Monday, November 20, 2017

Fed Courts by treatise--the results

I wrote at the beginning of the semester about my plan to teach Fed Courts without a casebook or cases, but relying largely on the Chemerinsky and Pfander treatises (supplemented by a few cases, statutes, rules, etc.). We have two classes remaining in the semester, but today I administered a survey on the materials and this teaching approach.

Overall, I was happy with how things went this way. Students were generally very well-prepared and ready to answer almost anything I threw at them. The occasional lapse came where the questions went to something that was not covered in the treatise discussion (often about factual or procedural backgrounds). I perhaps lectured on preliminary information a bit more in spots, where the treatises focused on different pieces of a case than the casebook I previously used (Low, Jeffries, and Bradley). One obvious place was in the discussion of Atlantic Coast Line v. Brotherhood of Engineers § 2283, where the treatises paid less attention than the casebook to the effect of on-point SCOTUS precedent on the § 2283 analysis. But this was the exception rather than the rule--between them, the two books gave the students everything they needed to participate in the discussion I was trying to lead. I also was pleased (if surprised) that some students read the highlighted cases in addition to the treatises. I taught the same basic class I have been teaching for several years, but got much further than I have in recent years--this is the first time in four years that I have reached the material on jurisdiction-stripping and congressional control over court structure.

The survey results and comments suggest the students liked the approach. Of the 12 responses (out of 13 in the class), 7 "strongly agreed" this was an effective way to learn the material and prepare for class, 8 "strongly agreed" it was more enjoyable than working from a casebook or cases, and 9 "strongly agreed" that I should teach from these materials in the future. The comments suggested a general view that this method of prep was helpful to seeing the big picture at which we engaged with the material in class. And the general level of engagement throughout the semester shows that the students were doing the reading and preparing well for class.

So, all-in-all, it worked well. The students and I were happy and it allowed me to cover all the material I wanted to in the way I wanted to. I think I have found my way going forward in this class. And I will follow the same approach for Civil Rights in the spring, working from my treatise* that is basically my class in book form, along with puzzles for class discussion.

[*] Second Edition coming to supermarket checkout lines near you in 2018.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on November 20, 2017 at 08:26 PM in Howard Wasserman, Teaching Law | Permalink | Comments (3)

Sunday, November 19, 2017

Reminder: Discovery is a two-way street

Attorneys for Alabama Media Group responded (copy of letter, free from typos and grammatical errors, in story) to the insane and incoherent letter from Roy Moore's attorney. In addition to standing by the story and denying the claims in the initial letter, AMG's lawyers say they expect litigation "would also reveal other important information about your clients" and makes a counter-demand that Moore preserve and maintain documents, materials, and information that "is or could remotely be relevant in any manner to any of the claims that you have made." This includes information relevant to Moore's "romantic relationships or physical encounters (whether consensual or not)."

This was not as brazen as the New York Times letter from October 2016, which expressly dared Trump to sue. But both are interesting examples of an emerging genre of legal writing.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on November 19, 2017 at 11:46 PM in Civil Procedure, First Amendment, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (0)

154th anniversary of Gettysburg Address

This remains funny and this is newly funny. And this is the perfect day for Lincoln's successor to demonstrate his unique ideas of government and presidential leadership--leaving American citizens in foreign jail because the father of one of them is not sufficiently appreciative or supportive of him.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on November 19, 2017 at 03:20 PM in Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, November 16, 2017

The Irrepressible Myth of David Boies?

Much has been written about David Boies representation of Harvey Weinstein and the conflicts with his representation of The New York Times as representing the fall of a liberal legal icon and of one of the great lawyers of his generation.

But a question asked out of genuine ignorance: What is the basis for that reputation and is it earned? I know of Boies from three cases: US v. Microsoft, Bush v. Gore, and Hollingsworth v. Perry; I do not believe I knew his name before the first of these. He lost the first (and one of my memories of listening to that argument was that he sounded as if he was caught off-guard by an equal-protection question). He had the second reversed on appeal. In the third, he won an important trial-court victory that enabled millions of Californians to marry, carried symbolic weight,* and perhaps catalyzed the litigation movement that led to Obergefell two years later. But it did not achieve the single great judicial declaration on marriage equality that he (and Ted Olson) set out to achieve and for which he is often given credit in movies, books, and other media. It was an important case on the path to marriage equality, but far from the important case. As legal precedent, it carried less weight than, for example, the case brought in Utah, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, or Indiana, all of which produced binding circuit precedent.

[*] The symbolism arguably cut in both directions. On one hand, it was the first federal-court declaration that same-sex marriage bans violated the federal Constitution (following several state-court/state-law decisions) and it affected the biggest state in the country. On the other hand, California.

I am not suggesting that Boies has not been a successful lawyer; he clearly has been. And I am sure that he took on and won many other big (and perhaps even historic) cases. But he is being described as the Clarence Darrow of his generation, now fallen in his final act. And I wonder about the reality of that.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on November 16, 2017 at 01:29 PM in Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (12)

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Bernie Bernstein

I guess stupid acts of ignorant dog-whistle anti-Semitism grounded on stereotypes are preferable to Nazis marching with torches and pitchforks. My favorite comment came from Ariel Edwards-Levy, who reminded us that Bernie Bernstein's reporting partner for the Washington Post must be Woody Woodward. This story includes the audio of the robocall, which features a fake New York accent turned up to 11, although with a momentary "remaahks" that sounded more Boston than New York.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on November 14, 2017 at 08:38 PM in Culture, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (1)

Two hours of First Amendment training

Greg Thatcher, a professor of public health at Fresno State, has settled a First Amendment lawsuit claiming he erased students' chalked messages on campus sidewalks. Thatcher will pay $ 1000 to each of the students, pay $ 15,000 in attorney's fees to the Alliance Defending Freedom, and undergo two hours of "First Amendment training" with ADF. Two thoughts.

I hope "First Amendment training" does not become the new "diversity training" or "sexual harassment training."

I think there is an interesting under-color-of-law question here. Is everything a professor does on a public-university campus during school hours under color? He was not in the classroom, his office, or his building. He is dressed like he is going to the gym (although, in fairness, so do I on non-teaching days). In the encounter, he sometimes strikes a position of a competing speaker and sometimes strikes a position of an authority enforcing (erroneously understood) campus-speech regulations. And it is not clear enforcing those rules is any part of his job, although students may not understand that. He did tell/order/ask some of his students to erase the messages with him, which reflects an exercise of his obvious authority.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on November 14, 2017 at 08:42 AM in First Amendment, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (1)

Monday, November 13, 2017

First Amendment Day at SCOTUS

SCOTUS granted cert in three First Amendment cases today. The big one is National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, a challenge to a California law requiring that crisis pregnancy centers provide notice that publicly funded family-planning services are available elsewhere and that unlicensed clinics are unlicensed; the Court took it as a compelled-speech case and a vehicle to resolve a circuit split over the standard for "professional speech" (the Ninth Circuit applied intermediate scrutiny, while the Fourth Circuit applied strict scrutiny in invalidating similar regulations in Maryland.

The political valance of the case is interesting, as Dahlia Lithwick argues. The plaintiff here is a crisis-pregnancy center, resisting regulations that, in the name of protecting women's health, require the clinics to disclose information about the limits of their services (not providing abortion or contraception) and directing patients elsewhere for those services. But if these regulations violate the First Amendment, so should regulations in many states requiring clinics to provide pre-abortion counseling or to provide arguably false medical information about links between abortion and breast cancer, suicide, and mental-health consequences, designed to dissuade women from going through with the procedure.

Incidentally, this case meets the procedural posture I was looking for: The trial court denied a preliminary injunction, the court of appeals affirmed, and SCOTUS granted cert (to reverse, if I had to predict).

Posted by Howard Wasserman on November 13, 2017 at 07:59 PM in Constitutional thoughts, First Amendment, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (2)

JOTWELL: Effron on Trammell on precedent and preclusion

The new Courts Law essay comes from Robin Effron (Brooklyn, visiting at Notre Dame), reviewing Alan M. Trammell, Precedent and Preclusion, ___ Notre Dame L. Rev. (forthcoming), which considers the due-process connections of precedent and preclusion. 

I am anxious to read Alan's piece, as the distinction between precedent and preclusion is central to a theory of judicial departmentalism.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on November 13, 2017 at 03:06 PM in Article Spotlight, Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (1)

Saturday, November 11, 2017

Equality Law Scholars’ Forum

Equality Law Scholars’ Forum

Friday, November 17 – Saturday, November 18, 2017

The Forum is designed to provide junior scholars with commentary and critique by their more senior colleagues in the legal academy and, more broadly, to foster development and understanding of new scholarly currents across equality law. 


