Category: General Law

stairway-to-heaven-1319562-m-720x340
1

FAN 71 (First Amendment News) Just Released: 2nd ed. of Cogan’s “The Complete Bill of Rights” — 30 New Pages on History of Press & Assembly Clauses

This book is an invaluable resource for constitutional scholars, teachers, litigators, and judges alike. It collects and collates the basic texts necessary for informed interpretation of the Bill of Rights and gives them to researchers in a compact, comprehensive, and reliable form that is wonderfully organized for both quick scanning and sustained critical analysis. It makes previously difficult research tasks easy and opens new lines of thinking at a glance.– Anthony G. Amsterdam (2015)

41lkMJ+mUtL._SX348_BO1,204,203,200_The second edition of Professor Neil Cogan’s monumental The Complete Bill of Rights: The Drafts, Debates, Sources, & Origins (Oxford University Press) has just been released. Get out your wallet, for this book is well worth the $185.00 list price. Really!

Here is what Floyd Abrams said of the first edition: “For anyone interested in our Constitution, our history, or our political theory, this book is an intellectual treasure chest. It is more than legislative history. It is constitution-drafting in the raw — all the proposals and all the give-and-take (some of it disturbing) that resulted in the adoption of the Bill of Rights.” The historian Stanley Katz referred to it as “a major occasion in American publishing. . . . This is a triumph of careful and thoughtful scholarship. It is now one of the essential components of the the library of constitutionalism.” Though it is hard to imagine, Cogan’s second edition is even better and more triumphant!

 The second edition (1362 pp.) almost doubles the first edition (705 pp.) in length by adding, among other things, lengthy excerpts from the treatises and dictionaries familiar to judges and lawyers in the 1780s. (Note: the pages in the new edition are also longer and its margins are narrower.)

In the First Amendment section — other than in the religion clauses segments which total 146 pages — new materials were added to the Press Clause segment and to the Assembly Clause segment. The majority of the newly added materials in those areas appears in the Press Clause segment (five new entries: Bacon, Burn, Cunningham, Jacob, and Viner) and one new entry for the Assembly Clause segment (Burn). The new sources materials for those segments of second edition of The Complete Bill of Rights are listed below:

  1. Matthew Bacon, A New Abridgment of the Law (London (Savoy): E. & R. Nutt & R. Gosling, 1736) [NB: hyperlink is to a later edition]
  2. Richard Burn, Justice of the Peace & Parish Officer (London: Ho. Woodfall & W. Strahan, 10th ed., 1776) [NB: hyperlink is to a later edition]
  3. T. Cunningham, A New And Complete Law-Dictionary (London: Law Printers to the King, 1764, 1765) (Adams Library)
  4. Giles Jacob, The New-Law Dictionary (London (Savoy): Henry Lintot, 1743) (Adams Library) [NB: hyperlink is to an earlier edition]
  5. Charles Viner, A General Abridgment of Law and Equity (London, 1742) (Adams Library)

In the Press Clause segment, the 27 pages of new materials (pp.  182-208) consist of definitions and discussions of defamation:

  • What is it?
  • What amounts to a libel?
  • How much certainty is required?
  • Can statements made in court amount to defamation?
  • Who qualifies as a libeler?
  • What constitutes publishing?
  • What matters are for a judge or jury to decide?, and
  • What  punishment (civil and/or criminal), if any, is appropriate?

Beyond this, there is also an entry from Richard Burn’s treatise concerning religious and civil laws regulating swearing (pp. 206-208)

The new entry concerning the Assembly Clause (pp. 254-61) segment consists of seven pages (also from Richard Burn’s treatise). Those pages largely concern definitional and related questions, which are divided into the following six subcategories:

I.    “What is a riot, rout, or unlawful assembly”?

II.   “How the same may be restrained by a private person.” [re common law powers to suppress a riot]

III.  “How by a constable, or by other peace officer.” [re common law powers to suppress a riot]

IV.  “How by one justice.” [re statutory powers of a justice of the peace to restrain, arrest, chastise or punish.]

V.    “How by two justices.”  [re statutory powers of two or three justices of the peace to use “the power of the country” or that of the sheriff to enforce an order re a riot or unlawful assembly]

VI.  “How by a process out of chancery.” [re statutory powers of chancery court to inquire into the truth of any complaint brought by an aggrieved party].

