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

FAN 115 (First Amendment News) Profile: Jameel Jaffer to Head New Knight First Amendment Institute

Jameel Jaffer

Jameel Jaffer

“Columbia University President Lee C. Bollinger announced his appointment of Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director at the ACLU, as founding director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. Last [May], Columbia and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation announced the creation of the new institute which will workthrough litigation, research and public advocacyto preserve and expand the freedoms of expression and the press in the digital age.”

Columbia News also reported that “since he joined the staff of the ACLU in 2002, Jaffer has litigated some of the most significant post-9/11 cases relating to national security and civil liberties, among them: constitutional challenges to gag orders imposed under the USA Patriot Act, surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency, the viewpoint-based denial of visas to foreign scholars, and the sealing of judicial opinions issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. He has argued cases at all levels of the federal court system, including in the U.S. Supreme Court, and has testified before Congress about a variety of topics relating to national security and civil liberties. Jaffer is also one of the nation’s leading Freedom of Information Act attorneys, having litigated landmark cases that resulted in the publication of crucial documents about the U.S. government’s counter-terrorism policies.”

Select Litigation 

  • Jaffer represented the Respondents in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA (2013) (briefs here & here)
  • In 2004, “he successfully litigated a Freedom of Information challenge that forced the administration of former president George W. Bush to release the ‘torture memos,’ which authorized the use of brutal interrogation and torture techniques against detainees during the War on Terror.”
  • ACLU v. Holder (4th Cir., 2010) (Appellants’ brief) (“The False Claims Act requires the sealing of fundamental court documents alleging matters of vital public importance, sometimes for many years. The statute penalizes relators for discussing facts that are true and of public interest. Approximately one thousand cases remain under seal, and serious allegations that the federal government has been defrauded of billions of dollars continue to be hidden from the public eye. Thus has a venerable statute enacted to expose fraud against the government been employed as a means of suppressing public debate about critical national issues, in plain contravention of the First Amendment.”)
  • ACLU v. NSA, 467 F.3d 590 (2006)

Select Publications, Congressional Testimony & Interviews

 Jameel Jaffer was born in Kingston, Ontario. He is a graduate of Williams College and received his law degree from Harvard Law School (he was an editor on the Harvard Law Review). Jaffer clerked for Judge Amalya L. Kearse of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and for Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of Canada.

ACLU Contests Constitutionality of Computer Fraud & Abuse Act

This chill arises because the CFAA makes it a crime to visit or access a website in a manner that violates that website’s terms of service, while robust audit testing and investigations to uncover online discrimination require violating common website terms of service. — ACLU Complaint 

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of an anti-hacking law. The group argues that the law (the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) inhibits academics and others from gathering data to study whether online algorithms might be discriminatory. The ACLU claims the law v violates First Amendment freedoms.

aclu_logo

The ACLU complaint “challenges the constitutionality of a provision of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a federal statute that prohibits and chills academics, researchers, and journalists from testing for discrimination on the internet. This chill arises because the CFAA makes it a crime to visit or access a website in a manner that violates that website’s terms of service, while robust audit testing and investigations to uncover online discrimination require violating common website terms of service. Without online audit testing, policymakers and the American public will have no way to ensure that the civil rights laws continue to protect individuals from discrimination in the twenty-first century. . .”

“The Plaintiffs’ research and testing activities, which include posing as online users of different races and recording the information they receive, constitute speech and expressive activity that is protected by the First Amendment, and that is prohibited by the Challenged Provision. The overbroad and indeterminate nature of the Challenged Provision prohibits and chills a range of speech and expressive activity protected by the First Amendment, because it prevents Plaintiffs and other individuals from conducting robust research on issues of public concern when websites choose to proscribe such activity.”

