Tag: 2015 ACS National Convention

Jessica Smith Interview

ACS interviews Jessica Smith, the student member of the ACS Board and the president of the ACS Student Chapter at the Howard University School of Law. 

Janson Wu Interview

ACS interviews Janson Wu, executive director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), at the 2015 National Convention.

Beyond Ferguson: A Nation's Struggle with Race and Criminal Justice

Since the shooting death of Michael Brown, Ferguson, MO has gained notoriety for its unjust policing practices. However, can we tell similar stories about New York City, Cleveland, Baltimore, and any number of American cities and towns. These stories offer a lesson about racialized inequality, low opportunity, and their intimate ties with the criminal justice system. Understanding Ferguson and how it came to be sheds light on how we manufacture inequality in communities of color across the country, the role of law enforcement in the production of that inequality, and how the criminal justice system is used to police separate and vastly unequal spaces. What effect will various reforms recommend in the wake of Ferguson have in a criminal justice system many believe is pervaded by racial bias? How has the Supreme Court's narrowing of Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment protections impeded our ability to achieve racial justice? 
 
Speakers:
  • Chris Hayes, Host, "All In with Chris Hayes," MSNBC; Editor-at-Large, The Nation
  • Elise Boddie, Professor of Law, Rutgers Law School
  • Delroy Burton, Chairman, Washington D.C. Police Union
  • Walter Mack, Partner, Doar Rieck Kaley & Mack
  • Nick Mosby, Councilman, Seventh District, Baltimore City Council
  • Hon. Shira Scheindlin, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York

Is the Supreme Court a Failure (and if so, What Can Be Done About It)?

For decades, progressives have embraced a view of the Supreme Court as the defender of individual and minority rights against governmental power and majority will. This view has persisted, despite much historical evidence to the contrary. As debates rage about when sitting justices should retire, the politicization of the nomination and confirmation processes has reached new heights. If the Court has failed, what reforms should we consider? Is it time to give serious consideration to ending lifetime appointment for the justices? Should we look to the states for alternative models of judicial selection? Are there other ways to nominate and confirm justices that offer a more meaningful opportunity for the public to engage in the process? And if the Court is not the defender of minority and individual rights progressives once thought it to be, should we be in favor of across-the-board judicial restraint, urging the Court to stay out of controversial constitutional issues and let the political process decide? 
 
Speakers: 
  • Linda Greenhouse, Senior Research Scholar in Law, Knight Distinguished Journalist in Residence, and Joseph Goldstein Lecturer in Law, Yale Law School
  • Erwin Chemerinsky, Founding Dean, Distinguished Professor of Law and Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law, University of California, Irvine School of Law
  • Justin Driver, Professor of Law and Herbert and Marjorie Fried Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law School 
  • Larry Kramer, President, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation 
  • Nelson Lund, University Professor, George Mason University School of Law
  • Elizabeth Wydra, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center

Undue Burdens

In its 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the fundamental right to an abortion while introducing a new "undue burden" standard that has since been used to analyze infringements on that right. However, current events demonstrate that the undue burden standard is not a one-size-fits-all protection against obstacles to abortion. Recent restrictions - such as laws imposing new requirements on medication abortion, laws that require doctors to perform medically unnecessary ultrasounds or read ideological "informed consent" scripts to patients, and TRAP laws that target abortion providers for unwarranted and burdensome regulation - cumulatively, and sometimes individually, threaten to shut down many or most clinics in large swaths of the country. These challenges present new legal questions, including how the First Amendment should protect the speech between a doctor and patient and whether states can arbitrarily treat abortion differently than other comparable medical procedures. In light of the current composition of the court, how can advocates best preserve the fundamental protections afforded in Roe and Casey? 
 
Speakers:
  • Jill Filipovic, Senior Political Writer, Cosmopolitan.com
  • Walter Dellinger, Partner, O'Melveny & Myers
  • Melissa Murray, Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley School of Law
  • Julie Rikelman, Litigation Director, Center for Reproductive Rights
  • Reva Siegel, Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Professor of Law, Yale Law School