Professor Neil Cogan

Professor Neil Cogan

Whatever one thinks of textualism and/or historicism, Professor Cogan has performed a great public service in bringing into sharper focus the historical backdrop of the Bill of Rights. In a 1993 letter to Cogan, the late Gerald Gunther tagged the first edition as a “very valuable book” and a “marvelous collection” of historical documents. (Cynthia Cotts, “A Dean’s Book on Bill of Rights Scores with Supremes, Scholar,” National Law Journal, Nov. 24, 1997). For those who knew Gerry Gunther, he was not one to offer exaggerated or unmerited praise. That said, he was too modest in his assessment of The Complete Bill of Rights. Then again, perhaps he knew better than most that superlatives may sometimes devalue the true worth of a great work. In that spirit, nothing much need be added other than this: The second edition of The Complete Bill of Rights is even more “valuable” than the first.    

Cert Petition Filed in Occupational Speech Case Read More

7

Formalities of Judicial Voting

I’ve started drafting my next book (on the Bill of Rights), and I’m not sure how that will change my blogging.  Maybe I will post less often, maybe my posts will focus on the Bill of Rights–we’ll see.

For now, though, I want to pose this question.  What must a Supreme Court Justice do to vote on some matter before the Court?  In other words, suppose a Justice is ill but still wants to participate.  Attending oral argument is not a requirement–there are many past instances of a Justice voting on cases based on listening to argument on tape.  What about attending the Court’s conference?  (Senators and Representatives must be physically present on the floor to vote).  I don’t think there is any such need–you could vote by memo.  Do you have to read the briefs?  No.

In the end, I think the answer is that a Justice’s vote counts so long as the other Justices think that it should count.  This would seem to be the precedent set by the way that the Court handled the aftermath of Justice William O. Douglas’s stroke at the end of his tenure.  For months Justice Douglas was clearly incapacitated, but he kept on trying to vote.  The other Justices eventually reached an understanding that they would never let his vote be decisive (until he resigned).

One further question–can Congress answer this question?  There is already a quorum requirement set by statute (6 Justices).  Can Congress go further and establish, for instance, that a Justice must attend oral argument to vote on an argued case?

0

FAN 70.1 (First Amendment News) Amarin v. FDA –Important Commercial Speech Case May be Decided Soon

The FDA has long sought to ban manufacturers from promoting off-label uses of approved drugs and medical devices.  In taking the position that manufacturers and their agents cannot promote off-label uses, the FDA suggests they are safeguarding the public from misbranded medical products and ensuring that manufacturers do not circumvent the drug and device approval processes. Critics, however, have long contended that the FDA’s position violates the First Amendment to the extent it prohibits truthful speech. — Evelien Verpeet, ReedSmith, June 18, 2015

Should pharmaceutical companies be able to advertise drugs for uses not  approved by the FDA? It seems like a no brainer — of course not! But as with so many other things in life and law, the answer (especially the First Amendment answer) is not so obvious.

→ The caseAmarin Pharma, Inc. v. United States Food & Drug Administration (Dist. Ct., S. Dist. NY).

→ Judge: The matter was argued before U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on July 7, 2015. A ruling is expected soon.

Unknown5→ Plaintiff’s Claim: “Amarin Pharma wants to provide healthcare professionals with truthful, non-misleading information about its prescription drug Vascepa®, and four doctors who want to receive that information, as they determine when and whether to prescribe that drug. If Amarin provides that information, however, it is at high risk of criminal and civil sanctions being sought against it by the United States.”

U.S. Atty. Preet Bharara

U.S. Atty. Preet Bharara

→ Government’s Claim: “Plaintiffs seek a court order that would allow Amarin to distribute its drug Vascepa under circumstances which could establish that Amarin intends an unapproved new use for Vascepa, i.e., a use for which FDA has not determined that the drug is safe and effective. But Plaintiffs’ legal arguments strike at the very heart of the new drug approval process, and a court decision in Plaintiffs’ favor has the potential to establish precedent that would return the country to the pre-1962 era when companies were not required to prove that their drugs were safe and effective for each of their intended uses.”

