A Corporate Takeover of the First Amendment?

Corporations have prevailed with First Amendment arguments in several contexts, including credit rating agency opinions, and most recently, marketing and advertising regulation. In the 2010-2011 Term, in Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., the Court held that pharmacies have a First Amendment right to sell prescription records to marketing and data mining companies. In Citizens United, the Court held that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech through the limitation of independent communications by corporations, associations, and unions. Is the Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence furthering corporate interests at the expense of public interests? Are these decisions fueling litigation strategies in the lower courts that promise increased expansion of corporate rights? Or are critics just being dismissive of free speech rights because they do not like the speaker? Our panel will describe, from a variety of perspectives, the implications of the Court’s pronounced shift on corporate First Amendment issues.

Money, Politics, and State Courts: A Threat to a Fair and Impartial Judiciary?

Important new empirical research sponsored by ACS establishes a correlation between political contributions to state court judges and judicial decisions favoring business interests. The 2012 election cycle shows that corporate contributions to judicial candidates continue to grow, and partisanship in state court elections is accelerating. A panel of expert academics and judges examined the scope of this problem and propose solutions. They addressed the evidence marshaled in the ACS report, Justice at Risk: An Empirical Examination of Whether Campaign Contributions Influence State Court Decision-Making, that there is a significant statistical correlation between campaign contributions from business interests and pro-business judicial decisions. The panel also addressed the following questions: Do increasingly expensive and partisan elections threaten the fairness and impartiality of the judiciary? Are certain methods of judicial selection better suited to address these problems than others? How can citizens take action to defend the fairness and impartiality of the judiciary?

Fresh Perspectives and the Future of Federalism

Principles of federalism partially define our constitutional structure and inform numerous ongoing national debates, including those on immigration, marriage equality, marijuana regulation, the proper scope of executive power, and health care reform. Members of a new generation of legal scholars will discuss what the law of federalism may look like five and ten years from now, highlighting developments in the courts, in state and federal legislatures, and at the grassroots level.

The Worker Voice in a New Era of Organizing

Economic inequality has grown rapidly over the past few decades, with a disheartening decline in workforce stability. The workplace and its force as a channel for economic success is no longer a foregone conclusion for the worker. Organizing to fight income inequality has become increasingly difficult. Much of this dilemma can be traced to the hostile, coordinated legal and political opposition facing organized workers, collective action, and collective bargaining. Is collective action the most effective method of fighting income inequality? How can principles of freedom of assembly and freedom of association be used in new and creative ways to mobilize and organize workers? What novel tools can existing labor organizations and unions look to in their organizing campaigns? What are new and transformative forms of organizing that can fundamentally enhance collective action and reinvigorate the worker voice? What types of federal and state legislation could support these efforts, and is collective action the answer to fighting economic inequality?

A View From the Bench

Federal Judges Gary Feinerman, Lucy H. Koh, Beverly B. Martin, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Theodore A. McKee, Judge David S. Tatel, and Judge Diane P. Wood discuss their experiences serving on the federal bench, and what inspired them to become judges in the first place. They also talk about their experience going through Senate confirmation, reflect on changes in the process since then, and how their experiences in public service or on state courts have impacted their careers as federal judges. Finally, the judges offer advice to potential judges to prepare themselves for the process was to become familiar with the application, and the various bar associations, and become an active member of local bar associations.