→ ACLU Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Esha Bhandari, Rachel Goodman, Arthur B. Spitzer & Scott Michelman

 David McCabe, ACLU sues feds over anti-hacking law, The Hill, June 29, 2016

7th Circuit Holds City Ban on Bus Ads Inapplicable to Women’s Health Care Ad Read More

0

Donald Trump, Prolific Frivolous Litigator, Part I

Donald Trump (credit: Business Insider)

Donald Trump (credit: Business Insider)

For about two years, Chicago’s skyline has had the letters T R U M P adorning a showy luxury building the presumptive Republican presidential nominee put up during the financial crisis.   While locals led by Mayor Rahm Emanuel recoiled at the Donald’s bad taste in design, lawyers and citizens alike should recall some of the poor judgment, tone deafness, and ignorance of the law he displayed during the long construction process.

As told in my book aimed at new or aspiring law students, Contracts in the Real World: Stories of Popular Contracts and Why They Matter, Donald Trump thought the so-called “Great Recession” of 2008-09 so calamitous to count as an “Act of God.” He was in the midst of building what would be one of Chicago’s tallest skyscrapers, rivaling the old Sears (now Willis) Tower, a combination luxury hotel and condominiums.

To finance the project, Trump borrowed $640 million from lenders led by Deutsche Bank in February 2005. By the end of 2008, Trump had only sold condos netting him $204 million along with others under contract that would yield another $353 million. That left him facing a shortfall of nearly $100 million when he was obligated to repay his lenders $40 million per month. Trump cited the Great Recession as an excuse to delay making monthly payments. The banks refused to accept the excuse from timely payment, so Trump, a prolific litigant, went to court. Read More

3

Divergent Paths to Same-sex Marriage: What We Can Learn from South Africa

Last Sunday marked the one year anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the Supreme Court ruled that excluding same-sex couples from marriage was unconstitutional. Obergefell was a huge development not only for the United States, but also for the world. Boris Dittrich, Advocacy Director of the LGBT Rights Program at Human Rights Watch, has predicted that Obergefell “will reverberate in many countries that still deny people the right to marry the person they love.”

As countries around the world draw inspiration from Obergefell, I hope Obergefell will not overshadow Fourie v. Minister of Home Affairs, another important case in the international arena. In 2005—nearly a decade before Obergefell—South Africa’s Constitutional Court ruled in Fourie that depriving same-sex couples of the ability to marry violated constitutional protections of dignity and equality. South Africa’s Constitutional Court became the first national apex court to decide that barring same-sex couples from marriage is unconstitutional. 

Many aspects of Fourie fascinate me, but in the confined space of this blog post, I will focus on just two. First, in comparison with Obergefell, Fourie offers a competing—and more compelling—conceptualization of the relationship between marriage and dignity. In Obergefell, Justice Kennedy endorsed a highly romanticized view of marriage as an institution that confers dignity upon those who enter it. “Marriage dignifies couples,” he said. “Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there.” He talks in grandiose terms about how “[n]o union is more profound than marriage,” and how being denied marriage is “being condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions.”

Many commentators have criticized Obergefell for implying that people must get married to be fully dignified. (See, e.g., here, here, and here.) What about people who don’t want to get married, or people who simply haven’t found the right partner to marry? Obergefell’s over-the-top romanticization of marriage marginalizes these segments of society.

For the record: I’m married, I love being married, and I love being married to a spouse of the same sex! But I also think marriage is not for everyone, and that’s one reason why I admire the Fourie opinion. No other judicial opinion on same-sex marriage has done as good a job as Fourie at explaining the relationship between same-sex marriage and dignity. Fourie makes clear that marriage doesn’t dignify couples. Rather, it’s giving people the decision whether to marry—and whether to marry someone of the same sex—that is most important to dignity.

To the best of my knowledge, Fourie is the only judicial opinion on same-sex marriage that has explicitly engaged queer and feminist critiques of marriage. The Court acknowledged that many same-sex couples might well choose not to marry if given the opportunity. Instead of denigrating that choice, the Court explained that “what is in issue is not the decision to be taken, but the choice that is available. If heterosexual couples have the option of deciding whether to marry or not, so should same-sex couples have the choice . . .”

The South African Constitutional Court also avoided over-romanticizing marriage by emphasizing that marriage rights are important precisely because marriages often fail. If a couple is married, the government will help the couple sort things out if and when they break up. “[T]he law of marriage is invoked both at moments of blissful creation and at times of sad cessation.” If you are not married, you cannot claim the legal protections of divorce.