The Forum will feature five presenters (chosen from over 50 submissions):

Age, Law, and Egalitarianism

Alexander Boni-Saenz,Assistant Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent Law

 

Color-Blind But Not Color-Deaf: Accent Discrimination in Jury Selection

Jasmine Rose Gonzales, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh Law

 

Colorable Claims of Discrimination

Vinay Harpalani, Associate Professor of Law, Savannah Law School

 

Scapegoating Abortion Rights: The Conservative Revolution and the Economic Decline of the Working Class
Yvonne Lindgren, Visiting Professor of Law, University of San Francisco

 

Public Labor Unions as Democracy Facilitators for the Working Class

Courtlyn Roser-Jones, Hastie Fellow, University of Wisconsin Law School

 

The event is co-organized by Tristin Green, USF Law, Angela Onwuachi-Willig, UC Berkeley Law, and Leticia Saucedo, UC Davis Law. 

Financial support is provided by the Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society at UC Berkeley, the UC Davis School of Law, and the UC Irvine School of Law.

 

Comment and critique will be provided by the following scholars:

Khiara Bridges, Boston University Law

Catherine Fisk, Berkeley Law

Jonathan Glater, UC Irvine Law

Tristin Green, University of San Francisco Law

Ariela Gross, USC Law

Trina Jones, Duke Law

Osagie Obasogie, Berkeley Public Health

Angela Onwuachi-Willig, Berkeley Law

Leticia Saucedo, UC Davis Law

Michael Waterstone, Loyola-Los Angeles Law                       

 

We will also hold a panel discussion on Producing Scholarship in Equality Law with the following panelists participating:

Kathy Abrams, Berkeley Law

Catherine Albiston, Berkeley Law

Camille Gear Rich, USC Law

Vicky Plaut, Berkeley Law

Russell Robinson, Berkeley Law

Bertrall Ross, Berkeley Law

Jonathan Simon, Berkeley Law

Posted by Howard Wasserman on November 11, 2017 at 09:31 AM in Howard Wasserman, Teaching Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, November 10, 2017

Procedural posture in First Amendment cases (Updated)

Update: Note the clarification below, as I was not precise enough. The questioner was asking about cases in which a preliminary injunction was sought and denied. In White (and one case I thought of, Simon & Schuster), the plaintiff did not move for a preliminary injunction. Instead, the parties went straight to cross-motions for summary judgment on permanent injunctive relief.

A question was asked of me: Can we think of significant First Amendment cases in which the lower courts denied a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of a law, then SCOTUS granted cert., reversed, and held that the challenged law is not enforceable?

The only one I could come up with off the top of my head is Steffel v. Thompson. And there the lower courts denied relief on standing and Younger grounds, never reaching the First Amendment merits.

Any cases that fit this description, where the lower courts declared the law constitutionally valid and declined to enjoin, then SCOTUS granted cert to reverse?

Posted by Howard Wasserman on November 10, 2017 at 12:07 AM in Civil Procedure, First Amendment, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (3)

Thursday, November 09, 2017

The overwhelming effect of stays pending appeal

The Second Circuit denied a stay pending appeal of the denial of an injunction barring suspension of NFL running back Ezekiel Elliott. The court referred to it as an "injunction pending appeal," which is wrong and the improper terminology makes the media reporting on this more confusing than usual.

Tracing the history of this case is a Fed Courts or Remedies problem all its own: 1) Elliott was suspended for six games and an arbitrator upheld the suspension; 2) a judge in the Eastern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the suspension (allowing Elliott to play); 3) the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction, grounds that were arguably incorrect, although the result was probably right (barring Elliott from playing); 4) the union and player filed suit in the Southern District of New York; 5) a district judge granted a TRO (allowing Elliott to play); 6) the same judge refused to grant a preliminary injunction (barring Elliott from playing); 7) the Second Circuit granted a temporary stay of the denial of the preliminary injunction (allowing Elliott to play) pending fuller consideration of the motion to stay; 8) the Second Circuit today denied a full stay pending appeal, allowing the judgment denying the preliminary injunction to go into effect, meaning the suspension goes into effect and Elliott will not be able to play on Sunday (unless SCOTUS gets involved).

Even more than in the marriage-equality litigation, the stay question dictates the result in these cases. Although the Second Circuit granted expedited appeal, it is not clear that the case will be resolved before Elliott has missed six games. The question is the weight the likelihood-of-success prong bears in these cases--it is hard to overturn an arbitrator's decision, so Elliott was not likely to succeed in having the denial of the injunction reversed. And that may have convinced the court of appeals there was no irreparable harm in having the suspension take effect.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on November 9, 2017 at 05:09 PM in Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (3)

Wednesday, November 08, 2017

More jurisdictionality from SCOTUS

My opinion analysis for Hamer v. NHSC is up on SCOTUSBlog. As I predicted, the Court unanimously (through Justice Ginsburg, who cares most deeply about these issues) held that FRAP 4(a)(5)(C)'s 30-day limit on extensions to file notices of appeal was not jurisdictional, then punted issues of waiver, forfeiture, and equitable exception to the Seventh Circuit for initial consideration. A few additional thoughts.

Despite mentioning it at argument, the Court did not mention or cite Scott Dodson's arguments that the rule is jurisdictional because it allocates cases between courts, but the label matters less than the consequences (waiver, forfeiture, equitable exception, etc.) that a rulemaker attaches to the rule. Jurisdictional rules are mandatory only if Congress makes them mandatory; non-jurisdictional rules can be mandatory if Congress makes them mandatory. The Court did speak of timing rules "governing the transfer of adjudicatory authority from one Article III court to another," which smacks of the allocation concept that Scott uses. But the Court could not move past the label above the effects of the rule (which are not dictated by the label).

The "clear and easy" rule of decision the Court announced is that "If a time prescription governing the transfer of adjudicatory authority from one Article III court to another appears in a statute, the limitation is jurisdictional; otherwise, the time specification fits within the claim-processing category." This does not mention the Arbaugh rule that a rule is jurisdictional only if Congress speaks in jurisdictional terms. But the synthesis is that Congress can speak in jurisdictional terms, while the Court under the REA never can speak in jurisdictional terms.

In an email, Scott identifies some problems and open questions from describing the issue as the timing for transferring adjudicatory authority from one court to another. This would make timing limits in transfer-of-venue statutes or statutes governing the time for filing cert. petitions jurisdictional. Another question is whether the same rule applies to transfers of authority from state court to federal court, which would make timing requirements for removal and cert. petitions from state courts jurisdiction. Or it would mean that the time for filing a petition from federal court would be jurisdictional, while the time for filing a petition from state court might not be. Scott argues that these open questions show that the rule is not so "clear and easy."

Posted by Howard Wasserman on November 8, 2017 at 08:58 PM in Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (1)

Saturday, November 04, 2017

Are The Bangles no longer welcome at Reed College, either?

Read the intro. Whatever else is happening, this demonstrates a point that came out in the comments to this post: The level of offense and the level of evil that protesters see in objectionable speech is beyond what we saw previously, which explains the more-intense reactions and confrontations between speech and counter-speech.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on November 4, 2017 at 05:18 PM in Constitutional thoughts, First Amendment, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (9)

Thursday, November 02, 2017

CFP: SEALS Works-in-Progress

Announcement Here. Lou Virelli (Stetson) organizes these and they are great mini (3-4 people) workshops.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on November 2, 2017 at 10:20 AM in Howard Wasserman, Teaching Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, November 01, 2017

Chemerinsky and Gillman on disruption as free speech

Erwin Chemerinsky and Howard Gillman (Chancellor at UC-Irvine) have a piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education discussing when and if disruption of one speaker constitutes free speech by the counter-speaker. The piece captures a lot of what I have been thinking and trying to get at in my posts on the subject. I like the argument and it works as a jumping-off point.

They argue that in an open forum, including on campus, no speaker has a superseding right of access and no speaker has a right to speak uninterrupted. A limited public forum with rules and reservation processes creates a preferred right of access to the original speaker and thus limits the counter-speech rights, such as to non-disruptive protests or to counter-speech activities outside the forum. This distinction works, although defining the nature of the forum remains important and perhaps difficult. We also have to find a way to address the situation in which loud counter-protesters in the general forum (where, H&C argue, they can be as loud as they want to be) drown-out the speaker inside the limited forum.

