Tag: inbrief

Release the Mueller Report

Robert Mueller has completed his investigation into allegations that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to sway the 2016 elections and filed his final report with Attorney General William Barr. ACS is calling for full disclosure of the report.

As ACS President Caroline Fredrickson said in a statement, we need full disclosure to understand how far up the chain the Trump campaign's efforts to conspire with Russia extended:

“The question isn’t whether members of the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to sway the 2016 elections; we already know they did. Many of Trump’s campaign staffers are in jail for lying to investigators about their contacts with Russians. Numerous others await trial. Dozens more have been indicted. We just need to know how far up the chain this lawlessness went, and we won’t be able to do that without full disclosure of the Mueller report."

In a New York Times op-ed, Fredrickson emphasizes the Mueller report may only be the beginning of investigations into the president's possible unlawful or unethical actions:

"Mr. Mueller’s report may not be the end of the president’s legal peril, only the beginning. That’s because report or no report, through his prosecutions, referrals, indictments, convictions and subpoenas, Mr. Mueller has already provided the House of Representative with some very clear paths for investigation."

Rules Change, More Judges Confirmed: The Latest in Judicial Nominations

Senate Republicans continue to throw out long-held Senate traditions in their mission to confirm as many of President Trump’s nominees as possible to the federal bench. Once confirmed, these judges will rule on cases that affect all of us including environmental issues, health care, civil rights, and voting rights.

Following the confirmation of Neomi Rao last week to the influential D.C. Circuit, 20 percent of judges sitting on the circuit courts will have been nominated by President Trump. The U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals are significant because they are often the last word in federal court cases.

In the last week alone, the Senate majority continued to defy the tradition of seeking support (aka “blue slips”) from home-state senators on judicial nominees:

  • Another nominee advanced despite lack of blue slips from home-state senators: The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on Kenneth Lee (9th Cir., Cal.) and Daniel Collins (9th Cir., Cal.), who are both lacking support from Ranking Member Feinstein (D-Cal.) and Senator Harris (D-Cal.). Senators Feinstein and Harris have called for Lee’s nomination to be withdrawn due to his failure to provide a comprehensive record of his writings.
  • Second-ever judge confirmed without blue slips from either home-state senator: Last week, the Senate confirmed Paul Matey (3d Cir., N.J.). Matey is the second ever judicial nominee confirmed without support from either home-state Senator. Two weeks ago, Eric Miller (9th Cir., Wash) was the first ever judicial nominee confirmed without support from either home-state Senator.
  • Chad Readler (6th Cir., Ohio) and Eric Murphy (6th Cir., Ohio) were confirmed last week, despite lacking support from Senator Sherrod Brown.

Nominees with troubling records or who lack relevant experience continue to be moved forward:

  • Last week, the Senate confirmed Neomi Rao (D.C. Cir.). Rao’s nomination has been controversial due to her college writings, which expressed extreme views on sexual assault, gender equality, multiculturalism, and affirmative action. Rao did not disavow these views during her hearing. With her confirmation, 1 in 5 currently serving circuit court judges were nominated by President Trump.
  • Two weeks ago, Allison Rushing (4th Cir., N.C.) was confirmed despite having less than 12 years of experience and little exposure to the court on which she is nominated to serve.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s push to fast-track district court nominees: On top of these trends, the Senate majority is seeking to change the rules to bring nominees to the Senate floor at an accelerated pace. The Senate Rules Committee approved legislation to reduce hours of post-cloture debate on district court nominees from 30 hours to 2 hours. A legislative rule change would normally require a 60-vote threshold.

Sometime soon, Republicans are expected to use a maneuver to adopt the rule change on the floor with a simple majority (51 votes). This change promises to further speed up the confirmation of judicial nominees in the months to come. The 47 currently pending district court nominees could be confirmed in a matter of days once debate is limited to 2 hours.

Ignoring home-state senator opposition, nominating individuals with concerning records and insufficient experience, and changing rules of regular order are designed to transform the courts. Regarding the rule change, Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said that, “Presidents deserve to have their teams in place.”

