3

Some Thoughts on the Gorsuch Hearings

We know a few things about Judge Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court.  First, he will be confirmed. Second, Senate Democrats will mention Merrick Garland’s name many times.  Third, I think we will learn a lot about Chevron deference, given that Judge Gorsuch has taken a stand on the viability of that precedent and that there is growing academic criticism of Chevron. (A new article in the Yale Law Journal, for instance.)

Some people complain that confirmation hearings for the Court aren’t revealing.  I think that this observation is overstated, but to the extent that it is true it’s a result of a structural reality.  Not since Justice Thomas was confirmed in 1991 has a Supreme Court confirmation hearing occurred where the President and the Senate were controlled by different political parties. If Democrats controlled the Senate, then Judge Gorsuch (or whomever was nominated), would simply have to answer more questions in order to get confirmed. When the President’s party controls the Senate, by contrast, a nominee can skate through pretty easily.

0

The Mind of the Law . . . & the New Intelligence

Jason Koebler (credit: US News & World Report)

Jason Koebler has just published an article in The Atlantic entitled the “Rise of the “Robolawyers: How legal Representation Could come to Resemble TurboTax.” Here are a few highlights:

  1. Handicapping Lawsuits: “For years, artificial intelligence has been automating tasks—like combing through mountains of legal documents and highlighting keywords—that were once rites of passage for junior attorneys. The bots may soon function as quasi-employees. In the past year, more than 10 major law firms have “hired” Ross, a robotic attorney powered in part by IBM’s Watson artificial intelligence, to perform legal research. . . .”
  2. Chatbot Lawyers: “Technologies like Ross and Lex Machina are intended to assist lawyers, but AI has also begun to replace them—at least in very straightforward areas of law. The most successful robolawyer yet was developed by a British teenager named Joshua Browder. Called DoNotPay, it’s a free parking-ticket-fighting chatbot that asks a series of questions about your case—Were the signs clearly marked? Were you parked illegally because of a medical emergency?—and generates a letter that can be filed with the appropriate agency. So far, the bot has helped more than 215,000 people beat traffic and parking tickets in London, New York, and Seattle.  . . .”
  3. Minority Report: “. . . .In many states, judges use software called compas to help with setting bail and deciding whether to grant parole. The software uses information from a survey with more than 100 questions—covering things like a defendant’s gender, age, criminal history, and personal relationships—to predict whether he or she is a flight risk or likely to re-offend. . . .”
  4. An Explosion of Lawsuits: “Eventually, we may not need lawyers, judges, or even courtrooms to settle civil disputes. Ronald Collins, a professor at the University of Washington School of Law, has outlined a system for landlord–tenant disagreements. Because in many instances the facts are uncontested—whether you paid your rent on time, whether your landlord fixed the thermostat—and the legal codes are well defined, a good number of cases can be filed, tried, and adjudicated by software. Using an app or a chatbot, each party would complete a questionnaire about the facts of the case and submit digital evidence. ‘Rather than hiring a lawyer and having your case sit on a docket for five weeks, you can have an email of adjudication in five minutes,’ Collins told me. He believes the execution of wills, contracts, and divorces could likely be automated without significantly changing the outcome in the majority of cases. . . .”

There’s more in the Koebler piece, including a “Brief Chronicle of Legal Technology” — so check out the full article.

Forthcoming: Related Works 

  • Coming next year from Cambridge University Press: Collins & Skover, Robotica: Speech Rights & Artificial IntelligenceThe book (the main text of which is now complete) will include commentaries by Ryan CaloJane Bambauer, James Grimmelmann, Bruce Johnson, and Helen Norton along with a rejoinder by the authors.
1

FAN 145 (First Amendment News) David Cole: “Does anyone believe that the ‘free marketplace of ideas’ is functioning?”

In a recent issue of the New York Review of Books, the ACLU’s David Cole reviewed:

David Cole

“‘Civil liberties once were radical.’ So begins Laura Weinrib’s important revisionist history of the origins of American civil liberties, ” writes Cole. “By 1938,” he adds, “Roger Baldwin, the ACLU’s executive director, proclaimed that the ACLU had ‘no ‘isms’ to defend except the Bill of Rights.’ The ACLU had shifted its focus from labor’s struggle for economic justice to a defense of the ‘neutral’ rights of speech and association, rights that could be invoked not just by individual workers and unions but by Henry Ford and big business. As Baldwin put it one year later, ‘We are neither anti-labor nor pro-labor. With us it is just a question of going wherever the Bill of Rights leads us.'”