I disagree that we should label what counter-speakers are doing here as a heckler's veto, which I believe requires government action. I agree that the attitude reflected is "'If we can’t get the government to censor the speech, then we’ll do it ourselves'", but we need a different term. The better description might be civil disobedience--these protesters are breaking the rules, although for expressive purposes, and are subject to arrest for doing so. Government's obligation, H&C argue, is to allow the speaker to go forward by removing the disrupters. And when government fails to do so, that is a heckler's veto.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on November 1, 2017 at 05:17 PM in First Amendment, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (6)

Monday, October 30, 2017

Your Crim Pro Final

Here.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on October 30, 2017 at 08:06 PM in Criminal Law, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (3)

JOTWELL: Erbsen on Lahav on Procedural Design

The new Courts Law essay comes from Allan Erbsen (Minnesota), reviewing Alexandra Lahav, Procedural Design. This is a great paper and it and the review are good reads.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on October 30, 2017 at 02:18 PM in Article Spotlight, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, October 25, 2017

Jews and the 2017 World Series

Some off-the-cuff baseball history.

The 2017 World Series features Jewish players on both teams--Alex Bregman for the Astros and Joc Pederson for the Dodgers. According to Bob Wechsler, author of The Jewish Baseball Card Book, this is the first two-Jew Series since 2004 (Gabe Kapler for the Red Sox and Jason Marquis for the Cardinals); the second since 1959 (when Sandy Koufax played for the Dodgers); and the fifth in history (the other two involved Hank Greenberg in 1945 and 1940).

In Game 2 this evening, Bregman is the Astros regular third baseman, while Pederson will start in left for the Dodgers. This is, as far as I can tell, the first time that both teams have started a Jewish player in a World Series game. Kapler did not start against Marquis in Game 4 in 2004, nor did the Jewish players playing against Koufax and Greenberg.

Bregman homered last night for the Astros' only run. I am trying to figure out who was the last Jewish player to homer in a Series. Greenberg hit 2 in 1945. I cannot find any homers since then. Who am I missing and when?

[Update: Naturally, we need a Halachic ruling on the last point: Steve Yeager, the Dodgers catcher in the '70s and early '80s, hit 2 homers in the '77 Series and 2 in the '81 Series (in which he won MVP), but converted to Judaism only after he retired. So he is Jewish, but was not when he hit those 4 homers. Do these count as World Series homers by a Jewish player?]

[Further Update: Pederson homered for the Dodgers’ first run of Game 2, making this the first Series with home runs by multiple Jewish players.]

[One More Update: According to Ron Kaplan, the only Jewish player to homer in the Series between Greenberg in 1945 and Bregman and Pederson this year (if you do not count Yeager) was Ken Holtzman, a pitcher for the A's, who homered in Game 2 of the '74 Series (in researching this by going through a list of Jewish players and their career stats, I did not think to look at any pitchers).]

Posted by Howard Wasserman on October 25, 2017 at 05:11 PM in Howard Wasserman, Sports | Permalink | Comments (5)

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

NFLPA victim of drive-by jurisdictional ruling

The Fifth Circuit last week reversed a district court order enjoining the NFL from carrying out the six-game suspension of Dallas Cowboy running back Ezekiel Elliott because of a domestic-violence incident. I saw the story, but assumed that the court of appeals had reversed for the usual reasons that courts of appeals reverse in these sports cases--the district court had been insufficiently deferential to the arbitrator decision (see, e.g., Tom Brady and Deflategate). And because I do not write on those issues and because I do not like or watch football anymore (and my antipathy for the sport and the league grows), I did not write anything on it.

But a reaction paper from one of my Fed Courts students revealed that the Fifth Circuit issued the dreaded drive-by jurisdictional ruling. A 2-1 divided court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the Elliott and the NFLPA had not exhausted CBA grievance processes, which placed a claim for relief "beyond 'judicial review.'" The court stated that Arbaugh, Henderson, and other recent jurisdictionality decisions did not change SCOTUS or Fifth Circuit precedent treating exhaustion as jurisdictional in the labor context. Judge Graves dissented, arguing that jurisdiction was established when a plaintiff claims a violation of a contract between an employer and a labor organization and that the grievance procedures appeared in the CBA, not the LMRA.

Under Scott Dodson's theory (and I think Scott cracked the problem of defining jurisdiction in a principled way),exhaustion is jurisdictional, because it measures when a case can enter a court or move to a court from another body (such as an arbitration panel). But the Fifth Circuit is descriptively wrong under recent decisions and the direction of the doctrine. Very little is jurisdictional anymore, especially when it does not appear in a statute. The "beyond judicial review" language (drawn from a 1967 SCOTUS case) is the sort of loose, figurative language that SCOTUS had used and attached jurisdictional labels, without thinking through the logic or consequences of the label; this is the language Justice Ginsburg had in mind when she introduced, and argued for limiting the effect of, drive-by jurisdictional rulings. And statutory exhaustion (as under Title VII) is not jurisdictional; it seems inconceivable that a statutory requirement would not limit the court's jurisdiction, but a private contractual obligation, not required by any statute, could strip a court of its structural adjudicative authority.

The question is what happens next. Elliott's first game of the suspension is next Sunday. The NFLPA has asked the Fifth Circuit for en banc review and also sought its own TRO in the Southern District of New York (where the NFL offices are located). The jurisdictional basis for the ruling was wrong, but that does not mean that the court of appeals was wrong that Elliott failed to exhaust his contractual remedies and that the injunction should not have issued. Elliott and the NFLPA may have properly lost, just on 12(b)(6) rather than 12(b)(1) grounds.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on October 17, 2017 at 01:10 PM in Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman, Sports | Permalink | Comments (1)

Sunday, October 15, 2017

An overbroad defense of universal injunctions

Judge Leinenweber of the Northern District of Illinois denied a stay pending appeal of a universal (he called it nationwide) preliminary injunction barring enforcement of certain funding conditions against sanctuary cities. This is the first extended defense of universal injunctions (more than in the original order granting the injunction).  (H/T: Josh Blackman)

The gist of Judge Leinenweber's defense is that the attorney general's authority does not vary by jurisdiction. And similar universal jurisdictions have been upheld, in which relief inured to non-parties as well as parties. The court also finds support from the per curiam in Trump v. IRAP, where the Court allowed the injunction to stand as to those "similarly situated" to the plaintiffs, which matches the injunction here applying to cities and states similarly situated to Chicago. Most tellingly, the court rejected the argument that similarly situated plaintiffs can file their own lawsuits and use the first decision as precedent because "judicial economy counsels against requiring all these jurisdictions (and potentially others) to file their own lawsuits to decide the same legal question." The court recognized reasons to be "cautious" before entering such injunctions and that they should not be the "default," citing the recent work of Bray, October guest Michael Morley, and UCLA's Michigan's Maureen Carroll. He pointed to concerns for forum shopping, conflicting injunctions, and interference with law development within a circuit, then explained (in a sentence or two) why those "not insignificant concerns" do not overcome the benefits of a universal injunction in this case.

The problem remains that the argument prove too much. As Sam Bray argues, it logically requires (or at least permits and encourages) a district court to issue a universal injunction in every constitutional challenge to federal law. Because the proposed funding conditions challenged here do not differ from any federal law.  The authority of federal officials to enforce every federal law does not vary by jurisdiction. Judicial economy always favors one lawsuit over many lawsuits. There would be a flood of similar lawsuits by everyone affected by every federal law.* Federal uniformity and the unfairness of disparate application of federal are present with respect to every federal law. Despite the court's rhetorical attempt to limit such injunctions to "extraordinary" cases, every case is extraordinary as he defines it; the reasoning applies to federal immigration laws, federal regulations of immigration attorneys, and federal law regulating any conduct.

[*] The solution is supposed to be FRCP 23(b)(2) class actions. But the growth of universal injunctions makes that rule superfluous.