Lifetime federal judges are meant to be impartial arbiters of the law, not serve at the pleasure of any elected official. They rule on areas of the law that affect people’s everyday lives: civil rights, criminal justice, education, environment, labor, immigration, health care, and many more issues. For the courts to fulfill their purpose as arbiters of the law, it’s critical that nominees be qualified and impartial and that senators’ advice and consent responsibility be respected.

The Senate is on recess this week and many senators will be in their home states. Tell your senators you care about the courts and want them to stand up for a fair judiciary.

Organizing, Scholarship, and Progressive Federalism: Highlights from the 2019 ACS Student Convention

Update: Registration for the 2020 ACS National Student Convention hosted by Harvard Law School is now open!

Last weekend, 170 students from 20 states and Washington, D.C., attended the 2019 ACS National Student Convention at the University of Virginia School of Law in Charlottesville, Virginia. Here are some of the highlights:

Richard Cohen, the president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, kicked off the convention with a reminder of the importance of litigation to holding public servants accountable, and instructions to remain vigilant and resist complacency.

Students had a chance to trade tips and tricks on running an ACS chapter, building diversity and inclusivity within their chapters, engaging with lawyer chapters, and more during our Friday Leadership Sessions. We were inspired to hear about their hard work and desire to collaborate.

ACS Vice President of Network Advancement Zinelle October spoke on “The State of ACS,” which included summaries of pro bono engagement opportunities, the State AG project, ACS publications, chapter events, and more.

ACS President Caroline Fredrickson and Professor Vincent Michelot hosted a fireside chat, where they discussed similarities and differences between the potential of declining democracies in France and the United States.

UVA Law Dean Risa Goluboff spoke about the events of August 2017 in Charlottesville and emphasized that working with one another and engaging with pressing legal issues is essential to combatting the nationwide attack on democratic norms.

Over dinner, Lieutenant Governor Cyrus Habib told us that it’s not enough to check our privilege; we must carry it with us and use it to make change. Hilarious and inspiring in equal measures, Lt. Gov. Habib and his speech left us invigorated and ready for Day 2 of the convention!

On Saturday morning, Jeryl Hayes led Garrett Epps, Andrew Hairston, Amy Woolard, and Micah Schwartzman in a conversation about ways to make change outside the courtroom to support and enhance traditional legal work in the courts. Professor Epps instructed us to ask ourselves, “What was the vision of justice that brought me [to law school]? How can I move toward it?”

During the morning breakout sessions, speakers and students discussed movement lawyering, equity in media, scholarship, legislative advocacy, and more.

“We must do for the judicial branch what the judicial branch cannot do for itself.” Keynote speaker Dahlia Lithwick remarked on our role in protecting the courts – to speak up, defend the integrity of judges, and uphold the rule of law.

Panelists during our Progressive Federalism plenary panel discussed methods of implementing progressive values at the state and local level. Richard Schragger moderated the conversation, featuring Sylvia Albert, Kami Chavis, Trevor Cox, Ryan Park, and Galina Varchena.

The afternoon breakout sessions featured conversations on reproductive justice, voting rights, community policing, and the role of state attorneys general.

Our final plenary panel of Convention featured Hon. Anita Earls (N.C.), Hon. Pamela Harris (4th Cir.), Hon. Carlton Reeves (S.D. Miss.), and Hon. L. Felipe Restrepo (3d Cir.) speaking with ACS President Caroline Fredrickson about the future of the judiciary and the importance of diversity on the bench.

Khizr Khan, a fierce constitutional advocate and longtime friend of ACS, wrapped up convention with a call to action for students: “Your Constitution is calling upon you to defend it, front and center, like a candle-bearer.”

Throughout the weekend, we loved seeing ACS students from across the country forming friendships, engaging in debate, and sharing dreams of a nation where our laws and constitution work to support all people.

See you at the 2019 ACS National Convention in June!