“Sam Lebovic tells a related story in [his book]. In his account,” Cole notes, “American constitutional law has favored a classical liberal ‘freedom of the press,’ which stresses the importance of staving off state censorship, over ‘freedom of the news,’ a concept formulated by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, which envisions the state working proactively to ensure access to information against concentrated media ownership. Lebovic argues that the liberal conception of free speech and a free press, founded on the ‘free marketplace of ideas,’ is and always has been inadequate to address the threats to ‘freedom of the news,’ including not just the power of media moguls, but also the consequences of the Internet and the state’s over-reliance on secrecy.”

In a world where claims of “fake news” fill the airwaves, Cole asserts that “following Donald Trump’s election, on a campaign that relied on outright lies and stubborn denials of the truth, does anyone believe that the ‘free marketplace of ideas’ is functioning?” Then again, he stresses that “the inauguration of Donald Trump has dramatically reinforced the continuing importance of traditional core First Amendment rights.”

We are neither anti-labor nor pro-labor. With us it is just a question of  going wherever the Bill of Rights leads us. — Roger Baldwin (1940)

A new focus — look beyond the courts 

We were weened in an era when courts were often seen as the great defenders of equality. Even so, Cole invites his readers to reassess that reliance: “if we are to attain a more egalitarian exchange of ideas, it will be more likely through the political rather than the judicial branches.”

And as more and more liberals urge government intervention in the free speech arena, Cole counsels caution: “empowering the state to correct perceived deficiencies in the marketplace of ideas is a cure that is worse than the disease. ”

So what is the baseline for Cole’s conception of free speech?  “The best argument for protecting speech,” he stresses, “is not that the free marketplace of ideas will lead us to truth, but that it is superior to all the alternatives. . . . [W]hile it is true that a right to universal free speech can be invoked by the powerful as well as the weak, by business as well as labor, the right is nonetheless more valuable for the weak.”

SPLC: Google, Hate Crimes, and Algorithms

In case you missed it, the Southern Poverty Law Center recently issued a story titled  Google and the Miseducation of Dylann RoofRecall, Roof was the man who murdered nine African Americans during a Bible study. How did Roof go from being someone who was not raised in a racist home to someone so steeped in white supremacist propaganda the man responsible for the massacre at the historic Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston? Here is how the SPLC story answered that question:

“The answer lies, at least in part, in the way that fragile minds can be shaped by the algorithm that powers Google Search.

It lies in the way Google’s algorithm can promote false propaganda written by extremists at the expense of accurate information from reputable sources.

See SPLC video here

Roof’s radicalization began, as he later wrote in an online manifesto, when he typed the words “black on White crime” into Google and found what he described as “pages upon pages of these brutal black on White murders.”

SPLC President Richard Cohen

The first web pages he found were produced by the Council of Conservative Citizens, a crudely racist group that once called black people a “retrograde species of humanity.” Roof wrote that he has “never been the same since that day.” As he delved deeper, because of the way Google’s search algorithm worked, he was immersed in hate materials.

Google says its algorithm takes into account how trustworthy, reputable or authoritative a source is.

In Roof’s case, it clearly did not.”

Speaking this past Monday evening the George Washington University’s Lisner Auditorium, SPLC President Richard Cohen said that at first Google was reluctant to tweet its algorithms but apparently did so afterwards. Mr. Cohen said that a meeting has been set up between Google and representatives from the SPLC.

Story: “Amazon releases Echo data in murder case, dropping First Amendment argument” Read More

0

An Optimist in Pessimistic Times: Chief Judge Katzmann on Civic Education

Chief Judge Katzmann (Charlie Rose program)

One of the keys to the survival of free institutions is . . .  the way citizens do, or do not, participate in the public sphere. — Robert N. Bellah

*  * * 

Civic education is a force than can provide the ties that bind.”

Those are the words of Second Circuit Chief Judge Robert Katzmann, spoken recently on the Charlie Rose program. At a time when partisan politics and ignorance of our constitutional system of government have nearly become our collective default position, Judge Katzmann is busy rallying the cause of the civic-minded citizen. To that end, two years ago he launched “Justice for All: Courts and the Community.” Its Mission:

The federal judiciary is one of the three branches of the national government. It seeks to provide the fair and effective administration of justice for all persons and interests, regardless of race, color, creed, gender, or status. Federal courts and their state court counterparts provide a means for settling disputes peacefully, and help to foster democratic governance, consistent with the Constitution’s goals of “justice” and “domestic tranquility.” Those who founded our government recognized the critical importance of an independent national judiciary with a limited but essential role.