Leinenweber closes with a paean to the rule of law and the role of the courts in ensuring the rule of law is enforced, which is undermined (in reality or in perception) if the attorney general can enforce "likely invalid" laws against other persons even while under an injunction as to some. Several responses. That is true of every federal law, making such injunctions the norm. The rule of law also includes limitations on the scope of a district court's lawmaking and remedial authority as compared with a court of appeals or SCOTUS; it therefore is as undermined by one district judge barring enforcement of federal law as to everyone in the world in all circumstances everywhere in the world. And without saying so, it also rests on a model of pure judicial supremacy--the Article III judge has spoken and the attorney general's authority to disagree, outside of that litigation, ceases to exist.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on October 15, 2017 at 03:10 PM in Civil Procedure, Constitutional thoughts, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (12)

Saturday, October 14, 2017

Argument on ATS in Jesner v. Arab Bank

SCOTUS heard argument on Wednesday in Jesner v. Arab Bank, considering whether a corporation can be sued under the  common law cause of action under the Alien Tort Statute. I listened to the audio and have a few thoughts on the procedure, without getting into the substantive question of corporate liability.

The Court a good job (certainly better than four years ago in Kiobel) talking about the issues without conflating jurisdiction and merits. Everyone spoke about causes of action and the scope of the norms that are part of federal common law and can be enforced through that cause of action, without speaking about jurisdiction in a sloppy way.

Justice Gorsuch asked petitioner/plaintiff counsel what the continued point of the ATS is, given that § 1331 grants jurisdiction over claims grounded in federal common law incorporating international law. Counsel explained that the ATS is like the maritime-jurisdiction grant, a more specific grant in the Judiciary Act of 1789 through which Congress could make absolutely clear that such cases could be brought in federal court. What neither mentioned (and what you would expect Gorsuch to remember, given his Originalist obsession) is that the 1789 Act did not include general "arising under" federal-question jurisdiction, necessitating these subject-specific grants. To the extent § 1350 is vestigial or superfluous with modern § 1331, it is not alone.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on October 14, 2017 at 10:31 AM in Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (5)

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Laptops are loud

I banned laptops from my classroom beginning in January 2009 (the first semester following the faculty vote on my tenure) and my only regret was that I did not do so sooner. This was the early days of the anti-laptop push-back. A few professors (including David Cole of Georgetown) had begun identifying and arguing the negative effects, although we did yet have the empirical studies as support. In any event, it ha been about 20 semesters of teaching with no computers in the room.

In the past week, I have visited classrooms of three colleagues (as part of P&T review) who allow laptops. And boy do they make a lot of noise when 20+ students are all typing away at once. I noticed the quiet of no laptops almost immediately in January 2009. I forgot the loudness until this week.

 I know the students in the classes I observed either have in this semester and/or had in past semesters) professors who banned laptops. I remain struck and confused by how little voluntary change there has been. I keep expecting the no-laptop benefits to become so clear that students would recognize and never go back. But it has not happpened. Despite being prohibited from using laptops in Class A, more than half the students in both classes have gone back to using them when allowed to do so in Class B.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on October 12, 2017 at 10:31 AM in Howard Wasserman, Teaching Law | Permalink | Comments (37)

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

How far we have come, in the wrong direction (Updated)

Gyree Durante, a freshman backup quarterback at Albright College, a D-III school in Pennsylvania, was kicked off the team for kneeling during the national anthem. The team's "leadership council" had decided to kneel during the coin toss (because racial injustice is intimately associated with coin tosses) but stand for the anthem. Durante thus acted against the team decision that was an "expression of team unity and out of the mutual respect team members have for one another and the value they place on their differences."

[Updated: Upon further consideration, I must marvel at how so much anti-intellectualism and raw majoritarianism was packed into such a seemingly anodyne statement. Because the majority won, in a rout. The athlete inclined to do so was denied the opportunity to express a criticism of an aspect of American society in a meaningful way, unless kneeling or coin tosses per se mean something about racially disparate police violence. The majority deigned to allow him a small expressive token, but that token is meaningless as a message (or the message the athlete wanted to send), again unless kneeling or coin tosses say something about racism and police violence. Yet this is praised as  "mutual respect for differences."  There was no mutual respect at work here--the majority got what it wanted by prohibiting a protest around the symbol of what some people see as the social problem to be protested; Duarte got nothing of expressive consequence.]

In this article, I discussed Toni Smith, who in 2003 was a member of the women's basketball team at Manhattanville College, a D-III school in New York. During the ramp-up to the Iraq invasion (which was being sold to the public as a necessary national-security response to 9/11), Smith would turn her back to the flag during the anthem. She was not sanctioned and was supported by her teammates, coaches, and school administrators. Some fans booed or jeered and one person walked onto the court mid-game to get in her face. A Google search revealed that Smith (now Smith-Thompson) is an organizer with the NYCLU and wrote an open letter to Colin Kaepernick in 2016.

But it is striking that such protests (which I describe in the article as symbolic counter-speech, in that a person counter-speaks to a symbol through the symbol itself) draw more public anger and less support from teammates and those around the protester today than 15 years ago, on the eve of what at the time was a popular military action. That speaks depressing volumes to our willingness to protect political dissent (or at least certain forms of political dissent). Smith-Thompson suggested the difference is social media. Another difference is that President George W. Bush did not make a hobby of calling out dissenters as unpatriotic sons-of-bitches.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on October 11, 2017 at 10:39 PM in First Amendment, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (7)

Against unity

Unity is the enemy of the freedom of speech.

If unity is a primary value or principle, then free speech cannot exist.  If the goal is for society (or some segment of it) to be "unified," then speech that "divides"--that undermines unity or does something other than unify--cannot be tolerated. But another word for speech that "divides" is speech that anyone disagrees with, Holmes's "thought that we hate." If the goal is unity, then ideas and speech that divide-- ideas that anyone disagrees with--can be and must be suppressed or pushed out of sight. A society that values unity uber alles has no need to protect the freedom of speech and will not protect the freedom of speech. A "united" community will not seek to suppress speech that unites everyone in agreement, only speech that divides. But division undermines unity, so that society is justified in suppressing that dividing speech.

This means that "unity" is not a neutral or benign principle. A governing entity (the NFL, the President's spokesperson, whoever)  that argues about the need for unity is really arguing that it can and should be able to suppress speech. Because those who utter divisive--i.e., unpopular or dissenting--ideas divide, undermining that goal of unity.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on October 11, 2017 at 09:31 AM in First Amendment, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (23)

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Argument: Hamer v. NHSC

Here is my SCOTUSBlog recap of Tuesday's argument Hamer v. NHSC. Justice Ginsburg was as engaged in this argument as I think I ever have seen her. She even had some love for the arguments of Scott Dodson (Hastings), who filed an amicus brief putting forward his theory that a jurisdictional rule is any rule, regardless of source, that places a case in one court and out of another. She asked petitioner's counsel about Scott's argument; his response was that Scott's formulation is "incorrect" because inconsistent with prior cases and the Rules of Civil Procedure, although without explaining whether or why that formulation is normatively wrong. No one else followed on Ginsburg's question.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on October 10, 2017 at 10:09 PM in Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (1)

Sunday, October 08, 2017

Police as prosecutors

A lawsuit in Manhattan civil court is challenging a program in which NYPD lawyers prosecute summons cases, pursuant to a delegation by the Manhattan DA. The apparent impetus for the move was that the DA generally does not send attorneys to summons court, resulting in many cases being dismissed, in turn forming the basis for constitutional claims arguing that officers lacked probable cause to issue the summons. The police department requested the delegation so it could litigate summons cases or offer a resolution would require the defendants to admit liability, barring a subsequent lawsuit. Plaintiffs claim this is a conflict of interest for the police, which violates due process, undermines the adversary system, and raises a hint of selective prosecution. Plaintiffs allege that the police are pursuing only claims against those cited while engaged in expressive activity (the plaintiffs were cited for actions during a police-reform march, and the charges against one of them were dismissed when the judge found the arresting officers' testimony contradicted by video of the events).

For you crim/crim pro/PR scholars in the audience: What is the problem here, as a legal or ethical matter? Because I do not see it. A lot seems to be about the intent of the delegation and the police lawyers' strategy--to protect officers from subsequent civil suits. But that seems like one, valid influence on prosecutorial discretion, whether the DA or its delegee is exercising that discretion. As for the focus on people cited for expressive conduct, that sounds in selective prosecution, a defense that is hard to prove and as much of a problem (or non-problem) with or without the delegation. What am I missing? 

Posted by Howard Wasserman on October 8, 2017 at 11:49 PM in Constitutional thoughts, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (5)

Saturday, October 07, 2017

University of Wisconsin bans counter-speech

An intentionally provocative headline, but not too far off. The Board of Regents adopted a policy that "students found to have twice engaged in violence or other disorderly conduct that disrupts others' free speech would be suspended. Students found to have disrupted others' free expression three times would be expelled." (H/T: Steven Lubet). The  linked article contains quotations capturing both sides of this: The regent who says the policy promotes listening and that "drowning out another speaker" does not qualify as freedom of speech, compared with the student who argues that the First Amendment is supposed to be messy and contentious.

