At ACS's Southeast Symposium on State Immigration Law, Judge U.W. Clemon, the former chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, served as a featured speaker.
At ACS's Southeast Symposium on State Immigration Laws, national experts discussed the legal landscape with regard to the constitutionality of state immigration laws and upcoming Supreme Court review of Arizona SB 1070. The panel included:
- Moderator, Neil Kinkopf, Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law
- Gabriel "Jack" Chin, Professor of Law, University of California, Davis, School of Law
- Pratheepan Gulasekaram, Assistant Professor, Santa Clara Law
- Jonathan R. Siegel, Kahan Family Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School
- Cecillia Wang, Director of the Immigrants' Rights Project, American Civil Liberties Union
Judge U.W. Clemon, the former chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, served as a featured speaker. Click here for video of the speaker.
Tony West, the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice gave the keynote address. Click here for video of the speaker.
At the day's second panel, national and regional advocates connected legal developments to local action. Click here for video of the panel. The panel included:
- Moderator, Angela Maria Kelley Vice President for Immigration Policy and Advocacy, Center for American Progress
- Representative Stacey Y. Abrams, House Minority Leader, Georgia General Assembly
- Tammy Besherse, Staff Attorney, South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center
- Kristi Graunke, Senior Staff Attorney, Southern Poverty Law Center
- Marielena Hincapié, Executive Director, National Immigration Law Center
- Charles H. Kuck, Managing Partner, Kuck Immigration Partners LLC
At ACS's Southeast Symposium on State Immigration Laws, national and regional advocates connected legal developments to local action. The panel included:
- Moderator, Angela Maria Kelley Vice President for Immigration Policy and Advocacy, Center for American Progress
- Representative Stacey Y. Abrams, House Minority Leader, Georgia General Assembly
- Tammy Besherse, Staff Attorney, South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center
- Kristi Graunke, Senior Staff Attorney, Southern Poverty Law Center
- Marielena Hincapié, Executive Director, National Immigration Law Center
- Charles H. Kuck, Managing Partner, Kuck Immigration Partners LLC
- Moderator, Neil Kinkopf, Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law
- Gabriel "Jack" Chin, Professor of Law, University of California, Davis, School of Law
- Pratheepan Gulasekaram, Assistant Professor, Santa Clara Law
- Jonathan R. Siegel, Kahan Family Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School
- Cecillia Wang, Director of the Immigrants' Rights Project, American Civil Liberties Union
Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.
At the event, E.J. Dionne, Washington Post columnist and Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution moderated a discussion with leading thinkers and advocates about the future of campaign finance reform as well as the latest developments on efforts to amend the Constitution to reverse the Supreme Court’s holding that corporations are people with free speech rights.
Opening remarks by Caroline Fredrickson, President, American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, and panel discussion featuring:
-
Moderator, E.J. Dionne, Washington Post columnist and Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution
-
Jeff Clements, Co-Founder and General Counsel, Free Speech For People
-
Melanie Sloan, Executive Director, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
-
Monica Youn, Brennan Center Constitutional Fellow, NYU School of Law
Closing remarks by Andrew Blotky, Director, Legal Progress
ACS and the ACLU hosted The Relevancy and Reach of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. During the height of the War on Drugs, in 1984, the U.S. Sentencing Commission was created. The intent behind the Commission was to provide uniformity to the sentences – many of them drug sentences – that were imposed upon federal criminal offenders. However, instead of eliminating racial and other disparities as intended, the mandatory guidelines perpetuated disparities and took away judicial discretion. Judges’ hands were tied, with many of them forced to render sentences that they felt were unfair and unjust, especially when it came to sentencing for crimes associated with crack cocaine.
In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court deemed these federal sentencing guidelines in violation of the Sixth Amendment in U.S. v. Booker. While the Commission could continue to advise on proper sentencing, the guidelines would be advisory. In the years that have followed, the Commission has continued to play a prominent role in sentencing, most recently generating attention for its decision this past summer to make federal crack cocaine sentencing guidelines retroactive after the enactment of the Fair Sentencing Act. In the wake of this controversial decision, questions surround the Commission, namely, does the Commission remain valid and legitimate in purpose today?
Opening remarks by Kanya Bennett, Director of Programs for Criminal and Civil Justice, American Constitution Society and panel discussion featuring:
- Moderator, Jesselyn McCurdy, Senior Legislative Counsel, ACLU
- Honorable Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Chair, U.S. Sentencing Commission
- Amy Baron-Evans, Sentencing Resource Counsel, Federal Public and Community Defenders
- Douglas A. Berman, Robert J. Watkins/Procter & Gamble Professor of Law, Moritz College of Law, Ohio State University
- Michael Volkov, Partner, Mayer Brown
Closing remarks by Laura Murphy, Director, ACLU Washington Legislative Office.