The FDA has long banned promotion of drugs for uses other than those it has approved. Yet so-called off-label uses are legal and account for about 20% of all prescriptions. Some off-label uses of drugs have even become the standard of care for particular conditions. But the drug’s manufacturer and its agents—and only them—cannot legally talk about this. Patients can—and do—discuss off-label uses of drugs endlessly in online forums. Doctors certainly exchange information about these uses. — David B. Rivkin Jr. &  Andrew Grossman, WSJ, May 21, 2015

 P’s Counsel: Floyd Abrams is the lead counsel for the Plaintiff with Joel Kurtzberg and Michael B. Weiss (see here re P’s complaint)

→ Gov.’s CounselPreet Bharara is the attorney for the Defendant along with Ellen London and Benjamin Mizer

→ Amicus Briefs: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and Washington Legal Foundation — both in support of the Plaintiff / Public Citizen in support of the United States

→ FDA Letter to Judge Engelmayer, June 8, 2015 (see here for a discussion of the mootness issue raised by this letter)

Excerpts from United States v. Caronia (2nd Cir. 2012) re off-label promotions 

The government’s construction of the FDCA asprohibiting off-label promotion does not, by itself, withstand scrutiny under Central Hudson’s third prong [that the regulation directly advance the government’s interests] . . . . The last prong of Central Hudson requires thegovernment’s regulation to be narrowly drawn to further the interests served. . . Here, the government’s construction of the FDCA to impose a complete and criminal ban on off-label promotion by pharmaceutical manufacturers is more extensive than necessary to achieve the government’s substantial interests. . . . We conclude simply that the government cannot prosecute pharmaceutical manufacturers and their representatives under the FDCA for speech promoting the lawful, off-label use of an FDA-approved drug. Judge Denny Chin for the majority.

* * * *

[T]he majority calls into question the very foundations of our century-old system of drug regulation. I do not believe that the Supreme Court’s precedents compel such a result. . . . If drug manufacturers were allowed to promote FDA-approved drugs for non-approved uses, they would have little incentive to seek FDA approval for those uses. — Judge Debra Ann Livingston dissenting

Summary of Amarin’s First Amendment Arguments Read More

Three on the Gig Economy

July has been a big month for public discussion of the gig economy. For those interested in the issue, here are three of my recent pieces:

1) Is Your Digital Boss Cheating You? (part of a collection of “5 Ways to Take Back Tech”)

2) Serfing the Web: On-Demand Workers Deserve a Place at the Table (with Trebor Scholz). If you have comments for the FTC on the gig economy, their deadline is August 4.

3) Uber and the lawlessness of ‘sharing economy’ corporates (with Siva Vaidhyanathan)

In related news: for anyone interested in the future of legal regulation of the interaction between software and work, please submit an abstract to “Unlocking the Black Box: The Promise and Limits of Algorithmic Accountability in the Professions” (due by August 23).

0

Roundup: Law and Humanities 07.30.15

There’s a lot going on in law and the humanities these days. Here’s a sampling.

First, an opportunity for publication:

Fairleigh Dickinson University Press invites the submission of proposals for books, monographs, or essay collections in the interdisciplinary fields of humanistically-oriented legal scholarship for the series The Fairleigh Dickinson University Press Series in Law, Culture and the Humanities.

Possible topics range from scholarship on legal history; legal theory and jurisprudence; law and critical/cultural studies, law and anthropology, law and literature, law and film, law and society, law and the performing arts, law and communication, law and philosophy, and legal hermeneutics.

Proposals must include: a description of the issue/s you intend to explore and the method/s you will use; a comparison and contrast with existing books on similar or related topics; a table of contents and a precis of what each chapter aims to cover; a description of the book’s target market/s; the author’s/authors’ or editor’s/editors’ curriculum vitae; if it is a collection of essays, a compiled and alphabetized list of short biographies of prospective contributors, and a list of three experts in the field capable of assessing the value of the project.

The series also welcomes submissions of completed monographs and essay collections; kindly make an inquiry prior to sending over the completed book or collection of essays, together with the author’s curriculum vitae and three suggested experts, if you are the author/authors. If you are an editor/editors of a completed collection of essays, please include a compiled and alphabetized list of short biographies of prospective contributors, together with your curriculum vitae and list of possible experts. Essay collections must be of previously unpublished material. Conference sessions, properly edited and often expanded by calls for papers, into essay collections, are also welcome.

Referees may or may not be from the submitted list of suggested experts. The series benefits from the advice of an international board of leading scholars in the field. Proposals may be sent to:

Caroline Joan S. Picart, Ph.D., J.D., Esquire
Tim Bower Rodriguez, P.A.
601 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 310,

Tampa, FL 33602

Email: cjpicart@gmail.com

Read More

stairway-to-heaven-1319562-m-720x340
0

FAN 70 (First Amendment News) 10 Little known or long forgotten facts about the First Amendment

Since the news slows down in the summer, I thought I’d share some little known or long forgotten facts about the First Amendment. They concern everything from the text of the First Amendment / to Holmes and his 1919 opinions / to the first woman who argued a free-speech case in the Supreme Court / to Robert L. Carter’s ideas about freedom of association and his subsequent victory in NAACP v. Alabama / to the opinion Richard Posner wrote in NAACP v. Button / to the author of the famous line in Sullivan / to Ralph Nader and the origins of the modern commercial speech doctrine and more.

