0

CJ Katzmann speaks at NYU Law on new statutory interpretation book

Dean Trevor Morrison and Chief Judge Robert Katzmann

Dean Trevor Morrison and Chief Judge Robert Katzmann at N.Y.U. Law School

Robert A. Katzmann, Chief Judge of the Second Circuit, visited New York University Law School last evening to speak on his new book Judging Statutes (Oxford University Press, 2014).

The book grew out of a Madison Lecture Katzmann delivered at the Law School on October 18, 2011. Adam Liptak, of the New York Times, heard the lecture and urged the Judge to expand it into a book.

The format for the well-attended event was an interview by Dean Trevor Morrison followed by questions from the audience. Dean Morrison asked a series of questions concerning statutory interpretation — questions ranging from the importance of presidential signing statements to discerning congressional intent of omnibus legislation covering a vast array of topics sans much, if any, legislative record.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor was among those attending the event at which the Chief Judge autographed books.

 Chief Judge Katzmann was also recently interviewed by Brian Lamb on C-SPAN.

→ On Tuesday September 23rd, the Chief Judge will speak at Georgetown Law School. Here is the schedule for that upcoming event:

4:30 – 5:00 p.m.
  Conversation


  • William M. Treanor, Dean, Georgetown University Law Center
  • Robert A. Katzmann, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit

5:00 – 5:30 p.m.
 Panel Discussion

  • M. Douglass Bellis, Senior Counsel, Office of the Legislative Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives
  • Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Correspondent, The New York Times
  • David Vladeck, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center

Remarks
: 

  • David S. Mao, Law Librarian of Congress

 See also Jeffrey Toobin, “Will Textualism Kill Obamacare?,” The New Yorker, Sept. 3, 2014.

0

FAN 30. 3 (First Amendment News) Senate votes to begin debate on proposed amendment to First Amendment

This from Susan Ferrechio  writing in the Washington Examiner:

“The Senate voted Monday to begin debate on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would grant Congress and the states the power to imagesregulate campaign finance.The measure cleared a procedural hurdle by a vote of 79-18. It was authored by Democrats, who had anticipated it would be blocked by GOP opposition. But Republicans voted to move ahead with debate, turning what was supposed to be a Democratic messaging bill against the Democrats.”

 This from Ramsey Cox writing for The Hill:

“The Senate on Monday advanced a constitutional amendment meant to reverse two recent Supreme Court decisions on campaign spending.Republicans are likely to vote against the amendment when it comes up for a final vote, but by allowing it to proceed, ensured that it will tie up the Senate for most of the week.More than 20 Republicans joined Democrats in the 79-18 vote advancing the amendment, well over the 60 votes that were needed. The amendment is almost certain to fail, as it would need to win two-thirds support to pass the Senate, and then would still need to move through the House and be ratified by two-thirds of the states.”

“‘We should have debate on this important amendment,’ Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said before voting for cloture. ‘The majority should be made to answer why they want to silence critics.’ Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he would gladly debate the issue for as long as Republicans require because the amendment is necessary to keep ‘dark money’ out of politics.”

→ This from Burgess Everett writing for Politico:

“Several Senate Republicans joined Democrats on Monday to advance a constitutional amendment that would give Congress and the states greater power to regulate campaign finance. But the bipartisanship ends there. Many of the Republicans only voted for the bill to foul up Democrats’ pre-election messaging schedule, freezing precious Senate floor time for a measure that ultimately has no chance of securing the two-thirds support necessary in both the House and Senate to amend the Constitution. The legislation needed 60 votes to advance and Democrats took a cynical view of the 79-18 tally.”

“Ahead of the vote, [Senator Bernie] Sanders and other pro-reform Democrats like [Senators] Al Franken of Minnesota, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Tom Udall of New Mexico held a rally on the Capitol grounds with amendment supporters and supporting groups like People for the American Way, Common Cause and Public Citizen. The crowd was a solid mix of reporters and demonstrators with signs reading “Democracy is not for sale.”

For commentary, see:

→ Tom Udall & Bernie Sanders, “The Threat to American Democracy,” Politico, Sept. 7, 2014

→ Geoffrey Stone, “The Rift in the ACLU Over Free Speech,” Huffington Post, Sept, 8, 2014 (see also here re ACLU controversy)

 

 

1

FAN 30.2 (First Amendment News) This evening: vote on proposed amendment to First Amendment

Since a vote re a proposed amendment to the First Amendment has been scheduled for 6 p.m. ET this evening, I am reposting an earlier FAN column on this topic.