The policy is glaringly vague (what is "disorderly conduct," what is "disruption"), etc.).  I expect the university to try to clear that up in its implementing regulations. Meanwhile, I wonder if a constitutional challenge now would be deemed unripe, since the policy is not yet at the point of implementation. In any event, I do not see how the university could write regulations that are clear enough to pass constitutional muster. If the counter-demonstrating, where the counter-demonstrators outnumber and outshout the original speakers, does that necessarily become disruption? Even if listening is a worthy goal to promote, can the state give people a choice between listening (which sounds compelled) or staying away, with talking back no longer an option?

Posted by Howard Wasserman on October 7, 2017 at 02:59 PM in First Amendment, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (17)

Barnette and flag-related speech

Video in this post shows a female fan at last night's Lakers game (played in Ontario, CA) throwing a drink and swearing at two fans who knelt during the Star Spangled Banner. As John Q. Barrett pointed out last week, next year is the 75th anniversary of West Virginia Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, a high point of First Amendment jurisprudence.

But Barnette's legacy has split in unfortunate ways. Barnette stands for the prohibition on compelled expression, an idea that is popular and thriving, expanding to all manner of expression and expressive conduct, such as baking cakes. But Barnette also stands for a prohibition on compelled participation in flag-related ceremonies, which carries with it the right to express one's own message through that non-participation. The actions described above and the general public reaction to and controversy over the anthem at sporting events shows broad public rejection of that piece of Barnette. The public seems less accepting and tolerant of flag counter-speech, derived from Barnette, now than it was 13 years ago, when I wrote this in the early days of Iraq War. And recall that several Justices changed their minds on this issue from Gobitis to Barnette in part because of the violence directed against Jehovah's Witnesses following the first decision; the shift to protecting the right to opt-out was designed to protect dissenters.

We are organizing a symposium at FIU on Barnette's 75th anniversary for next fall. The seeming demise of this part of Barnette could be an important point of discussion.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on October 7, 2017 at 12:00 PM in First Amendment, Howard Wasserman, Sports | Permalink | Comments (1)

Friday, October 06, 2017

ACLU, free speech, and discrimination

The New York Times writes about soul-searching at the ACLU in the wake of Charlottesville. Two items of note.

First, Executive Director Anthony Romero discusses the new policy of not representing protesters who plan to march while armed. Romero ties this to early ACLU policies opposing permits for Nazi groups "drilling with arms." He argues that the ACLU has come full circle with respect to Nazi groups. The analogue to Charlottesville is not Skokie, where counter-protesters outnumbered Nazis 70-to-1, the Nazis were unarmed, and the danger was angry spectators attacking them. Charlottesville is more like the 1930s, when fascism was ascendant in Europe and sufficiently popular in the United States to draw large crowds.

Second, the article describes an open letter by around 200 staffers, arguing that the ACLU's "broader mission — which includes advancing the racial justice guarantees in the Constitution and elsewhere, not just the First Amendment — continues to be undermined by our rigid stance" on hate speech. It is easy to criticize the 200 (as some have) for not understanding what the ACLU is about, given its history, and to tell them to find a different advocacy group. But the signatories are onto something. The modern ACLU has made certain forms of equality part of its core mission. And absolutist protection for free speech does conflict with certain visions of racial justice that would not protect speech advocating for inequality or against equality. It is not the first time this potential conflict has caused the organization problems--in the early '90s, the organization was only lukewarm in its opposition to hate-speech laws and it supported sentence enhancement for racially motivated crimes. And recall the ACLU's 2015 Workplan of major civil-liberties issues, which did not say much about the First Amendment. The signatories have exposed an internal tension of the organization's own making. The usual response to the tension is that speech must be protected for all, lest government turn its censoriousness on equality-promoting groups (consider that the Supreme Court case declaring sentence-enhancement valid involved a prosecution of African-Americans for assaulting white victims). But many racial-justice advocates reject that idea.

The focus on this tension reminds me of the potential tension between "civil liberties" (commonly understood as individual rights as against government, such as free speech) and "civil rights" (commonly understood as equality--both in the face of government discrimination and government efforts to stop private discrimination by legislation). I recall the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law review publishing a symposium on whether its name is an oxymoron. The ACLU may be facing the same problem, as some of its staffers and supporters recognize that they signed up the equality rather than the speech.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on October 6, 2017 at 09:31 AM in Constitutional thoughts, First Amendment, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (2)

Tuesday, October 03, 2017

Hamer Time

I wrote a SCOTUSBlog preview of Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, to be argued next Tuesday; the case considers the jurisdictionality of FRAP 4(a)(5)(C), which limits extensions of time to appeal to 30 days beyond the original appeals period.

Although I did not discuss this in the preview, it bears watching how Justice Gorsuch approaches jurisdictionality. He demonstrated some iconoclastic views on procedural issues in his few cases from the April sitting last Term, often running counter to the rest of the Court, to the Court's recent doctrinal trends, and to recent precedent. Might he be inclined to return to drive-by jurisdictional rulings, counter to the Court's trend of the past decade?

Posted by Howard Wasserman on October 3, 2017 at 10:36 AM in Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (2)

Sunday, October 01, 2017

More from Bray on universal injunctions

Two weeks ago, the Northern District of Illinois imposed a universal/nationwide injunction against the new funding conditions imposed against "sanctuary cities." The court justified the scope because there was "no reason to think that the legal issues present in this case are restricted to Chicago or that the statutory authority given to the Attorney General would differ in another jurisdiction." In a WaPo op-ed, Sam Bray argues that this represents the next step in making the universal/nationwide injunction the new, unjustified, default in constitutional litigation against federal law. An injunction should be nationwide unless the challenged law and legal issues are limited to the plaintiff or to the jurisdiction in which the action is brought--which never will be true of federal law. Sam calls on someone--Congress, the Advisory Committee, or SCOTUS--to stop the "remedial irresponsibility." This injunction is of a piece with another low-profile universal injunction issued in May in the Western District of Washington in a challenge to federal regulations of attorneys in immigration proceedings--the government's stated desire to continue enforcing the regulation was sufficient to justify the expanded scope, a basis that similarly applies to all federal law.

Unfortunately, I am not sure who is going to put the brake on this practice.

Expecting Congress to do anything is beyond wishful thinking.

SCOTUS has, implicitly and probably unthinkingly, approved the practice by affirming the universal injunction in U.S. v. Texas (the DAPA case) and by leaving the injunction in place as to those "similarly situated" to the plaintiff in IRAP (the travel ban case). Both decisions were bound-up with other procedural concerns. Texas was affirmed by an Segall-ian evenly divided Court . In IRAP the Court was trying to figure out how to remold the substantive injunction in the guise of granting cert. and staying the injunction pending appeal; it did not have the time or attention to consider injunctive scope in terms of plaintiffs protected. And with the case likely moot, we start all over again.

The Advisory Committee is an interesting actor that I had not considered. But it would take too long to get anything done, given the committee process. And the Committee may be as surprised as everyone else that this practice has become so pervasive--the current language of Rule 65 combined with the existence of Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive class actions should tell district courts that they cannot issue an injunction protecting everyone in a class without a class.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on October 1, 2017 at 10:31 AM in Civil Procedure, Constitutional thoughts, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (4)

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Sports and Speech: From the ridiculous to the sublime

I have not weighed in on the craziness about protests in the NFL, because so much of this (from both sides) is more noise than signal. For now, I want to flag to recent pieces:

1) Jonathan Eig writes that the public hated Muhammad Ali when he was speaking (and acting) out against the war at the time he was the loudest and angriest; it was only after he became harmless (because of his medical condition) and less adversarial in his views that he became beloved. The same is happening with Colin Kaepernick, to a limited extent. As some people praise him for starting a movement, he remains out of a job. And the message he was trying to get across--inequality and systemic mistreatment of African Americans--has been replaced by a league-approved anodyne message of "unity" and objection to "division."* Perhaps Kaepernick will get a job, although I doubt it. More likely, he will be praised 15 years from now, when he no longer can play football (and have a high profile to make an expressive effect), for standing up for his beliefs.

[*] Hint: If the only goal was to be "united" and not "divided," we would not need a First Amendment.