I am currently writing a law review essay that elaborates on the difference between Obergefell’s and Fourie’s competing visions of marriage, and the ramifications of each view. Stay tuned! In the meantime, I’d like to turn our attention to yet another fascinating aspect of Fourie: the Constitutional Court’s decision to delay providing a remedy to same-sex couples.

Read More

0

Brian Bix Reviews Franke’s “Wedlocked: The Perils of Marriage Equality”

51UfSYDx0wL._SX336_BO1,204,203,200_Anyone interested in marriage equality will want to read Katherine Franke’s Wedlocked: The Perils of Marriage Equality (New York University Press, 2015).

Earlier this year we posted some commentaries as part of an online symposium on Wedlocked:

  Now to add to the conceptual mix, Professor Brian Bix has his own thoughtful review of Wedlocked. Those of us over at the Journal of Legal Education invited his review.

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

FAN 114 (First Amendment News) 2015 Term: What Happened to the Big Cases? — Equally Divided or Cert. Denied

The big First Amendment news of the 2015 Term was the cases the Court declined to hear. But even in the one case the Justices actually decided (4-4 cases don’t count), they were of two minds. The result: no blockbuster opinion like last Term’s Reed  Town of Gilbert (2015).

The Court’s Schizophrenic Moment 

The only First Amendment expression case the Justices actually decided was a government employee case, Heffernan v. City of Paterson (7-2). But even there, Justice Stephen Breyer’s majority opinion was (if I may) rather schizophrenic. One the one hand, the Court ruled that “when an employer demotes an employee out of a desire to prevent the employee from engaging in protected political activity, the employee is entitled to challenge that unlawful action under the First Amendment and §1983 even if, as here, the employer’s actions are based on a factual mistake about the employee’s behavior.” On the other hand, the Court “assumed that Heffernan’s employer demoted him out of an improper motive. However, the lower courts should decide in the first instance whether respondents may have acted under a neutral policy prohibiting police officers from overt involvement in any political campaign and whether such a policy, if it exists, complies with constitutional standards.”

Thus while Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) remains the main law in the area of government-employee speech, a little wind has been taken from its sails.

  Abood Lives On 

The central issue in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association was whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment. After oral arguments, it looked like Abood was headed for the dead-precedents dumpster. Ever since Harris v. Quinn (2014), the conservative bloc of the Court seemed to be gunning for Abood.

Justice consider the rhetorical question Justice Antonin Scalia posed to Michael Carvin, counsel for Petitions: “Is ­­ is it okay to force somebody to contribute to a cause that he does believe in?” The drift of his other questions and comments moved along that conceptual track.

But Fate intervened, Justice Scalia died, and that left the Court divided 4-4, which affirmed the ruling of the Ninth Circuit in favor of the unions. Much as Heffernan saved Garretti, Friedrichs saved Abood. The rehearing petition was also denied. (See also Town of Mocksville v. Hunter, below.)

Some Important Cases — Cert. Denied 

Some big First Amendment issues came before the Court this Term, but alas, all were ducked and thus delegated to the dustbin of forgotten cases.  Just consider the following areas of the law:

  • Right of Publicity: “Whether the First Amendment protects a speaker against a state-law right-of-publicity claim that challenges the realistic portrayal of a person in an expressive work.” Despite the splits in the circuits and the confusion in the lower courts, the Justices denied the petition in Electronic Arts, Inc. v. Davis Paul M. Smith was lead counsel for the Petitioner.
  • Deceptive & Misleading Ads: “Whether a finding by the FTC that a truthful advertisement nonetheless implies a misleading message to a minority of consumers, and therefore receives no First Amendment protection, must be reviewed de novo.” POM Wonderful, LLC v. FTC Tom Goldstein was lead counsel for the Petitioner.
  • Student Speech: “Whether and to what extent public schools, consistent with the First Amendment, may discipline students for their off-campus speech.” Bell v. Itawamba County School Board Wilbur Colom was lead counsel for the Petitioner.
  • Government Employee Speech: “Whether the First Amendment protects police officers who report misconduct in their ranks to a law enforcement agency for investigation.” Town of Mocksville v. Hunter→ Philip M. Van Hoy was lead counsel for the Petitioners.
  • Occupational Speech: “Whether restrictions on occupational speech are subject to First Amendment scrutiny, or only rational-basis review.” Hines v. Alldredge. Jeffrey Rowes was lead counsel for the Petitioner.
  • Public Forum: “(1) Whether the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) created a public forum by accepting for display on its property a wide array of controversial political and public-issue ads, including ads that address the same controversial subject matter as petitioners’ pro-Israel ad, and thus violated the First Amendment by rejecting petitioners’ ad based on its content; and (2) regardless of the nature of the forum, whether the MBTA’s rejection of petitioners’ advertisement based on an advertising guideline that prohibits ads considered by MBTA officials to be “demeaning and disparaging” was a viewpoint-based restriction of speech in violation of the First Amendment.” American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority→ Robert J. Muise was lead counsel for the Petitioners.
  • Charitable Fund Solicitations: “Whether a state official’s demand for all significant donors to a nonprofit organization, as a precondition to engaging in constitutionally-protected speech, constitutes a First Amendment injury; and whether the “exacting scrutiny” standard applied in compelled disclosure cases permits state officials to demand donor information based upon generalized “law enforcement” interests, without making any specific showing of need.” Center for Competitive Politics v. Harris. → Allen Dickerson was lead counsel for the Petitioner.
  • 4 Campaign Finance Cases: [1] “Whether Mississippi can, consistent with the First Amendment, prohibit a small informal group of friends and neighbors from spending more than $200 on pure speech about a ballot measure unless they become a political committee, adopt the formal structure required of a political committee, register with the state, and subject themselves to the full panoply of ongoing record-keeping, reporting, and other obligations that attend status as a political committee.” Justice v. Houseman Paul Avelar was lead counsel for Petitioners.
  • [2] Disclosure Requirements: “Does a state’s interest in “increas[ing] . . . information concerning those who support the candidates,” Buckley v. Valeo, permit it to condition a charity’s publication of a nonpartisan voter education guide, which lists all candidates equally and makes no endorsements, upon the immediate and public disclosure of the names and addresses of individuals making unrelated donations over the previous four years?”  Delaware Strong Families v. Denn (Justice Thomas dissented from the denial of cert. and issued an opinion, and Justice Alito would have granted the petition.  Allen Dickerson was lead counsel for the Petitioner.
  • [3] Whether Hawaii’s registration, recordkeeping, and and ongoing reporting requirements violate the First Amendment as interpreted in Citizens United v. FEC. Yamada v. Snipes James Bopp, Jr., was lead counsel for the Petitioners.
  • [4] “Whether the ban on political contributions by federal contractors in 52 U.S.C. § 30119, as applied to individuals such as petitioner and the other plaintiffs, is sufficiently tailored to meet the requirements of the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment and the First Amendment to the Constitution.” Miller v. Federal Election Commission. Alan Morrison was lead counsel for the Petitioner.

Free Speech & College Campuses Read More

0

Roundup: Law and Humanities 06.28.16

 

Conferences

 

Call For Papers: 2016 Law & Society Association of Australia and New Zealand Conference

Disruption, Temporality, Law:
The Future of Law and Society Scholarship

2016 Conference of the Law & Society Association of Australia and New Zealand

30th November – 3rd December 2016

Call for Papers closes: 30th June 2016

The Call for Papers for the 2016 Law & Society Association of Australia and New Zealand Conference, hosted by the Law Futures Centre and Griffith Law School in conjunction with the Southern Cross University School of Law and Justice closes on the 30th June 2016. Details of the call for papers are attached.

We are also pleased to announce the following confirmed keynote speakers:

  • Professor William MacNeil, The Hon John Dowd Chair in Law, Dean and Head, School of Law and Social Justice, Southern Cross University
  • Professor Irene Watson, Research Professor of Law, School of Law, University of South Australia
  • More keynote announcements to come!