With the active participation of members of the Bar and community organizations working through several committees, its activities include:

  • hosting field trips to the courthouse for schools and community organizations to observe court proceedings and to meet with judges and court staff;
  • holding moot courts and mock trials for students;
  • developing educational resources for teachers about the law and justice system; developing learning centers;
  • creating library labs for students;
  • coordinating Constitution Day/Citizenship Day programs;
  • supporting essay contests;
  • sponsoring adult education programs in such areas as financial literacy;
  • fostering jury service; and
  • developing a speakers bureau whereby judges and members of the Bar visit the schools and community organizations to discuss the work of the courts.

Following in the footsteps of his mentors Senator Daniel P. Moynihan and Judge Frank M. Coffin, Katzmann is doing what he has long espoused: urging moderation counseled by knowledge coupled with a genuine commitment to improving our democracy. Can he succeed? That is the question.

With steadfast energy, the Chief Judge ventures to schools and elsewhere preaching the the Jeffersonian and Madisonian and Hamiltonian gospels of civic engagement . . . and those of Harriet Tubman and Rosa Parks, too.

Duly sensitive to our “red state/ blue state” differences, Judge Katzmann believes in his mission enough to broker this renewed experiment in democracy. Of course, like any experiment, it may fail. But he moves ahead nonetheless; color him an optimist. Again, his words: “Civic education is a force than can provide the ties that bind.”

For more information, go here.

* * See also * * 

0

The March on Washington and Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment

One thing I’m learning in my research into the constitutionality of the reapportionment process is that there was some interest in this issue during the early 1960s. My colleague Florence Roisman, an expert on the Civil Rights Movement, pointed out to me that the 1963 March on Washington, capped by the “I Have a Dream” Speech, listed ten civil rights demands. Here was Demand #4:

“Enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment–reducing Congressional representation of states where citizens are disfranchised.”

This, of course, was about Section Two of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Next I’m going to go through all of the other speeches given that day to see what was said about Section Two.

 

1

Justice Scalia’s Papers Given to Harvard Law School

Since this is a topic that I’ve posted about before, I wanted to note that Justice Scalia’s family announced yesterday that his papers will be given to Harvard Law School.  None of his Supreme Court papers will be opened until all of the colleagues that he served with have died, so it will be some time before anything significant becomes available.

1

Stone’s “Sex and the Constitution” — a monumental work

Professor Geoffrey Stone

If you thought Geoffrey Stone’s Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime: From the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism (W.W. Norton, 2005) was an incredible book, hold on: the University of Chicago law professor has outdone himself with his latest book — Sex and the Constitution: Sex, Religion, and Law from America’s Origins to the Twenty-First Century (Liveright, March 21, 2017).

I know of what I speak: I’ve read both books (the latest in advance galleys). With a discerning sense of the currents of history combined with a masterful grasp of the undercurrents of law, Stone provides his readers with a wide-lens view of how sex and the law have interacted in the span of time dating back to ancient Athens. At once fascinating and disturbing, this book reveals how law works — both as a suppressor and liberator. Witness, for example, the nightmarish world of Anthony Comstock (1844-1915) in which countless lives were sacrificed on the altar of Victorian values. Contrast that with the emergence of a new day brought about by Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which thanks to the lawyer Paul M. Smith and the jurist Anthony M. Kennedy helped to free us from the shackles of sexual bigotry. It’s all there, and more, is this superbly crafted book.

That “more” includes everything from the rigid righteousness of St. Augustine (who was a lustful sinner before he became a revered saint), to those ever-so-pious Puritans who loved to lash the impure, to the Temperance Movement crowd and their campaign to ferret out lust in books (and in loins, too, by way of “anti-masterbation devices”), to those entrusted with enforcing Comstock morality and who felt it their God-given duty to persecute the likes of Margaret Sanger (the birth-control activist) and Ira Craddock (author of Right Marital Living), to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who with zealous conviction launched the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force, to the Moral Majority’s Grand Poobah, Jerry Falwell, and his insistence that the government not spend any money to combat AIDS because this “plague” was the “judgment of God,” to all those who so vigorously opposed gay marriage because it threatened the continued viability of traditional marriages. Oh, the price we have paid for those virtues bequeathed to us by St. Augustine!