The GOP Has Shot the Messenger. Now Will They Investigate His Claims?

Read Fredrickson’s op-ed in The New York Times: How Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Won the Cohen Hearing

The House GOP spent the first two years of Trump’s presidency protecting him by deliberately not asking questions. Yesterday, they made up for lost time. But it was not Michael Cohen’s explosive allegations of presidential misconduct they were interested in exploring with their queries. No, their goal was to kill the messenger.

Cohen, President Trump’s one-time personal lawyer and “fixer,” is a shady character to be sure. He has been convicted on multiple charges, including lying to Congress. But he was speaking the truth during his appearance before the House Oversight Committee when he said, "…the American people don't care about me, they want to know what it is that I know about Mr. Trump." And that would appear to be lot.

In his testimony, Cohen alleged numerous ethical breaches and criminal acts on the part of the president, many for which Cohen himself apparently served as main actor. He spoke of illegal campaign payoffs, rigging of electoral polls, threatening people who had crossed the president, possible witness tampering, and even falsifying financial records. He spoke of conduct in and out of office that would cross even the most generous reading of ethical and legal boundaries. Certainly, the actions Cohen detailed would have had members of the House GOP in an uproar had they occurred four years ago, with a different president behind the Resolute Desk.

Not since Watergate has a president faced such a swirl of accusations or had his alleged ethical and legal misdeeds so carefully laid out for the American public. But did House GOP members of the Oversight Committee feel compelled to explore the truth of these allegations? Or the evidence that might back them up? No. Instead, the day was a tiresome slugfest as GOP member after GOP member took their turns shooting the messenger, the time-honored strategy of someone who finds a messenger’s “message” inconvenient or downright threatening.

But we shouldn’t be surprised.

Congress is a co-equal branch of the government, one charged with the oversight of, among other things, the executive branch. But for the first two years of the Trump presidency, that oversight was almost non-existent. Congress instead became a one-party Trump Protection Society, with the House GOP especially standing out in terms of the lengths it went to shield the president from scrutiny.

Hearings were held, not to explore Trump’s conduct, but that of his accusers. The party of law and order turned on a dime and began wildly accusing law enforcement personnel of improper conduct. They questioned the legitimacy of duly-appointed investigators. Witness testimony was leaked when it helped the president and withheld when it didn’t. Promising avenues of investigation were shut down or slow-walked. And various reports and memos—paging Rep. Devin Nunes! —were issued, each with incomplete or easily refutable conclusions.

A more naked display of congressional cravenness one is hard-pressed to find.

President Trump rode out his first two years with deep personal frustration as his only real scar. Accusations flew, as did breathless presidential Twitter denials. The Mueller investigation loomed. But no imminent legal threat really emerged. And each back-and-forth news cycle seemed only to numb an already-numb American electorate, leaving many to wonder what was really going on. Fortunately, what the American people did hear and see was still enough for them to hand control of half of Congress over to the side that promised full scrutiny of the President’s suspect actions.

That Wednesday’s hearing happened at all is a good sign that Congress has resumed its checks and balances role. Still, Cohen is a flawed and nefarious character in a town full of them. And it would be unthinkable to charge the president with anything based on his testimony alone. But it would be equally unthinkable to dismiss his accusations based on past lies and recent convictions. He was there. He had a front row seat. He himself participated in many of the suspect activities he is alleging took place. And he had Trump’s trust. That alone should tell us that what Michael Cohen knows about President Trump is indeed worth investigating.

Sadly, two years of dormant oversight by a complacent House GOP means that investigation has only just begun.

Another Monster Markup as the Senate Advances Trump’s Judicial Nominees

Update 2/13/09: On February 13, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the nominations of Michael Park and Joseph Bianco, both to the Second Circuit. These nominees are being advanced over the objections of Senators Schumer and Gillibrand, who have not submitted the customary blue slip. This is one of the many norms in the judicial nomination process the Senate majority is breaking in its quest to push through a record number of nominees.