2) This story about a fan ejected from Yankee Stadium for shouting the location of pitches in Spanish. The umpire removed him for "cheating" by tipping the Yankee batters to the location of pitches. This is beyond stupid. First, the idea that he is remotely helping the batter to hit a 95-mph pitch is nonsense--the pitch is in the catcher's glove before the batter would hear anything. Second, there are 40,000 fans shouting the location of pitches--it is what fans do and are expected to do.

To the extent there is a lawsuit, I am curious how the status of current Yankee Stadium is resolved. Old Yankee Stadium (the one used, pre- or post-renovation, from 1923-2008) was owned by New York City and there were some good arguments that, in using the stadium, the Yankees acted under color and became bound by the First Amendment. A district court held that in 1978, in a lawsuit brought by female sportswriters who were barred from the lockerrooms during the 1976 World Series. And some good arguments were pled in a lawsuit filed by a fan who had been removed for failing to stand for "God Bless America," but the case settled. Public funds paid for more than 50 % of construction of the current stadium, although I do not know the details about ownership and control.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on September 27, 2017 at 02:09 PM in First Amendment, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (11)

Monday, September 25, 2017

Barnette at 75

John Q. Barrett reminds us that next June is the 75th anniversary of West Virginia Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, which makes the short list of most important First Amendment decisions, both for its principles and its rhetoric. Given everything going on in the world of sports since last week, both are being put to the test.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on September 25, 2017 at 04:37 PM in Constitutional thoughts, First Amendment, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (12)

Sunday, September 24, 2017

Hecklers and counter-speakers (again)

Mark Tushnet, writing on Vox and Balkinization, argues that the counter-speakers/hecklers/audience members who attempt to shout down other speakers engage in constitutionally protected activities and the First Amendment is violated by many of a state university's efforts to stop hecklers. Mark argues that the speaker and the hecklers are "symmetrically situated with respect to speech" and that the intuitive "first come, first served" rule fails to capture the complexity of situations or to recognize that it is not always clear who is "first" in any situation. (If the speaker is inside the auditorium and the hecklers are outside, the hecklers are first in that outdoor space).

Mark captures well a lot of what I have been thinking and arguing about this, that deriding hecklers/protesters/counter-speakers as exercising the dreaded heckler's veto misses the mark. Labeling this  as "noisy interference" also is too simplistic, as it fails to capture the expressive nature of what many hecklers do. And all of this comes on the heels of a poll showing that a majority of college students believe it is ok to shout-down speakers.

Mark is searching for a rule or balance that does not inevitably take content into account. One answer might be that it depends on the precise forum,. On this, perhaps we distinguish between a limited-space auditorium that must be reserved and open areas on campus; audience members have greater counter-speech rights in the latter than the former. Or we distinguish between the speaker stage and the audience, so a heckler can shout from the audience, but not run on stage and grab the microphone.

But Mark's arguments show that the content problem arguably never goes away (something I had not crystallized previously). Consider audience members in an auditorium, with the speaker on stage. Mark argues that, even if the speaker has priority over the audience, all members of the audience are symmetrically situated. We can imagine a situation in which the crowd of speaker-supporters is loud and raucous, to the point that their cheering and shouts of "USA! USA!" or "you said it" cause the speaker to pause or make it impossible for him to hear. I doubt anyone would want these supporters removed. So what is the difference between audience members whose jeering and shouts of "fascist" (Mark uses  Joe Wilson's "You lie") cause the speaker to pause or make it impossible for him to be heard? Content and viewpoint.

We might get around the problem by distinguishing the nature of the forum and the expression in that forum0--an academic lecture as opposed to a political or partisan rally. But that highlights the complexity of the problem and the absence of easy answers--the precise point Mark is trying to make.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on September 24, 2017 at 06:02 PM in Constitutional thoughts, First Amendment, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (14)

Saturday, September 23, 2017

(Final?) Posner-Rakoff dialogue

I am late on this, but here is the most recent (final?) dialogue between Richard Posner and Jed Rakoff, published a few weeks after Posner's resignation frmo the court.. The conversation began from the question of whether judges should rely on their “common sense” (what Posner has described as “pragmatism” in judging), a binary that Posner properly rejects. I like the conversation over the competing roles and competencies of trial as opposed to appellate judges, both in the U.S. and in other systems.

I also like that Rakoff threw in one of my favorite jokes about a trial judge, appellate judge, and Supreme Court Justice (I tell it with a law professor) who go duck hunting.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on September 23, 2017 at 10:42 AM in Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, September 22, 2017

Tocqueville and judicial departmentalism

Dahlia Lithwick wrote about the litigation of the Joe Arpaio pardon, with the district judge hearing from numerous amici about the constitutional validity and effect of the pardon. The article ends by quoting one amicus, Ian Bassin of Project Democracy: "Thankfully, in America it’s the courts who get the last say on what the Constitution allows."

As I have been arguing again and again in defense of judicial departmentalism, this is not  true as a normative matter, at least not in the absolute sense in which it is presented here, as simply the way it works in America. It may be true as a practical matter in a substantial number of cases, because many constitutional issues wind up in court and the court must decide the constitutional issue to decide the case and the executive does not have discretion to decline to enforce that resulting judgment. When constitutional questions end up in court, the judiciary will get the final word.

This got me thinking of Alexis de Tocqueville, who famously said that "[s]carcely any political question arises in the United States that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question." (Mark Graber in 2004 revisited Tocqueville's thesis; he argued the statement was not as true as Tocqueville said, but may be more true in current times than it was during the Jacksonian Period in which Tocqueville was writing, as more political questions first get resolved into constitutional questions). Tocqueville's thesis affects just how much judicial supremacy we get in a judicial-departmentalist scheme. The more political questions that are resolved into judicial questions, the more the judiciary is going to get the last word, because the courts must decide the constitutional issues and the executive must enforce those judgments.

The political question of the Arpaio pardon is resolving into a legal question because the pardon touches on pending litigation. But that makes this pardon unusual--most pardons come before any charges have been brought (Nixon) or after the person has been convicted, sentenced, and served some portion of the sentence. So Bassin's comment about the judiciary getting the last word is accurate in this case, because of the unique posture of the pardon. But he is correct only to the extent Tocqueville was correct.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on September 22, 2017 at 09:31 AM in Civil Procedure, Constitutional thoughts, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (2)

Monday, September 18, 2017

JOTWELL: Smith on Baude on Qualified Immunity

The new Courts Law essay comes from new contributor Fred Smith (Emory), reviewing William Baude, Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful?, 106 Cal. L. Rev.  (forthcoming 2018). This is a great article that Justice Thomas citing in his concurring opinion in Ziglar and that I cited to extensively in updating the immunity sections of Civil Rights book.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on September 18, 2017 at 04:14 PM in Article Spotlight, Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (1)

Friday, September 01, 2017

Judge Posner retires

Effective Saturday, September 2 (tomorrow). Official Seventh Circuit announcement is here.

Posted by Administrators on September 1, 2017 at 06:19 PM in Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

Palin v. NYT dismissed

Judge Rakoff of the Southern District of New York has dismissed Sarah Palin's defamation action against The New York Times, concluding that the allegations of actual malice, in conjunction with the testimony heard in questionable evidentiary hearing, showed that Palin had not pled facts plausibly showing that the editorial-page editor knew or recklessly disregarded the truth of statements about the connection between Palin's PAC publications (which featured gun-sites over "targeted" congressional races) and the Gabby Giffords shooting.

The order includes a lengthy footnote explaining the use of the evidentiary hearing. He justified it because a "court must have some knowledge of the context in which the underlying events occurred in order to carry out the function with which the Supreme Court has tasked it" --the "context-specific task" of evaluating plausibility. Also, neither party objected, the facts established by the testimony in the hearing are not in dispute, and no credibility determinations were made. And although he did not mention it, it appears that none of the testimony contradicted anything in the complaint. The testimony in the hearing was combined with the facts in the complaint and used to measure whether the facts showed actual malice.

But all this ignores FRCP 12(d), under which a court converts a 12(b)(6) to a motion for summary judgment when materials beyond the four corners of the complaint are used. Iqbal did not overrule or repeal 12(d), so the need for knowledge of the context cannot necessitate such hearings. It also would have been simple enough for the court to take the evidentiary hearing and convert to summary judgment (although perhaps the parties would have demanded some discovery, if only on actual malice). In short, obtaining and using information beyond the allegations of the complaint cannot be justified under the current rules without converting.