As one turns the pages of this book, something of the marvelous freedom-affirming spirit of When we Rise leaps from the pages of Sex and the Constitution. Still, this is not a work that takes liberties with facts; rather, it is a needs-to-be told story presented with legal acumen and a sophisticated sense of history. The scholar in Stone presents his case with nuanced precision, while the humanitarian in him presents his narrative with a gripping sensitivity to those subjected to the whip of sexual morality.

Have I overstated the importance of Sex and the Constitution? Have I exaggerated its worth? No, not at all; truth is my defense. If you doubt that, read the book. If you accept that, buy the book. If you disagree with that, challenge the book. But of this there can be no doubt: Sex and the Constitution is destined to be the defining work of its genre for a long, long time to come.

The epigraph quote for the prologue  to Sex and the Constitution is the same one used as the quote for epilogue.  And it is a fine line, one from Justice William Brennan’s opinion in Roth v. United States (1957):

Sex, a great and mysterious motive force in human life, has indisputably been a subject of absorbing interest to mankind through the ages.

And it is also a fitting tribute to the memory of the Justice for whom Geoffrey Stone once clerked.

__________What Others Are Saying ___________

“No one should miss out on Stone’s spectacular tour through more than 2,000 years of sex, religion, culture, and law. A treasure-house of philosophical brilliance and legal and historical insight—not to mention erotic delights!—this masterpiece is the rarest of combinations: a page-turner that is also a magisterial font of erudite wisdom.”

Laurence H. Tribe, Carl M. Loeb University Professor, Harvard University

“A vivid, sweeping, and compellingly readable account of the history of sex, religion, and the law by one of our most prominent legal scholars.  This monumental study illuminates the origins and stakes of some of the most heated contemporary debates in constitutional law.”
George Chauncey, Samuel Knight Professor of History, Yale University

“Few, if any, legal scholars possess the capacious intellect and encyclopedic command of constitutional law and American history to make us see in an entirely new light what is perhaps society’s most commonly discussed subject.  In devoting his unique talents to Sex and the Constitution, Geoffrey Stone has created a volume of lasting significance that quickly will become essential reading for all who want to better understand sweeping cultural transformations that continue to roil society.”
Lee C. Bollinger, President, Columbia University

Sex, which has simultaneously inspired and eluded regulation through the ages, has been the focus of many of our greatest constitutional controversies.  No one is better suited than the always erudite and lucid Geoffrey Stone to provide the panoramic treatment that the subject deserves.  Unless you are the rare person who has no interest in either the Constitution or sex, you will want to read this book.”
David Cole, LegalDirector, American Civil Liberties Union

“This fascinating account of how sexual mores, religion, and law have intersected or—more often—collided throughout American history is really about even more than that. It’s about the role of law in maintaining a civil society in a diverse 21st century America, and a call to the Supreme Court to step up to the challenge.”
Linda Greenhouse, Pulitzer Prize winner & Knight Distinguished Journalist in Residence, Yale Law School

“Magnificent and monumental—a stunning blend of dispassionate analysis and deep moral conviction. Think that the United States was born as a Christian nation? Think again.”
Cass R. Sunstein, Robert Walmsley University Professor, Harvard     University

“A superb examination of the history of how the law has regulated sexual behavior and sexual expression from the ancient world to today. This is a brilliant book that offers a balanced and nuanced treatment of controversial topics such as obscenity, abortion, and same sex marriage.”
Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Raymond Pryke Professor, University of California, Irvine School of Law

1

FAN 144 (First Amendment News) Cert Petition: Nursing student challenges expulsion for Facebook comments

Craig Keefe (Credit: Brainerd Dispatch)

Seattle. The case is Keefe v. Adams. It involves Craig Keefe. According to a story by David Hanners in the Twin Cities Pioneer Press, Mr. Keefe was a “semester away from finishing his studies to be a registered nurse. Like a lot of college students — like a lot of Americans — he was on the social networking site Facebook. But in December, officials at Brainerd’s Central Lakes College took exception to some of Keefe’s posts on his private Facebook page and kicked him out of school.Keefe says he wasn’t told what the problems were with his posts, nor was he told why or how anything he did violated school policy. Angered, he has taken his complaint to court.”