Update 2/7/2019: The Senate Judiciary Committee voted to recommend 42 nominees for lifetime judgeships. 

The Senate moves closer this week to confirming dozens of President Trump’s picks for lifetime judicial appointments. In what’s known as a “Monster Markup” (because of the large number of nominees on the agenda) the Senate Judiciary Committee will be voting on Thursday to recommend judicial nominees for a confirmation vote by the full Senate later in the year.

With these confirmations, Senate Republicans are continuing their quest to put President Trump’s extremely conservative judges on the federal bench. As we’ve explained, the last Congress confirmed a record-breaking number of Trump’s judicial nominations, and we expect more of the same in this Congress.

WATCH: ACS President Caroline Fredrickson talks about the conservative takeover of the courts.

Neomi Rao, William Barr, and 42 nominees for the federal bench

On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a confirmation hearing for Neomi Rao to fill the Kavanaugh vacancy on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Rao’s nomination has generated controversy because of her record in many areas, including her role at a key federal agency, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget, where she stalled sexual harassment regulations and has generally pursued a deregulation agenda. Learn more about Rao’s troubling record on regulation.

In its Monster Markup on Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will decide whether to recommend for confirmation Trump’s attorney general-nominee William Barr and 42 of his nominees for the federal courts. Stacking hearings and meetings with multiple nominees is one of the procedural tools the Republican leadership is using to break long-standing Senate norms and fast-track the president’s nominees. Learn more about how Republicans have disregarded the usual process for vetting nominees.

Federal judges rule on issues that affect everyone 

Once they are confirmed, of course, judges in the federal courts sit for a lifetime. They rule on areas of the law that affect people’s everyday lives: civil rights, criminal justice, education, environment, labor, immigration, health care, and many more issues. For the courts to fulfill their purpose as arbiters of the law, it’s critical that nominees be qualified and impartial.

While this week’s judicial nominees are moving quickly through the confirmation process, there’s still time to let your senators know that who sits on the federal bench matters to you.

What you can do to help spread the word about the importance of these lifetime appointments to the federal courts

  1. Visit, call, and/or email your senators’ offices to tell them courts matter to you and ask them what they’re doing to ensure the impartiality of the federal judiciary.
  2. Host an event on the importance of courts, judicial vacancies, and the confirmation process. In February, ACS sponsors the “Love Our Constitution” initiative, which encourages citizens to hold discussions about the role of the federal judiciary in our lives. Find a curriculum and other resources.
  3. Reach out to local radio and television stations in your towns and universities (yes, even you, students!). Speak to your communities about the importance of the courts through reliable and proven avenues of communication.
  4. Submit an op-ed or letter to the editor to your local paper on what is at stake with these lifetime appointments.
  5. Talk to your friends and family about the need to protect the federal judiciary. Post about the importance of the courts on your social media accounts using #CourtsMatter.

Update 2/7/2019: The Senate Judiciary Committee voted to recommend 42 nominees for lifetime judgeships. 

The Senate moves closer this week to confirming dozens of President Trump’s picks for lifetime judicial appointments. In what’s known as a “Monster Markup” (because of the large number of nominees on the agenda) the Senate Judiciary Committee will be voting on Thursday to recommend judicial nominees for a confirmation vote by the full Senate later in the year.

With these confirmations, Senate Republicans are continuing their quest to put President Trump’s extremely conservative judges on the federal bench. As we’ve explained, the last Congress confirmed a record-breaking number of Trump’s judicial nominations, and we expect more of the same in this Congress.

WATCH: ACS President Caroline Fredrickson talks about the conservative takeover of the courts.

Neomi Rao, William Barr, and 42 nominees for the federal bench

On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a confirmation hearing for Neomi Rao to fill the Kavanaugh vacancy on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Rao’s nomination has generated controversy because of her record in many areas, including her role at a key federal agency, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget, where she stalled sexual harassment regulations and has generally pursued a deregulation agenda. Learn more about Rao’s troubling record on regulation.