The merits discussion also appears to make the hearing unnecessary, because much of the analysis suggest that the problem with the complaint was legal insufficiency rather than plausibility-factual insufficiency. The problem was not a dearth of facts or the conclusoriness of the facts, but that the facts alleged, even if detailed, could not establish actual malice. For example, allegations of hostility towards Palin, economic motive to criticize Palin, and failure to comply with journalistic practices--alleged, in varying degrees of conclusoriness--all are insufficient, as a matter of law, to show actual malice.

All-in-all, a good First Amendment decision (I should add that there is some great language about the First Amendment, political speech, and the narrowness of actual malice), but reached in a procedurally incorrect way.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on August 29, 2017 at 06:30 PM in Civil Procedure, Constitutional thoughts, First Amendment, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (10)

Sunday, August 27, 2017

The process of the Arpaio pardon and civil-rights enforcement under Trump

Josh Chafetz (Cornell) has a Twitter thread and WaPo op-ed arguing that the focus should be on the underlying racism, sadism, and abuse of power motivating the Arpaio pardon, not the fact that the pardon was for a criminal contempt conviction. In other words, the problem is that Trump pardoned a racist, sadistic serial abuser of state power, not that he pardoned someone who had been held in contempt. Josh suggests that we might want a President to pardon someone convicted of contempt, at least in some circumstances.

His example is the facts underlying United States v. Cox (5th Cir. 1965). Two African-American men testified in a federal suit against a state official, saying the official had refused to register them as voters; when he denied discriminating, the federal judge presiding over the case recommended that the two men be charged with perjury. DOJ investigated, but found no grounds for a perjury charge. Nevertheless, the judge ordered the case submitted to a federal grand jury, which convicted. When the US Attorney (acting on orders of Acting AG Nicholas Katzenbach) refused to pursue the indictment, the judge held the US Attorney in contempt and ordered Katzenbach to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. On direct review, the 5th Circuit reversed the contempt order, but refused to grant a writ of prohibition to Katzenbach, who had not yet been placed in any risk of contempt.

Procedure does matter, because of the circuitousness of that hypothetical pardon. The orders in Cox were for civil contempt, so a pardon would not have made a difference. To get to criminal contempt for a racist federal judge requires so many additional steps, including the cooperation of the US Attorney and Department of Justice. So you would need not only a racist judge, but a racist DOJ, with all its layers of review, that a subsequent President would choose to rebuke through a pardon. That all seems unlikely.

A second procedural issue involves civil contempt. To the extent this pardon sends a signal about civil rights enforcement, the effect may be federal judges relying more on civil contempt, including fines and jail for recalcitrant prison officials. Arpaio and Maricopa County had been held in civil contempt, but the judge chose not to enforce the citation against Arpaio (wisely, given the risk that it would have turned him into a martyr). Criminal contempt became necessary when nothing else worked and when Arpaio was voted out of office. But how plaintiffs frame cases affects available approaches to contempt going forward. Big structural-reform cases are brought against the entity, but courts are reluctant to impose sanctions such as fines or jail against non-parties, except as an extreme last resort. So expect civil-rights plaintiffs to spread the scope of their complaints to top officials in addition to the entity.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on August 27, 2017 at 12:22 PM in Civil Procedure, Constitutional thoughts, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, August 25, 2017

More on pardoning Arpaio (Updated)

Thanks to Paul for flagging Marty Redish's NYT op-ed on the potential Arpaio pardon. Like Paul (and Marty), I do not know if the argument works. But I wanted to flag how his argument interacts with the version of "judicial departmentalism" I have been urging. My framing relies on Gary Lawson's version of departmentalism--the president can ignore judicial precedent as precedent he believes gets the Constitution wrong, but cannot ignore court orders. That includes the orders by which he is bound by as a defendant (e.g., the challenge to the travel ban) and the orders he must enforce on behalf of the federal courts involving other officials,even if he disagrees with the underlying constitutional judgment.*

[*] Lawson allows that the president might ignore a court order in extraordinary circumstances, but I put that to the side for the moment.

Marty's argument gives Gary's (and my) distinction a Fifth Amendment grounding. There is no functional difference between the president ignoring or declining to enforce a judgment and a president pardoning (or promising to pardon) another official who ignores court orders. If one violates due process, so does the other. And if departmentalism does not extend to one, it does not extend to the other.

Finally, if this becomes a concern, consider the federal courts' counter: Stop using criminal contempt and rely on civil contempt to enforce injunctions, including by jailing the recalcitrant official. There is no crime or conviction from which to pardon.

Update: Trump pardoned Arpaio on Friday.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on August 25, 2017 at 01:44 PM in Civil Procedure, Constitutional thoughts, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (4)

Thursday, August 24, 2017

The emptiness of "judicial activism"

The latest Slate Dialogue between Judge Posner and Judge Rakoff considers the meaning of judicial activism and judges using the bench to effect social change. Neither Posner nor Rakoff is having it. Both reject the idea that there can be judicial activism, that there is some clear "existing law" to be departed from in an activist decision, and that common law courts do not "make" policy. It ends up as a somewhat silly conversation, with the moderator putting forward every bromide about activism and misuse of the judicial power (even quoting Wikipedia's definition of judicial activism) and Posner and Rakoff rejecting the premise at every turn. But it shows the emptiness of the term and the concept of activism, which Rakoff labels a "myth."

Posted by Howard Wasserman on August 24, 2017 at 11:26 PM in Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (13)

Tuesday, August 22, 2017

"Revisionist History," power, and Alabama v. Tom Robinson

Malcolm Gladwell has a podcast called Revisionist History, which finished its second 10-episode season. Four of the episodes in Season 2 dealt with civil rights and the Civil Rights Movement, including episodes 7 & 8, which are about Donald Hollowell, an African-American attorney in Georgia, and Vernon Jordan, who assisted him. The podcast is great (unless you are predisposed against Malcolm Gladwell, then it likely confirms what you do not like about him) and these two stories were highlights.

Episode 7 focuses on the story of Nathaniel Johnson, an African-American man executed for raping a white woman (with whom he claimed to be having an affair) in 1959 Georgia. Gladwell compares this case to Tom Robinson in To Kill a Mockingbird, where a white woman's romantic interest in an African-American was turned into rape. Gladwell focuses on some bits from the book not included in the movie: Robinson's testimony that Mayella Ewell said she had never kissed a man before and that what her father did to her didn't count and that Bob Ewell's first words when he saw them through the window were "you dirty whore".

Gladwell's theme in these two episodes is power. And he argues that, with that bit of testimony, Atticus' defense became clear: To ask the jury not to be racist against Tom but to be sexist against Mayella (a different type of powerless person), who is portrayed as (Gladwell's words) a participant in incest. (So Atticus was a sexist, on top of the reveal in Go Set A Watchman that Atticus was, even in his time, a racist--it's been a rough couple of years).

But I thought this missed the mark in three respects.

First, even as an 11-year-old, I did not read Mayella as a participant in incest but as a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of her father. I also read him as forcing her to testify untruthfully. Perhaps that interpretation is unreasonably favorable to Mayella or against her father. And perhaps an all-male jury in 1930s Alabama would have seen it the same way as Gladwell. But I read it as Atticus trying to put Bob on trial, not Mayella. Consider the evidence (more of a focus in the movie) designed to show that Bob beat Mayella, whereas Tom (who did not have use of one of his arms) could not have done so.

Second, even if Bob was Atticus' real alternate target, Gladwell missed another power dynamic involving class and education. The Ewell's were "poor white trash" within that society. All the evidence that Atticus presented against Bob Ewell was designed to play to what the jury, the judge, the prosecutor, and the sheriff already believed about him.

Third, it shows race as the overwhelming power dynamic. No matter how badly the jury and every other institutional player disliked and disbelieved Bob Ewell, he had more credibility than an African-American. At the end, everyone was willing to bury how Ewell was killed because he had it coming, but not before allowing an African-American to be sacrificed for Bob's misconduct.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on August 22, 2017 at 12:00 PM in Constitutional thoughts, Culture, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, August 19, 2017

Heckler's Veto?

According to reports, tens of thousands of counter-protesters showed up in marches and rallies in Boston, vastly outnumbering the few hundred people attending the the planned rally in Boston Common, which disbanded after an hour without planned speeches. From what I have read, there were so many more counter-protesters than ralliers that the latter could not be heard. And that was the goal of the counter-protesters.

So: Heckler's veto? And if not, how is it different from some of the campus incidents in which crowds outside the lecture hall have made it impossible for the invited speaker to be heard inside the hall?