The First Amendment never needs defending when it comes to popular speech. . . . I would hope that all of us in this chamber champion liberty … but when I hear some talk about cutting back on our First Amendment rights, you can see why people would wonder. — Senator Patrick Leahy, June 26, 2006

Text of First Amendment on stone tablet facing Pennsylvania Avenue -- the Newseum, Washington, D.C.

Text of First Amendment on stone tablet facing Pennsylvania Avenue — the Newseum, Washington, D.C.

That was the mindset of the man who on June 3rd will preside over a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on a constitutional amendment to “rein in massive campaign spending.” Essentially, he takes exception to the proposition that spending money (or lots of it) on elections is protected speech, much as his opponents took exception eight years ago to the proposition that desecrating the flag was speech, let alone protected speech. In that regard, it is well to remember that the same Justice John Paul Stevens who recently testified before the Senate in favor of aconstitutional amendment to overrule Buckley v. Valeo and its progeny was also the one who dissented from the First Amendment holding in the flag desecration cases (Texas v. Johnson andUnited States v. Eichman). Thereafter, the campaign to pass a constitutional amendment to overrule those cases nearly succeeded (see below).

Text of Proposed Constitutional Amendment

I respect my colleagues’ fidelity to the First Amendment, but no amendment is absolute.                                                                                              – Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) (May 2014)

The proposed constitutional amendment (S.J. 19) set out below was introduced by Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) and co-sponsofed by Senators Michael Bennet (D-CO) and Jon Tester (D-MT) along with 38 others (no Republican co-sponsors):

SECTION 1. To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on— (1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and (2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

SECTION 2. To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, each State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to State elections, including through setting limits on— (1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and (2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

SECTION 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.

SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Question:  Given the gravity of amending the First Amendment for the first time in our history, it would be well to know who exactly drafted the Udall amendment. If staffers, which one(s)? And did any law professor(s) help in the drafting?

→ Other proposed amendments can be found here.

* * * * *

[This proposed amendment is ] an all-out assault on the right to free speech, a right which undergirds all others in our democracy. — Senator Mitch McConnell, May 15, 2014

A Constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate and ratification by 38 states, so it has scant chance of passing any time soon. – WSJ Editorial, May 6, 2014

Historical First? — Liberal Push for Amendment to Amend First Amendment Read More

0

ROUNDUP: Law and Humanities 09.08.14

I’d like to alert those of you planning to attend the AALS Annual Meeting in January 2015 to three law and film events taking place during that time. The AALS Film Committee is sponsoring two law and film nights during the meeting. The first, on January 2, at 7:30 p.m. (the first night of the conference), will be a screening of the classic Judgment at Nuremberg, directed by Stanley Kramer, written by Abby Mann, and starring a whole host of great actors, including Spencer Tracy as the thoughtful Chief Judge Dan Haywood, Marlene Dietrich as widowed Mrs. Bertholt, lost in denial, a young William Shatner (in his pre Captain Kirk days), Richard Widmark as the passionate prosecutor Colonel Lawson, Burt Lancaster as Dr. Ernst Janning and Werner Klemperer, two of the German judges accused of war crimes, Judy Garland as Irene Hoffman, a witness nearly overcome by the story she has to tell, and Maximilian Schell as Hans Rolfe, the defense attorney for the judges, who challenges both the prosecutors and the system of justice at every turn. Rolfe poses the ultimate question: in such a high profile trial, in which the stakes include the future of a nation, can these defendants ever get justice? The film dramatizes some of the famous “Nuremberg Trials” held after World War II, in particular those in which judges rather than political and military figures were defendants.

Read More

0

Scottish Independence

120px-Scottish_Flag_-_detailNext week Scotland will vote on independence.  No matter the outcome, the result will be more federalism in Great Britain.  Even if Scotland votes nae, that vote will still probably be close.  And much like what happened in Canada with Quebec, Parliament will have to give Scotland more autonomy to prevent a future vote from going the other way.  (Indeed, a proposal of this sort is already being floated to sway undecided voters.)  If Scotland votes aye, then one would expect Wales to demand and get more autonomy to stay in the Union, though Wales is a less viable independent states.