In its Monster Markup on Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will decide whether to recommend for confirmation Trump’s attorney general-nominee William Barr and 42 of his nominees for the federal courts. Stacking hearings and meetings with multiple nominees is one of the procedural tools the Republican leadership is using to break long-standing Senate norms and fast-track the president’s nominees. Learn more about how Republicans have disregarded the usual process for vetting nominees.

Federal judges rule on issues that affect everyone 

Once they are confirmed, of course, judges in the federal courts sit for a lifetime. They rule on areas of the law that affect people’s everyday lives: civil rights, criminal justice, education, environment, labor, immigration, health care, and many more issues. For the courts to fulfill their purpose as arbiters of the law, it’s critical that nominees be qualified and impartial.

While this week’s judicial nominees are moving quickly through the confirmation process, there’s still time to let your senators know that who sits on the federal bench matters to you.

What you can do to help spread the word about the importance of these lifetime appointments to the federal courts

  1. Visit, call, and/or email your senators’ offices to tell them courts matter to you and ask them what they’re doing to ensure the impartiality of the federal judiciary.
  2. Host an event on the importance of courts, judicial vacancies, and the confirmation process. In February, ACS sponsors the “Love Our Constitution” initiative, which encourages citizens to hold discussions about the role of the federal judiciary in our lives. Find a curriculum and other resources.
  3. Reach out to local radio and television stations in your towns and universities (yes, even you, students!). Speak to your communities about the importance of the courts through reliable and proven avenues of communication.
  4. Submit an op-ed or letter to the editor to your local paper on what is at stake with these lifetime appointments.
  5. Talk to your friends and family about the need to protect the federal judiciary. Post about the importance of the courts on your social media accounts using #CourtsMatter.

The Best Way to “Love Our Constitution” is to Share It

According to Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, a unique and essential aspect of early American society was the “spirit of association” espoused by the American people. The young French aristocrat came to the United States in 1831 and traveled throughout the burgeoning nation to determine why it excelled at democratic governance. He concluded that the bedrock of American democracy is the civil associations formed by ordinary citizens.

We agreed.

At the American Constitution Society (ACS), we believe in the power of empowering community engagement by facilitating conversations about key legal and public policy issues and recognizing the impact they have on everyone, not just those in the legal community. To share these critical issues with everyone, ACS created the Love Our Constitution Initiative.

This year's "Love Our Constitution" theme: Courts Matter

For the third year, ACS’s annual Love Our Constitution initiative will take place during the week of Valentine's Day, from February 10-16, 2019. Through this project, ACS members can share their love of the U.S. Constitution by leading community discussions on the federal judiciary during Valentine’s week.

In the last couple of years, we have seen the power of the judiciary to curb executive overreach. At the same time, we have also seen a lack of diversity, questionable qualifications and divisive ideologies among nominees for the federal courts put forth by the Trump administration. Now more than ever, informing and engaging the public is crucial to preserving our judicial institutions and promoting justice for all people.

Planning a presentation is easy: We supply the PowerPoint and other resources

In the last two years, our members hosted events involving more than 1,000 people across the country. They gathered in lecture halls, public libraries, conference rooms, classrooms, and people's homes to share their thoughts on constitutional principles and learn more about the critical roles of the courts and the judges.

We encourage you to engage with and share the principles of the Constitution with your community and host a Love Our Constitution presentation. Participation is easy and ACS has all the resources ready for you as follows:

A free and just society depends on informed and active citizens

This inspiring article in The Guardian highlights the collective work of our members and volunteers in organizing and leading Love Our Constitution discussions.

In our current political environment, it is easy to realize that democratic norms and institutions are neither infallible nor inevitable. The survival of our political system and the rights it protects depends upon the everyday actions of citizens from all backgrounds to stay informed and advocate for their beliefs.

As Tocqueville noted nearly 200 years ago, the strength of our Constitution lies in our willingness to engage with it: to create, in each generation, the free and just society it makes possible.

If you have any questions about the Love Our Constitution initiative, please email LCEmails@acslaw.org.