See District Court opinion here and Eight Circuit opinion denying First Amendment & Due Process claims.

In a cert. petition recently filed with the Supreme Court, the issues raised were:

  1. May a public community college use professional conduct codes to expel a nursing student from a professional degree program, without regard to First Amendment limits, for comments unrelated to the school’s curriculum posted to the student’s personal Facebook page?
  2. May a public community college expel a student for disciplinary infractions using less rigorous due process procedures applicable to decisions involving curricular speech?

The brief, filed by Robert-Corn-Revere (with Ronald London & Lisa Zycherman), begins: “This case raises the question of whether the First Amendment permits a public college to expel a student from a professional degree program under nebulous standards, such as ‘maintaining professional boundaries,’ for posting non-curricular com- ments on his Facebook page. A divided panel of the Eighth Circuit said that it could, even though the student’s speech was not part of any coursework or clinical requirement.In reaching this conclusion, the panel expanded the limits of the ‘professional speech doctrine,’ which permits regulation only where the speech is directly related to specific professional duties.”

“It also exacerbated existing circuit splits that seek to define when off-campus speech may be subject to regulation, when speech may be considered to be ‘school-sponsored,’ and when adult college students may be subjected to the lesser First Amendment protections often provided elementary and secondary school children”

“In the process, the panel approved more lax due process procedures under the guise of a curricular expulsion, when the college instead was imposing a disciplinary sanction. The decision ignored this Court’s precedents, which require more formal due process procedures in the case of disciplinary sanctions, and created further disarray among the circuits on this issue. Review by this Court is necessary to clarify the First Amendment and due process principles involved.”

The Petitioner urges the Court to review the case for the following reasons:

I.      This Court’s Review is Essential to Clarify First Amendment Limits of Applying Professional Standards to Restrict Non-Curricular Speech by Public College Students

A. The First Amendment Protects College Students and Others Subject to Professional Codes of Conduct

B. The Eighth Circuit Blurred the Line Between Curricular and Non-Curricular Speech,Widening a Rift Among the Circuits

C. Review by This Court is Imperative

II.     This Court’s Review is Essential to Clarify Due Process for Disciplinary Sanctions on Non-Curricular Speech ata Public College.

SCOTUSblog: Justices skeptical about social media restrictions for sex offenders

David T. Goldberg (Counsel for Petitioner)

This from Amy Howe over at SCOTUSblog: “At today’s oral argument in Packingham v. North Carolina, a challenge to a state law that imposes criminal penalties on registered sex offenders who visit social networking sites, Justice Elena Kagan suggested that social media sites like Facebook and Twitter were ‘incredibly important parts’ of the country’s political and religious culture. People do not merely rely those sites to obtain virtually all of their information, she emphasized, but even ‘structure their civil community life’ around them. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg echoed those sentiments, telling the North Carolina official defending the law that barring sex offenders from social networking sites would cut them off from ‘a very large part of the marketplace in ideas.’ Kagan was perhaps the most vocal opponent of the law, but by the end of an hour of oral argument it seemed very possible that Ginsburg and at least three of Kagan’s other colleagues would join her in striking down the North Carolina law.”

“. . . . And perhaps most critically for the state, Justice Anthony Kennedy was unconvinced by the state’s efforts to rely on a 1992 case in which the justices upheld a Tennessee law that imposed a ban on soliciting votes or distributing campaign materials within 100 feet of a polling place. The court in that case ruled that the ban served the state’s interest in protecting its citizens’ right to vote freely, but Kennedy today dismissed the Tennessee ban as “not analogous” to North Carolina’s. If that is the best you have, he seemed to be saying to Montgomery, ‘I think you lose.’ If Kennedy is indeed on board, then Packingham seems to have five votes in favor of striking down the North Carolina law.”

Transcript of oral arguments here.