* * *  *

  1. Does any Justice (originalists, textualists, and others, living or dead) have any idea of what exactly the word abridge means as used in the First Amendment? To the best of my knowledge, no member of the Court (including Justices Hugo Black, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas) has ever devoted any serious ink to this definitional question. (see here for a discussion of the word).
  2. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was not the first person to use the phrase clear and present danger in a legal context. As Professor Lucas Powe has observed, in “the summer of 1918, Benjamin W. Shaw, defending (unsuccessfully until appeal) an Espionage Act case, uttered the following during his closing argument to the jury”: Under all of the facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence in this case, how can it be said that he wilfully [sic] said and did the things alleged? How can the words used under the circumstances detailed in the evidence have the tendency to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent?” (John Fontana, 12 American State Trials 897, 932 (John D. Lawson, editor) (F.H. Thomas Book Co., 1920) (emphasis added), quoted in L. A. Powe, “Searching for the False Shout of ‘Fire,’” 19 Constitutional Commentary 345, 352, n. 61 (2002)
  3. Notwithstanding what the Court did in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the holdings in Schenck v. United States (1919), Debs v. United States (1919) and Dennis v. United States (1951) have never been formally overruled.
  4. In his concurrence in Whitney v. California (1927), Justice Louis Brandeis flagged his substantive agreement with the majority’s judgment: “[In this case] there was other testimony which tended to establish the existence of a conspiracy, on the part of members of the International Workers of the World, to commit present serious crimes, and likewise to show that such a conspiracy would be furthered by the activity of the society of which Miss Whitney was a member. Under these circumstances, the judgment of the state court cannot be disturbed.” (emphasis added)
  5. The first woman to argue a free speech case (though not a First Amendment case) in the Supreme Court was Olive Rabe — the case was United States v. Schwimmer (1929). It was nearly 40 years before another woman represented a rights claimant in a free-speech case in the Supreme Court. The woman was Eleanor Holmes Norton, a woman of color; the case was Carroll v. President & Commissioners of Princess Anne (1968). As with Olive Rabe, few if any know or remember that Eleanor Holmes Norton, now a member of Congress, was the first woman to represent a rights claimant in the Supreme Court in a First Amendment free-expression case. (Collins & Hudson: “To the high court: Olive Rabe representing Rosika Schwimmer“).
  6. the young Robert L. Carter

    the young Robert L. Carter

    Robert L. Carter successfully argued NAACP v. Alabama (1958). In the NAACP’s brief and in the course of oral arguments (Jan. 15-16, 1958) Mr. Carter stated: “We contend that the order to require us to disclose the list of our members is a denial of our right — the right of a corporation and the right of its members — to free speech and freedom of association and is protected by the First Amendment.” Years earlier Mr. Carter wrote a post-graduate thesis on the First Amendment while at Columbia Law School, this after having received his J.D. from Howard University. (Collins & Chaltain, We Must not be Afraid to be Free)

    (See box below re Carter’s LLM thesis)

  7. Though Justice Brennan is formally credited with authoring NAACP v. Button (1963), the opinion was actually written by his law clerk Richard Posner. “That was one I did for Brennan,” Posner told Kenneth Durr in a 2011 interview.
  8. The famous prhrase, “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,” originated with Stephen R. Barnett, one of Justice Brennan’s law clerks in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). (Stern & Wermiel, Justice Brennan: Liberal Champion)
  9. For decades before before Citizens United (2010), most of the appellate challenges to campaign finance laws were brought by liberals, liberal groups, or labor unions. (Collins & Skover, When Money Speaks (2014))
  10. The emergence of the modern commercial speech doctrine was made possible by Ralph Nader’s group, Public Citizen. Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Consumer Council (1976) was successfully argued by Alan Morrison, who was then affiliated with Public Citizen. Earlier, Morrison had submitted an amicus brief to the same effect in Bigelow v. Virginia (1975).

The Three Freedoms

by Robert L. Carter

submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Law in the Faculty of the School of Law, Columbia University.

