2013 Convention Videos

 

 

 

 

Despite slow improvements in the economy, the job market for new lawyers remains a significant challenge.  Many young attorneys interested in public service work worry about whether there is an adequate infrastructure in place to support a public interest career choice. What are the options at state and local levels and how can recent graduates secure a place in those settings? Are there innovative alternatives to pursue public interest work in non-traditional settings, like public firms?  Can a progressive public interest law firm be created inside a city or county counsel's office?  This panel included lawyers from state and local public offices. Participants discussed traditional and innovative options.  

 

Representative Crisanta Duran, Colorado General Assembly

Kathleen Morris, Associate Professor of Law, Golden Gate University School of Law

Gene R. Nichol, Boyd Tinsley Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the Center on Poverty, Work & Opportunity, University of North Carolina School of Law

Shanna Singh Hughey, Senior Advisor, Mayor Karl Dean

Amanda Tyler, Ways and Means Counsel, Office of U.S. Representative Lloyd Doggett (Texas)

 

The Value of a Vote: Reassessing Political Equality (June 14)

 

 

 

Corporations have prevailed with First Amendment arguments in several contexts, including credit rating agency opinions, and most recently, marketing and advertising regulation.  In the 2010-2011 Term, in Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., the Court held that pharmacies have a First Amendment right to sell prescription records to marketing and data mining companies. In Citizens United, the Court held that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech through the limitation of independent communications by corporations, associations, and unions.  Is the Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence furthering corporate interests at the expense of public interests?  Are these decisions fueling litigation strategies in the lower courts that promise increased expansion of corporate rights?  Or are critics just being dismissive of free speech rights because they do not like the speaker?  Our panel described, from a variety of perspectives, the implications of the Court’s pronounced shift on corporate First Amendment issues.

 

David M. Brodsky, Principal, Brodsky ADR LLC; Member, ACS Board of Directors

Charles Fried, Beneficial Professor of Law, Harvard Law School; former U.S. Solicitor General

Burt Neuborne, Inez Milholland Professor of Civil Liberties, NYU School of Law; Founding Legal Director, Brennan Center for Justice

Cliff Sloan, Partner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP; Member, ACS Board of Directors

Sherrese M. Smith, Chief Counsel to Former Chairman Genachowski, Federal Communications Commission

Elizabeth B. Wydra, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center

 

 

Among progressive scholars, there used to be consensus that the Second Amendment protected only a collective right of the states to maintain “a well-regulated Militia.”  However, over the past 25 years, some progressive scholars have departed from this consensus, and some argue that this departure is partly responsible for the individual rights interpretation reflected in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.  With the Supreme Court having weighed in, is the debate over the Second Amendment now over, and what are the varying progressive viewpoints?  And with the national conversation focused on gun violence prevention, how does the current understanding of the Second Amendment limit the forms that such prevention can take?  What should be the response to the wave of unprecedented mass shootings, like the one in Newtown, Connecticut, and to the increased gun violence in major cities?

 

Rebecca L. Brown, Newton Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Southern California Gould School of Law

Walter Dellinger, Partner, O’Melveny & Myers, LLP; former acting U.S. Solicitor General; Member, ACS Board of Advisors

Sanford Levinson, W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair in Law, University of Texas School of Law

Geoffrey R. Stone, Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor, University of Chicago Law School

Adam Winkler, Professor of Law, University of California Los Angeles School of Law

 

 

What role does government have in regulating, monitoring, and reviewing our online behavior, and what limits should be placed on the government and corporations and their ability to share the details of our private lives?  With ECPA reform being assessed by Congress, true cyber security reform stalled, and with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) left intact by the Supreme Court in Clapper v. Amnesty International, the intersection of government, technology, the internet, and privacy is front and center in the national debate.  What are the various constitutional and legislative considerations?  What are the challenges to reform?