One curiosity about the upcoming vote is that Britain is due to hold a general election next year.  If Scotland votes aye on independence, then would it still get to vote in that election?  It will probably take more than a year to finalize Scottish secession, but it would be weird if a departing part of the country gets to form a new government.  (And then, I guess you’d have to have a new election as soon as all of the Scottish MPs leave.)  Of course, Parliament could simply postpone the election (something that cannot be done under our Constitution), but that creates its own difficulties.

One last thought.  At what point will a federal Britain need an English Parliament as distinct from Westminster?  In other words, right now there is no English provincial government–there are only national, Scottish, Welsh, and local ones.  How long is that sustainable if Scotland and Wales get more power within Britain?

1

FAN 30.1 (First Amendment News) Six former ACLU leaders contest group’s 1st Amendment position on campaign finance — ACLU’s Legislative Director responds

→ The history of campaign finance regulation demonstrates the need to erect sturdy safeguards for free speech. — ACLU amicus brief, Citizens United v. FEC, July 29, 2009

→ Any rule that requires the government to determine what political speech is legitimate and how much political speech is appropriate is difficult to reconcile with the First Amendment. Our system of free expression is built on the premise that the people get to decide what speech they want to hear; it is not the role of the government to make that decision for them. — ACLU 2012 Statement

Below is a September 4, 2014 letter signed by six former leaders of the ACLU and presented to the chairman and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. While the footnotes have been omitted, the full text with notes can be found here. Finally, note that a September 8, 2014 vote has been scheduled in the Senate concerning a proposal to amend the First Amendment.  

→ Following the statement below is a response from Ms. Laura W. Murphy, Director of the Washington Legislative Office of the ACLU.

ENTER THE DISSENTERS

Dear Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, Subcommittee Chairman Durbin, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Cruz:

UnknownThis summer, some have taken to citing a June 2014 letter from the ACLU to bolster opposition to a constitutional amendment that would change the way Congress can regulate election spending.[fn] While, as present and former leaders of the ACLU, we take no position in this letter on whether a constitutional amendment is the most appropriate way to pursue campaign finance reform, we believe that the current leadership of the National ACLU has endorsed a deeply contested and incorrect reading of the First Amendment as a rigid deregulatory straitjacket that threatens the integrity of American democracy. [Bold type above & italicized bracketed text below  = added]

[Here is the ACLU position as stated on its website:  “Unfortunately, legitimate concern over the influence of ‘big money’ in politics has led some to propose a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision. The ACLU will firmly oppose any constitutional amendment that would limit the free speech clause of the First Amendment.”

→ And there is this statement by Laura W. Murphy, director, ACLU Washington Legislative Office (June 2012): “If there is one thing we absolutely should not be doing, it’s tinkering with our founding document to prevent groups like the ACLU (or even billionaires like Sheldon Adelson) from speaking freely about the central issues in our democracy. Doing so will fatally undermine the First Amendment, diminish the deterrent factor of a durable Constitution and give comfort to those who would use the amendment process to limit basic civil liberties and rights. It will literally ‘break’ the Constitution.”]

In 1998, some of us signed the enclosed letter circulated by every then-living retired leader of the ACLU, protesting the ACLU’s erroneous insistence that the First Amendment makes it impossible to regulate massive campaign spending by the richest 1/10 of 1% of the American electorate. [fn] Things have only gotten worse since 1998. The passage of 16 years means that fewer 20th century ACLU leaders are left to sign this letter. More importantly, over the past 16 years, using the ACLU’s erroneous reading of the First Amendment as a fig leaf, five justices have added huge multi-national corporations to the list of unlimited campaign spenders, [fn] and authorized wealthy individuals to contribute virtually unlimited sums to party leaders in a never-ending search for wealth-driven political influence. [fn] Under the ACLU’s erroneous reading of the First Amendment, it is no exaggeration to label today’s version of American democracy as “one dollar-one vote.” We reiterate the substance of the 1998 letter, and add the following additional comments in light of the unfortunate events of the last 16 years.