Posted by Howard Wasserman on August 19, 2017 at 05:11 PM in First Amendment, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (4)

Friday, August 18, 2017

Trick plays and baseball rules

This is a great story about a trick play in a high-school baseball game. Called the "skunk in the outfield," the play arises with runners on first-and-third. The runner on first walks into right field, hoping to confuse the defense into doing something stupid about that runner, allowing the runner on third to score. It did not work, because the defense kept its cool. It instead produce a 152-second standoff, an ongoing "play" on which nothing happened and no one moved--one fielder stood with the ball and stared at the runner standing in right field. And everyone--players and fans--became increasingly angry.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on August 18, 2017 at 10:44 PM in Howard Wasserman, Sports | Permalink | Comments (1)

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Random thoughts for the day

Two items for the morning, not particularly related.

1) President Trump is "seriously considering" pardoning  Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was convicted of criminal contempt for repeatedly ignoring injunctions against his department's Fourth Amendment-violative practices. Trump believes Arpaio has been a strong actor against illegal immigration. But Arapio's department was found to have engaged in systematic constitutional violations and then Arpaio intentionally and repeatedly disregarded court orders designed to stop that behavior. So it seems to me this pardon signals a lot--that federal, state, and local officials can be freer to ignore civil rights injunctions and that Trump, who does not hold the federal judiciary in much regard, may resist both obeying and enforcing future injunctions.

2) In the wake of Charlottesville, there has been discussion about driving into crowds of liberal protesters who move into the streets, with several states proposing laws that would immunize drivers for doing so. Florida's bill would 1) make it a second-degree misdemeanor for a person to "obstruct or interfere" with street traffic "during a protest or demonstration" for which there was no permit and 2) immunize any driver who unintentionally injures or kills someone who was in the street in violation of the first section.

My question: Does such a law violate the First Amendment? Florida law already prohibits obstructing public streets (it is a pedestrian violation), so this law would impose special heightened penalties when the obstruction occurs during an unpermitted protest or demonstration. Florida is a comparative negligence state, so a driver who unintentionally injures or kills someone who is wrongfully in the street (e.g., crossing against the light) may bear some liability for his negligence--unless the victim was in the street during an unpermitted protest or demonstration. In other words, the penalty for obstruction is greater and the protection against negligent drivers less when the person was in the street for expressive purposes than other purposes. This sounds like what Marty Redish and I called a "gratuitous inhibition on speech"--a law that treats more harshly activity done for expressive purposes than for non-expressive purposes.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on August 15, 2017 at 10:14 AM in Civil Procedure, Constitutional thoughts, First Amendment, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (14)

Sunday, August 13, 2017

Article Submissions: W&L Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

The Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice (JCRSJ) is conducting a direct article review for submissions to our Fall 2017 Book, Volume 23, Issue 1. Any article submitted to the journal by Sunday, August 27 at 10:00 p.m. will be reviewed and evaluated before September 4.  If you have submitted an article to JCRSJ previously, please resubmit your article for consideration in this direct review.

By submitting your article, you agree to accept a publication offer, if extended by the journal.  Any articles accepted will be published in Volume 23, Issue 1, scheduled for publication in December 2017.

If you wish to submit an article, please e-mail an attached copy of the article, along with your CV, to JCRSJ@law.wlu.edu.  Please include “2017 Direct Article Review” in the subject line. Thank you so much and we look forward to reviewing a number of articles.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on August 13, 2017 at 01:52 PM in Howard Wasserman, Teaching Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, August 11, 2017

First Amendment procedure

Sarah Palin sued The New York Times for defamation over a June editorial (following the congressional ballgame shooting) that linked Palin's rhetoric to the 2011 Gabby Giffords shootings. Palin alleges The Times writers acted with actual malice, in part because the paper had published numerous news stories showing there was no link between Palin's rhetoric and Jared Loughner. The Times moved to dismiss, arguing that the complain did not plausibly plead actual malice. In a brief order yesterday, Judge Rakoff ordered the author(s) of the editorial to appear at an evidentiary hearing next week, for questioning about their awareness of these prior news stories.

The prevailing view among civ professors online seems to be that the order is inappropriate.

The point of Twiqbal is that a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts, without the benefit of discovery, to allow a reasonable/plausible inference of the elements of a claim. If the plaintiff cannot do that, the complaint must be dismissed and, perhaps, the plaintiff given a chance to replead. That is a problem for facts such as actual malice, that go to the defendant's state of mind, but that is the regime the Court has set-up. The court has discretion to convert a motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment if matters beyond the complaint (such as testimony) are considered. But Judge Rakoff did not do that here. He is using this testimony, not including in the complaint, to rule on a 12(b)(6). Unless, of course, he converts later, although conversion must include notice and an opportunity to present material, which might require an opportunity to take discovery.

This case somewhat illustrates the problems with the Twiqbal regime. Courts are supposed to decide plausibility based on "judicial experience and common sense," which essentially requires a form of judicial notice. We might understand Rakoff as trying to enhance his experience and common sense, one of many work-arounds courts have developed. But the point of Twiqbal is to keep defendants from having to deal with any discovery, even a few hours of testimony. Rakoff seems to be trying to have it both ways--get enough information to evaluate the factual assertions, without deeming the complaint sufficient (which it seems to be) and allowing the case to move forward to full (or at least sectioned) discovery. To the extent Rakoff is doing something necessary to make an intelligent plausibility determination, it reveals the problem and impossibility of implementing such a standard at the pleading stage.

This offers a nice example of when a party might be tempted to use a writ of mandamus to challenge an interlocutory order. Mandamus is limited to exceptional circumstances in which the trial court clearly overstepped its bounds. Ordering discovery before deciding a motion that is designed to keep cases out of discovery might qualify. The drawback, as someone pointed out, is that a mandamus requires The Times to formally sue Judge Rakoff (or the Southern District), who will preside over this litigation; a party's reluctance to wield this tool is understandable.

Alexi Lahav has a new paper describing how courts disregard the FRCP's procedural design (complaint/dismissal/discovery/summary judgment), but moving pieces and skipping steps. This seems another example.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on August 11, 2017 at 12:16 PM in Civil Procedure, Constitutional thoughts, First Amendment, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (4)

Teaching via treatise

Classes begin at FIU on Monday.*

[*] Although I must confess to wishing we had another two weeks of summer this year. This is unusual for me--I enjoy the semesters more than summers, because I like the rhythm and routine of teaching. But I am in the midst of three projects and believe I could finish all with an extra two weeks before having to balance teaching time. 

I am trying something different in Federal Courts this semester. I am not using a casebook, but instead am working primarily from two treatises (Erwin Chemerinsky's comprehensive Fed Courts treatise and Jim Pfander's Principles treatise), along with the Constitution, statutes, a handful (maybe 10) of recent cases, and some problems. I have been toying with this for a couple years and finally decided to pull the trigger this year. A few thoughts went into this. I sensed that in upper-level classes, many students used the treatises to prep rather than reading the cases.  My class discussion is organized in a treatise format--we do not work through individual cases, but discuss the doctrine at a macro-level whole, so it may be better to have them read and prepare in a similar format. And the author of one of the books convinced me that my spoon-feeding concerns ("the students are not having to figure out the rules of standing for themselves, Chemerinsky and Pfander are telling them the rules") were overstated and that the class discussion can be as rigorous. Plus, as I will remind the students on Monday, they will have more total pages of reading this way, and while it may take less time or require less re-reading, they still must read with care and preparation to engage in the discussion.

If I like how it works, I plan to follow the same format in Civil Rights in the spring, using my treatise (new edition forthcoming).

Posted by Howard Wasserman on August 11, 2017 at 09:31 AM in Howard Wasserman, Teaching Law | Permalink | Comments (21)

Tuesday, August 08, 2017

SEALS faculty recruitment

SEALS is considering whether to establish a faculty recruitment conference for member and affiliated schools.* Details--whether it should be for laterals, entry-levels, or both; whether it should be in conjunction with the August annual meeting--are yet to be hashed out. The organization will appoint a committee to study the question.

[*] Motto: "Every school is southeast of somewhere."

Faculty at member and affiliated schools who are interested in serving on the committee can contact Russ Weaver at Louisville. If you have thoughts on the idea and how to implement it, leave them in the comments.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on August 8, 2017 at 09:31 AM in Howard Wasserman, Life of Law Schools, Teaching Law | Permalink | Comments (4)