See also, Ruthann Robson, Court Hears Oral Argument on Sex Offenders’ First Amendment Right to Access Social Media, Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Feb. 27, 2017

9 Top First Amendment Experts React to White House Press Briefing Ban on CNN, NYT, others

This from Just Security: Recently, “the White House barred specific news organizations from attending a press briefing by spokesman Sean Spicer. Among the organizations excluded from the question and answer session were news outlets that President Donald Trump has singled out for criticism—including Buzzfeed, CNN, the New York Times, and Politico. The White House Correspondents’ Association stated that its board is “protesting strongly” against the action.Many in the media have asked whether the White House actions were unconstitutional. I asked some of the most highly respected First Amendment law experts across the country.” Here is the lineup (go to link for comments):

  1. Robert Corn-Revere (Davis Wright Tremaine)
  2. Lucy Dalglish (U. MD. Journalism Dept.)
  3. Arthur Eisenberg (NYCLU)
  4. Jameel Jaffer (Knight First Amendment Institute, Columbia)
  5. Dawn Johnsen (Indiana U. Law School)
  6. Lee Levine (Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz)
  7. Burt Neuborne (NYU Law School)
  8. David Schulz (Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic, Yale Law School)
  9. Laurence H. Tribe (Harvard Law School)

See video clip: Sean Spicer on Politico’s Playbook, Dec. 2016

NYU Center for the Humanities hosts event on Trump & First Amendment

February 22, 2017: The panelists discussed the history of freedom of speech and what the new administration means for First Amendment rights.

“The election of Donald Trump has come with a broad attack on the press and on the freedom of political expression. What are likely to be the challenges to the First Amendment going forward, and how does America’s history of robust dissent support the protection of speech and press today?”

The panelists were:

  • Floyd Abrams, Renowned First Amendment Attorney, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP; Author, The Soul of the First Amendment (forthcoming in April)
  • Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, New York Law School; President of the American Civil Liberties Union, 1991-2008;  Author, Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women’s Rights
  • Stephen Solomon, Associate Professor of Journalism, Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute, New York University; Author, Revolutionary Dissent: How the Founding Generation Created the Freedom of Speech
  • Thomas Healy, Professor of Law, Seton Hall Law School; Author, The Great Dissent: How Oliver Wendell Holmes Changed His Mind—and Changed the History of Free Speech in America

More on Trump & the First Amendment 

You know, they always bring up the First Amendment. I love the First Amendment; nobody loves the First Amendment better than me. Donald Trump

  1. Noah Feldman, Trump’s Love-Hate Relationship With the First Amendment, Bloomberg View, Feb. 27, 2017
  2. Debra Cassens Weiss, Did White House exclusion of press violate First Amendment? Norman Siegel says suit should be filed, ABAJ, Feb. 27, 2017
  3. Jonathan Kraut, Trump violates First Amendment, The Signal, Feb. 27, 2017
  4. Sue Lempert, Fake news and the First Amendment, The Daily Journal, Feb. 27, 2017
  5. Nate Madden, Trump’s Fighting the Media, not the First Amendment, Conservative Review, Feb. 27, 2017
  6. Trump Thinks First Amendment is a Joke, The Young Turks, Feb. 24, 2017 (YouTube)

Reporters Committee files brief opposing journalist’s subpoena in Malheur stand-off prosecution

Ariel B. Glickman | Reporter’s Privilege | News |  February 23, 2017

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed an amicus brief opposing compelled testimony of John Sepulvado, a former reporter with Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB), which was authorized by Attorney General Jeff Sessions in his first week in office. Sepulvado had interviewed Ryan Bundy, one of the Malheur Natural Wildlife Refuge occupants, about the purpose of the occupation in January 2016.

Though there had been earlier contacts from prosecutors, a subpoena was finally served on Sepulvado last week. The subpoena does not limit the scope of the requested testimony. The government seeks to have Sepulvado authenticate his interview of Bundy, which would also open Sepulvado up to vigorous cross-examination by the defendants, all of whom oppose the subpoena.

Sepulvado’s attorney filed a motion to quash the subpoena this week. In its brief in support of that effort, the Reporters Committee noted the jurisdiction’s long history of maintaining the confidentiality of journalists’ work product and the importance of an independent press to an informed public. The brief highlights the chilling effect that compelled testimony of confidential newsgathering information would have on future sources, and how that would affect deeply-researched stories.

Michigan State to Ban White Boards From Dorms Read More

0

UCLA Law Review Vol. 64, Issue 1

Volume 64, Issue 1 (January 2017)
Articles

Unlawful Assembly as Social Control John Inazu 2
The Free Exercise of Religious Identity Lauren Sudeall Lucas 54
Reassessing the Distinction Between Corporate and Securities Law James J. Park 116

 

Comments

Obergefell v. Hodges: Kinship Formation, Interest Convergence, and the Future of LGBTQ Rights Neo Khuu 184
Beyond PREA: An Interdisciplinary Framework for Evaluating Sexual Violence in Prisons Michelle C. Nielsen 230