August 1, 1941

TRO Granted in Online Adult/Escort Advertising Case Read More

5

The Anti-Novelty Doctrine

I’ve been catching up on what’s new in the law reviews, and I want to recommend Neal Katyal and Thomas Schmidt’s paper in Harvard on “Active Avoidance.”  Much of the article provides a well-deserved critique of the Court’s recent practice of reading statutes in absurd ways to avoid constitutional difficulties.  The paper also points out that in these cases the Court introduces new constitutional arguments in dicta to explain those alleged difficulties, which do not get adequate attention then but then get cited later as authoritative.

Another part of this article that deserves more scrutiny is its attack on the Court’s recent cases suggesting that a law which is novel should be presumed unconstitutional.  I’ve blogged in the past about this idea, which showed up in the Affordable Care Act case (on the individual mandate), the challenge to DOMA, and some other decisions.  I’m not sure how I come down on the “anti-novelty” doctrine, but it is true that this idea clashes with the general presumption of constitutionality.

stairway-to-heaven-1319562-m-720x340
1

FAN 69 (First Amendment News) Justice Alito discusses four First Amendment cases in Kristol interview — Free-Speech Jurisprudence Comes into Sharper Focus

“[I]f we lose focus on what is at the core of the free-speech protection by concentrating on . . . peripheral issues, I think, there’s a real danger that our free-speech cases will go off in a bad direction.” — Justice Samuel Alito

Recently, Justice Samuel Alito participated in a video-recoreded interview with Bill Kristol. In the “Conversations with Bill Kristol” program the Justice discussed his legal education and the workings of the Supreme Court. He also discussed four First Amendment free-expression cases: United States v. Stevens (2010), Snyder v. Phelps (2011), United States v. Alvarez (2012), and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010).

Below are some excerpts I transcribed from the video-recorded interview in which Justice Alito discussed the First Amendment, this in response to questions posed to him by Mr. Kristol. I have added captions to the transcript and have edited it in places as well. (There is also a transcript of the entire interview  (login required) on the “Conversations with Bill Kristol website.)    

Following the exchange between the Justice and Mr. Kristol, I added some preliminary commentaries on what Justice Alito’s remarks may suggest about his larger First Amendment jurisprudence.  

Finally, I ended with some general information about Justice Alito and his free-speech jurisprudence.  

The Stevens Case

Justice Alito on "Conversations with Bill Kristol"

Justice Alito on “Conversations with Bill Kristol”

The Justice’s discussion of Stevens — the videoing of animal cruelty case — was largely descriptive. What concerned Justice Alito about the case the fact that it was “virtually impossible to find out who was [killing the animals that were being filmed]. The physical activity could be made illegal,” he noted. “[N]o one questions that . . . you could have a law against animal cruelty. Can you have a law that prohibits the creation of these videos without which the animal cruelty would not take place?”

Because of overbreadth problems, seven Justices voted to strike down the law on First Amendment grounds while Justice Alito felt otherwise and dissented.

The Phelps Case

Here, too, much of the discussion of Phelps — the military funerals protest case — was descriptive. What concerned the Justice was the fact that in “this particular case the . . .  [protesters] had placards that said horrible things about [the soldier being buried] . . . It was very distressing to the family members, who were in attendance.”

“So they were sued under a very well-established tort that goes back to the nineteenth century — the intentional infliction of severe emotional distress. And I thought that this tort constituted a reasonable exception to the First Amendment, but my colleagues disagreed about that.”

Bill Kristol

William Kristol

Mr. Kristol: “. . . What about the obvious sort of simple argument that . . . it is a slippery slope, that you cannot curtail speech? That is kind of the argument that the majority made, in one way or  the other, I would say.”

Justice Alito: “Well I think that some members of the majority — this is not based on inside information, this is what I get from reading the opinion — I think that there are those who would support the majority decision in both those cases for exactly that reason. So if we say, even in these outrageous situations, ‘we will not tolerate any abridgment of freedom of speech,’ then when something comes along that I would regard, and I think our cases would regard as really being at the core of the free-speech protection, these decisions provide a guarantee, or they provide a wall of proaction against a bad decision in those areas. If I really believed that to be the case, I might think it was an appropriate tradeoff. I don’t think that’s the case. I think that judges who are inclined to make a bad decision, an anti-free speech decision in a case involving core political speech, will find a way of getting around these little cases.”

The Alvarez Case

Justice Alito: “So what I think has been going on in those two cases and another one where I was in dissent, this time not by myself, in United States v. Alvarez, which had to do with the constitutionality of a statute passed by Congress called ‘The Stolen Valor Act,’ [which] prohibited a false claim of having received a military medal. . . .”

