted access to sources of clean water, stories of densely populated minority areas grappling with significant and disproportionately high air pollution, and evidence of fossil fuel mining changing the health of low income communities, has the environmental justice movement progressed? How is the environmental justice legal framework informed by equality principles guaranteed by the Constitution? And what are the true impediments to the success of the environmental justice movement?

Speakers:

Sue Briggum, Vice President, Federal Public Affairs, Waste Management
Shanna Cleveland, Senior Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation
Sharmila L. Murthy, Assistant Professor, Suffolk University Law School; Visiting Scholar, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Daria Neal, Deputy Chief, Federal Coordination and Compliance Section, Civil Rights Division, United States Department of Justice
Patrice Lumumba Simms, Associate Professor, Howard University School of Law

Beyond Citizens United and McCutcheon: What Next for Campaign Finance Regulation?

The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, now four years old, has remade the campaign finance landscape. Outside spending has soared, with outside entities and "dark money" exercising unprecedented influence over elections. Just a few months ago, in McCutcheon v. FEC, the Court went even further, invalidating the aggregate contribution limits on individual donors and endorsing an extremely narrow view of the type of corruption that can justify campaign finance regulation. Those who strive to provide a level playing field in U.S. elections face a hostile Supreme Court, which has taken aim both at strategies that seek to restrict the flow of big money and measures that provide grassroots candidates with additional resources to help them compete. Will the impact of McCutcheon be as significant as that of Citizens United? What can be done to move beyond the current jurisprudence? What should be the constitutional principle that supports regulation of the use of money in politics? Do advocates of regulation need to move beyond the corruption frame, and if so, what should replace it?

Speakers:

Thomas M. Hilbink, Senior Program Officer, U.S. Programs, Open Society Foundations
Adam Lioz, Counsel, Demos
Wendy Kaminer, Author, Lawyer, and Commentator
Robert C. Post, Dean and Sol & Lillian Goldman Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Associate Professor, Stetson University College of Law
Robert Weissman, President, Public Citizen

Your Day in Court? The Undermining of Access to Justice

A series of recent Supreme Court and circuit court decisions have made it more and more difficult for consumers, employees and investors to seek redress in court. Widespread use of mandatory arbitration clauses and new rules for class certification are impediments to relief for consumers. For employees, decisions like Wal-Mart v. Dukes mean that class actions, historically an avenue to address race and gender discrimination, are increasingly no longer available. And this Term, the Supreme Court's decision in Halliburton will shape the viability of investor class actions against companies for fraud. This panel considered the current state of class action litigation and mandatory arbitration and explore strategies to protect access to the courts for everyone.

Speakers

John H. Beisner, Partner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
F. Paul Bland, Jr., Executive Director, Public Justice
David M. Brodsky, Principal, Brodsky ADR LLC
Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Partner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
Myron M. Cherry, Founder and Managing Partner, Myron M. Cherry & Associates, LLC
Eric L. Cramer, Managing Shareholder, Berger & Montague, P.C.
Allan B. Diamond, Partner, Diamond McCarthy LLP
Judge Nancy Gertner, Judge (Ret.), U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Professor of Practice, Harvard Law School
Fatima Goss Graves, Vice President for Education and Employment, National Women's Law Center
Marc I. Gross, Managing Partner, Pomerantz LLP
Adam T. Klein, Partner, Outten & Golden LLP
Suzette Malveaux, Professor of Law and Former Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America
Cyrus Mehri, Founding Partner, Mehri & Skalet, PLLC
Alan B. Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service Law, The George Washington University Law School
Scott A. Powell, Partner, Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton
Johnathan Smith, Assistant Counsel of the Economic Justice Group, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF)
Harry P. Susman, Partner, Susman Godfrey LLP