The conference will open on the evening of Wednesday 30th November with a public debate on “The Future of Legal Education”. Confirmed debate participants include:

  • Professor Margaret Thornton, ANU College of Law, Australian National University
  • Bill Potts, President, Queensland Law Society & Founding Director, Potts Lawyers
  • John Briton, Former Legal Services Commissioner, Queensland
  • Professor Reid Mortensen, Head of School, School of Law and Justice, University of Southern Queensland
  • Magistrate Jacqui Payne, Queensland Courts
  • Professor Charles Sampford, Director of the Institute for Ethics, Governance and Law, Griffith University

Submission of Proposals:

Please submit proposals for papers, panels or streams to LSAANZ2016@griffith.edu.au. Proposals should consist of a short abstract (max. 250 words), 3 keywords and a short biography (100 words). Panel proposals should include a title/theme for the panel, and abstracts, keywords and biographies for each presenter.

We looking forward to welcoming you to Brisbane.

The 2016 Conference Organising Committee.

Professor John Flood, Dr Timothy Peters, Dr Edwin Bikundo, Mr Shahram Dana, Dr Roshan de Silva Wijeyeratne, Associate Professor Susan Harris-Rimmer, Ms Heron Loban, Dr Jennifer Nielsen, Professor Charles Sampford and Ms Kandice Cherrie.

For Conference enquiries email: LSAANZ2016@griffith.edu.au

 

Read More

7

The Death of Popular Constitutionalism

“Popular constitutionalism” exerts significant influence in legal scholarship, including my own. There are two aspects to this approach: one descriptive and one normative. The descriptive part looks at how social movements and institutions outside of the courts interpret the Constitution and bring about change. The normative part celebrates these activities. Isn’t it wonderful when the people or elected officials take these important matters into their own hands? Courts, after all, are unelected havens for elites. My work often points out that popular constitutionalism does not always work out so well (as in Jacksonian Democracy of the rise of Jim Crow), but I think it’s fair to say that the rosy view has been the dominant one.

I think that is about to end.  Donald Trump will probably kill normative popular constitutionalism for a generation, much as jury nullification by racist Southerners killed that idea. (The Brexit referendum may also be cited as a kind of anti-precedent for popular constitutionalism, though it’s too early to say).  This social movement is going to crowd out memories of the beloved moments of popular constitutionalism, such as the Civil Rights Movement.

Indeed, I’ll go one step one further.  I think we will soon see a revival of interest in H.L. Mencken, who made his name by criticizing democracy as expressed by what he called the “booboisie.” Mencken had his own problems (like being an Anti-Semite), but his disdain for Middle America is probably going to get a more sympathetic hearing in certain quarters.

1

The House of Commons Is Now The House of Lords

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, there was a healthy debate in Britain about when the unelected House of Lords could legitimately oppose the elected House of Commons.  The answer from 1832 to 1911 was that this could be done on important issues not involving the budget unless the House of Commons had a mandate from the voters, which was defined as a victory in a general election where the issue was squarely presented to the voters. In 1911, this consensus broke down when the Lords did not relent in the face of such a mandate, and a second general election and the threat of “Lords-packing” from the King was required to get the Upper House to back down and approve a statue stripping them of their absolute veto power over future legislation.

Brexit poses a related problem.  When should the elected House of Commons oppose the will of the electorate as expressed in  a referendum?  Formally, of course, the referendum was only advisory.  In practice, the current assumption is that Parliament will bow to the “Leave” vote.  Suppose, though, that in a year or two a majority of MPs conclude that Brexit would be a disaster and refuse.  In that scenario, the House of Commons would effectively be demanding that the result of the referendum be confirmed by a general election fought on that issue.

I think this would be a perfectly legitimate “sober second look” for such an important question.  If people really want to leave the EU, then the MPs who vote no on leaving would fare poorly.  Now do I think that a majority of MPs will actually resist the result of the referendum?  Right now, I’d say no.  Things might look different in 2017 though.

3

Dads Change Diapers Too

This is my third and final post about fathers as caregivers, drawing from some of my own experiences as a dad. (Earlier posts are available here and here.)

Father’s Day this year was really special because my husband, two-year-old daughter, and I celebrated on vacation in New York. We had a really lovely time overall. The trip was, however, also memorable because of this—have a look at this photo.

