This year, the Supreme Court revisited its review of the First Amendment as applied to union dues in the case of Harris v. Quinn, where the Court considered the right to collective bargaining by low wage homecare workers. Many consider the case a follow-up to Knox v. SEIU, Local 1000 and a possible death knell for public employee unions’ ability to function as they have for decades. Some have even declared that the case may be the beginning of the end for private sector unions. What does this case really mean for the right of workers to engage in collective action and form unions? What do Knox and Harris represent with respect to union treatment under the First Amendment, and are different rights afforded to corporate entities? What can workers and their unions do in response to an unfavorable ruling in Harris? And can current labor laws, such as section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, be strengthened or reimagined to support concerted activity for all workers, both union and nonunion?
Speakers:
Nicole Berner, Associate General Counsel, Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
Catherine Fisk, Chancellor’s Professor of Law, University of California Irvine School of Law
Kent Greenfield, Professor of Law and Dean’s Research Scholar, Boston College Law School
Sarita Gupta, Executive Director, Jobs With Justice
Scott A. Kronland, Partner, Altshuler Berzon LLP
In his 2014 State of the Union speech, President Obama declared: "... [W]herever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that's what I'm going to do." The scope of executive authority, whether in the face of congressional obstruction or presidential assertions of power, has been continually called into question in recent years. From the controversy over raising the debt limit to the Supreme Court's review of the President's recess appointment powers, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and decisions about foreign military intervention, these questions continue to surface and how they are answered will have tremendous impact on how our government does—or does not—function. This panel addressed the shifting nature of the executive-legislative relationship in a time of gridlock in Washington.
Speakers:
Steven G. Bradbury, Partner, Dechert LLP
Michael Gottlieb, Partner, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
Dahlia Lithwick, Senior Editor, Slate
Gillian Metzger, Vice Dean and Stanley H. Fuld Professor of Law; Faculty Director, Center for Constitutional Governance, Columbia Law School
Ronald Weich, Dean, University of Baltimore School of Law
A free and open Internet has become one of history's most important "speech engines"—allowing anyone to use the megaphone of the Internet to express themselves. Scholars, activists, politicians and the general public utilize the Internet to stoke debate, challenge norms, rally constituents and change lives. Additionally, the emergence of digital democracy over the last decade has forced courts to revisit free expression principles in an entirely novel context and has prompted government actors to reevaluate their approaches to Internet regulation. What government and court actions might be considered a threat to free speech on the Internet, and when are limitations on free expression legitimate? How have these actions impacted the development of technologies? Is there a progressive vision for free expression and the Internet?
Speakers:
Danielle Citron, Professor of Law, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law
Garrett Epps, Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law
Emma Llansó, Director, Free Expression Project, Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT)
Gabe Rottman, Legislative Counsel and Policy Advisor, American Civil Liberties Union, Washington Legislative Office
Tim Sparapani, Vice President of Law, Policy and Government Relations, App Developers Alliance
Fifty years after the apex of the Warren Court, charges that the Supreme Court is “activist” have resurfaced. Justice Ginsburg has opined that “[i]f it’s measured in terms of readiness to overturn legislation, [the Roberts Court] is one of the most activist courts in history.” Of course, judicial activism may be in the eye of the beholder, and may not be an inherently bad thing. Some who once deplored “judicial activism” now call for “judicial engagement.” Is there any difference between the two? What principles of constitutional interpretation can judges employ that both honor their role in our democracy and avoid their substituting personal policy preferences for legislative decisions? Who have been the beneficiaries of judicial intervention over the last fifty years, when, and why? This panel addressed these questions by examining the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence with regard to equal protection, reproductive rights and the First Amendment.
Speakers:
Walter Dellinger, Partner, Appellate Practice, O’Melveny & Myers
Linda Greenhouse, Joseph Goldstein Lecturer in Law, Yale Law School
Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF)
Clark Neily, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Geoffrey R. Stone, Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School
Laurence H. Tribe, Carl M. Loeb University Professor, Harvard Law School
Representative Robert "Bobby" Scott gives a keynote address at the 2014 ACS National Convention.
Rick A. Palmore receives the ACS Progressive Champion Award at the 2014 ACS National Convention. Palmore, General Mills’ executive vice president, general counsel, chief compliance and risk management officer, and secretary, is a celebrated attorney and corporate leader who has sparked industry-wide attention on the value and importance of a diverse workplace.