 

Susan Freiwald, Professor of Law, University of San Francisco School of Law

Jamil N. Jaffer, Republican Chief Counsel and Senior Advisor, U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

David Lieber, Privacy Policy Counsel, Google

Jeffrey Rosen, President and CEO, National Constitution Center; Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School

Peter Swire, C. William O’Neill Professor of Law and Judicial Administration, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law

 

 

Housing segregation persists today, with the rising income gap of the past few decades to blame. Of course, the millions of incidents of housing discrimination that occur annually cannot be overlooked.  Contemporary housing crises, like unprecedented foreclosures and post-Katrina housing shortages, have also played a significant role. Because our access to education, health care, and other necessities are often determined by where we live, what legal and policy measures can be advanced to prevent the resegregation of America? With courts chipping away at organizational standing in several civil rights contexts, are the enforcement efforts of private fair housing organizations threatened? Given repeated efforts by the Supreme Court to consider disparate impact in the fair housing context—first with Magner v. Gallagher and now with Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc.—will disparate impact remain a viable tool to combat housing discrimination? What deference should be given to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s regulation affirming the disparate impact standard? How can we ensure that tools meant to increase housing opportunity and access, like the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, are not being used to further discrimination?

 

Harvey Epstein, Associate Director, Urban Justice Center

Diane L. Houk, Of Counsel, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP

Kim M. Keenan, General Counsel, NAACP

Shanna L. Smith, President/CEO, National Fair Housing Alliance

Jacob L. Vigdor, Professor of Public Policy and Economics, Duke University

 

 

Principles of federalism partially define our constitutional structure and inform numerous ongoing national debates, including those on immigration, marriage equality, marijuana regulation, the proper scope of executive power, and health care reform.  Members of a new generation of legal scholars will discuss what the law of federalism may look like five and ten years from now, highlighting developments in the courts, in state and federal legislatures, and at the grassroots level. 

 

Jessica Bulman-Pozen, Associate Professor of Law, Columbia Law School

P. (Deep) Gulasekaram, Associate Professor of Law, Santa Clara University School of Law

Steve Sanders, Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University Maurer School of Law

Neil S. Siegel, David W. Ichel Professor of Law, Professor of Political Science and Co-Director of the Program in Public Law, Duke University School of Law

Franita Tolson, Betty T. Ferguson Professor of Voting Rights, Florida State University College of Law

 

 

Important new empirical research sponsored by ACS establishes a correlation between political contributions to state court judges and judicial decisions favoring business interests. The 2012 election cycle shows that corporate contributions to judicial candidates continue to grow, and partisanship in state court elections is accelerating. A panel of expert academics and judges will examine the scope of this problem and propose solutions. They will address the evidence marshaled in the ACS report, Justice at Risk? An Empirical Examination of Whether Campaign Contributions Influence State Court Decision-Making, that there is a significant statistical correlation between campaign contributions from business interests and pro-business judicial decisions. The panel also will address the following questions: Do increasingly expensive and partisan elections threaten the fairness and impartiality of the judiciary? Are certain methods of judicial selection better suited to address these problems than others? How can citizens take action to defend the fairness and impartiality of the judiciary?

 

Rachel Paine Caufield, Professor, Drake University

Justice Marilyn Kelly, Distinguished Jurist in Residence, Wayne State University

Jeremy Kidd, Assistant Professor of Law, Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law

Joanna Shepherd, Associate Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law

Justice David Wiggins, Iowa Supreme Court

 

 

Economic inequality has grown rapidly over the past few decades, with a disheartening decline in workforce stability.  The workplace and its force as a channel for economic success is no longer a foregone conclusion for the worker.  Organizing to fight income inequality has become increasingly difficult.  Much of this dilemma can be traced to the hostile, coordinated legal and political opposition facing organized workers, collective action, and collective bargaining.   Is collective action the most effective method of fighting income inequality? How can principles of freedom of assembly and freedom of association be used in new and creative ways to mobilize and organize workers?  What novel tools can existing labor organizations and unions look to in their organizing campaigns?  What are new and transformative forms of organizing that can fundamentally enhance collective action and reinvigorate the worker voice?  What types of federal and state legislation could support these efforts, and is collective action the answer to fighting economic inequality? 