John Shattuck, one of the signers of letter

John Shattuck, one of the signers of letter

Our campaign finance system, already in dreadful shape in 1998, has only gotten worse. Today, American democracy is almost irretrievably broken because it is dominated by self-interested, wealthy interests. We believe that reform of our campaign finance system is the only way to fulfill Lincoln’s hope that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth. The 2012 federal election cycle was the most expensive in our history, with a combined price tag of $6.3 billion. Most of the money came from the top 1% of the economic tree. Indeed, even within the 1%, the top 10% of the 1% exercised overwhelming independent groups, including super PACs, collectively spent $1 billion.[fn] It is the supremely wealthy that provide the bulk of that money. And because of loopholes in the reporting statutes, we don’t even know who many of them are.

Super PACs, in particular, have become a mechanism for the wealthy to exert even greater influence over our elections and our elected officials. Only 1,578 donors, each of whom gave at least $50,000, were responsible for more than $760 million — or 89.3% — of all donations to super PACs in 2012.[fn] Thus, a microscopic percentage of the population is funding a significant percentage of the political spending in this country.

Equally, many likely 2016 presidential candidates have made pilgrimages to wealthy independent spenders hoping to bolster their electoral chances.[fn]  Such opportunities for candidates to, as many outlets put it, “kiss the ring” of a major political donor rightfully cause the public to question whether candidates are tailoring their views to the highest bidder.

We believe that the Supreme Court’s campaign finance decisions from Buckley [fn] to Citizens United to McCutcheon are based on three fallacies. Read More

13

Posnerian Muscle Flexing

Let us take a moment to celebrate my dear Judge Posner’s decision in favor of same sex marriage, Baskin v. Bogan __ F.3d __ (7th Cir. Sep. 4, 2014) and offer some favorite paragraphs from one of our greatest thinkers (ok, I’ll admit, I am a fan):

The challenged laws discriminate against a minority defined by an immutable characteristic, and the only rationale that the states put forth with any conviction—that same-sex couples and their children don’t need marriage because same-sex couples can’t produce children, intended or unintended—is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously. To the extent that children are better off in families in which the parents are married, they are better off whether they are raised by their biological parents or by adoptive parents. The discrimination against same-sex couples is irrational, and therefore unconstitutional even if the discrimination is not subjected to heightened scrutiny, which is why we can largely elide the more complex analysis found in more closely balanced equal-protection cases.

Some pretty language for future quotes:

If no social benefit is conferred by a tradition and it is written into law and it discriminates against a number of people and does them harm beyond just offending them, it is not just a harmless anachronism; it is a violation of the equal protection clause, as in Loving. See 388 U.S. at 8–12.

or:

Minorities trampled on by the democratic process have recourse to the courts; the recourse is called constitutional law.

or:

[M]ore than unsupported conjecture that same-sex marriage will harm heterosexual marriage or children or any other valid and important interest of a state is necessary to justify discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Read More

4

Posner opinion on same-sex marriage cases — no law clerk drafts needed

Judge Richard Posner

Judge Richard Posner

He is a rara avis – he writes his own judicial opinions (nearly 3000).  Law clerks need not bother with drafts. He writes his own scholarly articles (over 300-plus of them) and erudite books (40-plus). Law clerks need not bother with writing them either.

In a world where judicial “plagiarism” is the accepted norm, Judge Richard Posner is his own man, his own author, and his own thinker. Make of him what you will, but you gotta admire the guy for his hard work, dedication, and integrity.

All of this was made manifest recently in two same-sex marriage cases (Baskin v. Bogan and Wolf v. Walker), which were argued before a panel of the Seventh Circuit on August 26, 2014. The oral arguments in the cases, especially Posner’s interactions with the counsel, have been the talk of the town. In them, Posner minced no words as he cut through the clichéd babble tendered in defense of the state laws therein challenged.

Yesterday, slightly more than a week after those arguments, Judge Posner wrote for the Court in a clear-headed and well-reasoned 40-page opinion.

No cutting and pasting here; no arguments weighed down by the pull of tedious string citations; and no ambiguity of argument. Not surprisingly, the likes of Holmes and Kafka were summoned to buttress the logic of his opinion, this with a dollop of Posner’s own cost-benefit analysis mixed in for persuasive measure. This is not to say, however, that the opinion lacks a good discussion of the relevant case law. Hardly. Rather, my point is that Posner’s work in these cases does not read like some group project or something out of a law school moot court exercise. No! It has style and sophistication.