Mr. Kristol: “Which was happening a lot at the time.”

Justice Alito: “It was happening a lot. People were making up, you know, claiming to have won the Congressional Medal of Honor . . . “

Reflecting on StevensPhelps and Alvarez, Justice Alito stressed that “those cases involve a diversion, I think, of attention from the core, from what is most important about the guarantee of freedom of speech.”

He then developed that point as noted below.

Protecting Core Political Speech

Justice Alito: “I think freedom of speech protects and serves many purposes, but I believe, and I think the Court has said that at the core, whatever other purposes it may serve, it is vitally important for democratic self-government. If people cannot debate public issues, if they cannot debate the relative merits of political candidates, then democracy is basically impossible. So I think that is the core of the protection. These cases involving . . . depictions of animal cruelty, the protest at military funerals, [and] falsely claiming to have won the Congressional Medal of Honor don’t involve anything like that.”

“And if we lose focus on what is at the core of the free-speech protection by concentrating on these peripheral issues, I think, there’s a real danger that our free-speech cases will go off in a bad direction. In the cases that we’ve had that I think involve core free speech. . . the chief example that I would give from my time on the Court is the Citizens United case. . . . [N[ow that [case] came out five to four . . . . Citizens United, I think, is core political speech. It is a video about a candidate for the Presidency of the United States. If that’s not protected by First Amendment free speech, by the First Amendment free speech guarantee, I don’t know what is.”

“So on things that are at the core, the Court has been shakier than it has been on these things that are at the periphery.”

Mr. Kristol: “So the argument that protecting the periphery helps protect the core doesn’t seem to hold in this case.”

Justice Alito: “I don’t think it works.”

Mr. Kristol: “You also make the argument, as I recall, in at least one or two of those three dissents, you make more of a positive argument for the virtues, for the right, for . . . the ability of the community to draw certain boundaries around civility or civilized behavior almost, mostly in the case of the soldiers’ funerals or all of them really, the animal cruelty [and the] lying [case]. Those are all things a community would have a reasonable interest in discouraging, to say the least.”

Justice Alito: “I think that’s true. And I think that’s appropriate in cases that don’t involve political speech. I would not make the same argument in a case . . . involving political speech. I thought all of them were cabined by specific rules, very reasonable rules. So in the animal cruelty case, I thought that was very similar to the rationale . . . against child pornography. Which is that you can’t produce child pornography without abusing a child and by stamping out child pornography, or trying to stamp out child pornography, you are attacking the underlying abuse – same thing [holds true] with these crush videos. You couldn’t stamp them out without preventing the creation and the circulation of the videos. . . . I think that kind of an argument is a dangerous argument when you’re talking about political speech. . . .”

The discussion ended with some brief additional comments about hate speech in Europe.

[ht: Tony Mauro]

Commentary Read More

6

The Certiorari Grant in Fisher

I’d been meaning to say something about the not-so-new affirmative action case, but writing a book review knocked me offline for a while.

The new grant of cert in Fisher is peculiar.  Media reports suggest that the last time around the Court was going to issue a stronger opinion curtailing the use of race-conscious admissions policies.  Faced with a sharp dissent from Justice Sotomayor, though, the majority backed down and (after extended wrangling) produced a brief opinion remanding the case to the Fifth Circuit.  Now we get another grant (after the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed its prior holding).

It’s worth noting that this second grant is problematic in a couple of respects.  First, there’s a certain waste of resources in going through a second round of briefing and argument in the same case.  Sure, the briefs will be freshened up a bit, and you have a new circuit opinion as well, but the Justices are largely spinning their wheels.  Second, there is the awkward fact that Justice Kagan is recused because she worked on the case as Solicitor General.  (Indeed, you would think that this is the last case that will prompt her recusal for that reason.)  Any other challenge to university admissions accepted by the Court would have been decided by all nine Justices–perhaps that would have better.  Finally, Fisher has always struck me as a poor vehicle for thinking about race-conscious admissions given the structure of Texas public schools and the way the UT plan was designed.

So what’s going on?  Could it be that the current majority (that is, the one that did go forward the first time) is aware that there may not be another opportunity to take a stand before there is a different majority?  Or is this a situation where (as with campaign regulation and the Voting Rights Act) the Court will use Fisher I as authority for a broader ruling in Fisher II, but was not comfortable doing that without a Fisher I?