LaGuardia Airport, Terminal B, Concourse C

LaGuardia Airport, Terminal B, Concourse C

This is the United Airlines counter at LaGuardia Airport, Terminal B, Concourse C. I warily crouched down in the narrow space behind this counter to change my daughter’s diaper on the floor. I did it as fast as I could, feeling awkward about being there. I tried not to get in the way of the airline agents who were working behind the counter, and I shuddered at the thought of how dirty the floor might be.

My daughter and I were traveling home alone because my husband returned earlier for work. The agents at the ticket counter confirmed that there were no diaper changing facilities for fathers—no changing table in the men’s restroom, and no family restroom. The only diaper changing table was in the women’s room.

I suggested that I place my daughter’s changing pad on the table behind the ticket counter and change her there, but the airline agents said, understandably, that I needed to find someplace more discreet. The airport was bustling with people at every corner. After looking around, the agents offered to let me squeeze behind their ticket counter and use the cramped floor space there.

That was the best option we could think of. I didn’t want to subject my fellow travelers to the sight (and possible smell) of a diaper change, especially the folks who were enjoying their meals nearby. I also didn’t want my daughter and me to have to deal with the glare of onlookers. So, behind the counter we retreated.

Lack of men’s access to diaper changing facilities always makes me wonder what year we’re living in. Isn’t it about time we got behind the idea that men change diapers too?

Placing diaper changing tables exclusively in women’s restrooms is a problem because, as I discussed earlier, men’s access to diaper changing facilities is important to the health and well-being of the children we love and care for. Excluding men from diaper changing facilities also troubles me because it reflects and reinforces the outdated cultural assumption that taking care of young children is strictly a woman’s role.

Access to diaper changing facilities is particularly important at airports because waiting to change the diaper on the plane presents challenges. Not all airplanes have diaper changing tables. Moreover, parents are not permitted to get out of their seats to change a diaper during take-off, landing, and periods of turbulence in between.

Cities like Honolulu, Miami, and San Francisco have laws that give men and women a right of equal access to diaper changing facilities. State Senator Brad Hoylman has proposed legislation that would make New York the first state to require new and newly renovated buildings to give men and women equal access to diaper changing stations. I hope his bill will become law. Unfortunately, Governor Brown of California vetoed similar measures in 2014.

At the federal level, Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth of Illinois has introduced the Friendly Airports for Mothers Act, which would require airports to provide lactation rooms. I think it would be great to pass an even broader law that addresses diaper changing facilities in addition to lactation rooms. This could make airports friendlier not only to mothers, but also to fathers. In the meantime, I have contacted LaGuardia Airport to request that they install changing tables in all of their men’s rooms.

To be clear, the agents at the ticket counter were really kind to my daughter and me. The main woman whom I spoke with expressed her own disappointment with what she called the airport’s “double standard.” Let’s fix this double standard.

The good news for the immediate future is that my daughter has made great strides with potty training. I’m so proud of her! Our days of having to hide behind an airline ticket counter are numbered. Still, this is a bigger issue that needs to be addressed.

For more of my writing about fatherhood, please check out my forthcoming law review essay entitled “Shaping Expectations about Dads as Caregivers: Toward an Ecological Approach.”

1

The Internal Dynamics of the Court

The result in Fisher was surprising, but the case illustrates an important point about how appellate courts work.  In Fisher I, the scuttlebutt is that a majority opinion was drafted (possibly by Justice Kennedy) to strike down the UT admissions plan and place new obstacles in the way of racial preferences in higher education. Justice Sotomayor then circulated a draft dissent that was, by all accounts, very fierce (some of which made its way into her subsequent dissent in the University of Michigan case).  This dissent caused the majority to back down and the compromise remand to the Fifth Circuit.  In the interim, something caused Justice Kennedy to change his mind (though we won’t know what for a long time.)

The point is that dissents are not just expressions of discontent or appeals to the future.  Sometimes they actually change the outcome of a case. This is why knowing who the influential Justices are is impossible until long after decisions are made, because we usually don’t know how those internal conversations go.