Now think: could a fresh-out-of-law-school clerk do all that, and in such a short period of time? Probably not . . . unless his name was Richard Posner (on that score, see here).

Speaking of Judge Posner, next month we plan to post a series of pieces on the good Judge, including a post consisting of questions on 26 topics posed to him by 24 noted legal persona (professors, journalists, and judges), replete with his replies to all of them. Stay tuned.

0

Introducing Professor Kenneth Stahl

Kenneth StahKen teaches Land Use, Real Property, and Local Government Law at Chapman University Fowler School of Law, and is the director of the Environmental, Land Use, and Real Estate Law certificate program. Before joining Fowler, Ken spent four years as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of New York. Prior to that, he worked as a Trial Attorney for the United States Department of Justice, Office of Constitutional Torts, and as an Associate at the Washington, D.C. law firm of Arnold & Porter.

Ken’s scholarly work focuses on local politics and the relationship between the local political process and judicial doctrine in land use and local government law. Professor Stahl’s articles include Neighborhood Empowerment and the Future of the City, 161 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 939 (2013) and The Suburb as a Legal Concept: The Problem of Organization and the Fate of Municipalities in American Law, 29 Cardozo Law Review 1193 (2008). He also wrote Local Government, “One Person/One Vote,” and the Jewish Question, 49 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 1 (2014). This piece was selected as one of the winning papers for the 2012 Junior Faculty Forum at Harvard Law School.

Welcome, Ken!

11

Why Campus Sexual Assault Tribunals are Needed

Since the Obama administration increased its focus on campus sexual assault in January 2014, there has been a steady flow of articles criticizing university sexual assault proceedings. Authors have decried innocent men being railroaded through a system with limited procedural protections and a low burden of proof. Based upon those sources, one would think that prosecution, expulsion, and punishment of innocent men was the norm. Meanwhile, case after case surfaces where the university either failed to act or acted in a woefully inadequate manner.

Consider the case of Yale. After numerous findings of wrongdoing in Title IX and Clery Act audit investigations were made, Yale had the opportunity to start fresh in handling complaints of sexual violence on campus. The critics of campus tribunals cite schools like Yale as embodying the liberal politically correct ethos they associate with rigged campus tribunals. So what happened after the federal regulators left Yale? Yale has issued three semi-annual reports covering the period of January 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014 during which I count 20 resolved complaints of sexual assault (non-consensual sex) between Yale students. In 10 cases, the university found inadequate evidence or the victim decided not to pursue the complaint further. In the other 10, the university assessed some sanction/punishment as follows: 3 received a 2-semester suspension, 2 received a 1-semester suspension, 3 received a written reprimand, and 2 were expelled. Yale should be applauded for making their handling of cases transparent so that this analysis is even possible. Most schools offer little information beyond what the Clery Act requires. In the end, the numbers at Yale are hardly consistent with an off-the-rails tribunal system.

Meanwhile, at Columbia, Emma Sulkowicz is facing the far more common scenario. Most victims are left on campus with their rapist. Emma has decided to protest Columbia’s indifference to her rape complaint by turning it into her senior honors visual arts project. She will be carrying her dorm mattress with her everywhere she goes until her alleged rapist is kicked off campus.

At my home institution, the University of Kansas, the Huffington Post is reporting today that the university decided that community service was too punitive for a student who “would later admit to campus police that he continued to have sex with the woman even after she said ‘no,’ ‘stop’ and ‘I can’t do this.'” Instead, he received a ban from university housing and probation.

We live in a world where police and prosecutors do not regularly pursue rape complaints and convictions are a rarity. If an attempted murderer was left on campus with his or her intended victim, we would be horrified. If a student brutally assaulted another, we would want the university to take action to protect the victim. Even in the non-criminal cases of sexual harassment at universities, defendants are separated from victims without waiting for a civil suit to be completed in the plaintiff’s favor. As a matter of simple humanity, universities need to protect rape victims by having a mechanism to remove/punish rapists.

Does this mean universities have designed effective and fair sexual assault tribunals? Absolutely not. I have been critical of the uneven protections and ad hoc processes often used. However, simply letting the criminal justice system resolve the matter, as many have proposed, is unrealistic and wrong. We should treat alleged rapists on campus as we would alleged murderers, brawlers, burglars, and other violent criminals. That means an internal university process needs to assess the available evidence to protect victims of sexual assault.