 

Craig Becker, General Counsel, AFL-CIO

Stephen P. Berzon, Founding Partner, Altshuler Berzon LLP

Katie Corrigan, Policy Director for the Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor, Georgetown University Law Center

Willis Goldsmith, Partner, Jones Day

Ann C. Hodges, Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law

Mark Schneider, Counsel for Political Programs and Associate General Counsel, SEIU

 

 

The Court considered several class action cases this Term.  Its docket included Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, Comcast v. Behrend, Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk, and American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant.  Have the Court’s decisions in these cases been consistent with the precedents established in Wal-Mart v. Dukes and AT&T v. Concepcion?  Should employees, consumers, investors, and others be concerned that their ability to pursue class action litigation has been limited?  Or, on the other hand, has the Court demonstrated through its decisions that such concerns are unwarranted?  As the 2012-2013 Term comes to a close, this panel considered the current state of class action litigation and mandatory arbitration and explored the impact of Wal-Mart and AT&T in the lower courts. 

 

John H. Beisner, Partner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Arthur H. Bryant, Executive Director, Public Justice

Faith E. Gay, Partner, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP; Member, ACS Board of Directors

Suzette M. Malveaux, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law, Columbus School of Law at The Catholic University of America

Cyrus Mehri, Founding Partner, Mehri & Skalet, PLLC

Arthur R. Miller, University Professor, NYU School of Law

Andrew J. Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown LLP; Member, ACS Board of Directors

Christopher A. Seeger, Partner, Seeger Weiss LLP

Jonathan D. Selbin, Partner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP

John Vail, Vice President and Senior Litigation Counsel, Center for Constitutional Litigation

Barry A. Weprin, Partner, Milberg LLP

 

 

 

This time around real, comprehensive immigration reform looks possible, including a path to legalization for the 11 million undocumented individuals who live and work in the U.S. Will it include a temporary worker program? A path to citizenship for the undocumented youth known as “DREAMers”? A new employment verification system? What must be done legislatively and what can be accomplished administratively to reform our immigration system? This panel examined pending proposals from the legislative and executive branches, the opposition to them, and the possibility of legal challenges.

 

Sarita Gupta, Executive Director, Jobs with Justice

David A. Martin, Warner-Booker Distinguished Professor of International Law, University of Virginia School of Law

Clarissa Martínez-De-Castro, Director, Civic Engagement and Immigration, National Council of La Raza

Alex Nowrasteh, Immigration Policy Analyst, Cato Institute

Manu Raju, Senior Congressional Reporter, Pol itico

 

 

Texas most recently deviated from the traditional American rule that both parties pay for their own litigation costs in 2011 when it enacted legislation that allows prevailing parties to recover litigation expenses in cases deemed frivolous.  Historically, in the United States, fee shifting has only been allowed in situations where litigation is encouraged as a matter of public policy, such as civil rights and consumer protection cases.  While Alaska is the only other state that has a loser pays system, the concept has been championed by tort reformers, and publicly supported by several elected officials. The Supreme Court even weighed in, recently reaffirming the authority of district courts to shift costs under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Marx v. General Revenue Corp.  Do we have evidence that a loser pays system actually reduces litigation costs by encouraging parties to settle out of court?  Does it do justice a disservice by discouraging plaintiffs from filing suit?  Has there been innovation in litigation funding that provides individuals with incentives to bring their cases to court?  Given the longstanding tradition that litigants pay their own costs, what is the justification for fee shifting in areas of the law where the public interest seeks to encourage litigation, like civil rights?

 

John R. Bowman, Director of Federal and State Relations, American Association for Justice

Judge Nancy Gertner, Professor of Practice, Harvard Law School; former Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Member, ACS Board of Directors

Patti Goldman, Vice President for Litigation, Earthjustice

Adam T. Klein, Partner, Outten & Golden LLP

Harry P. Susman, Partner, Susman Godfrey LLP

 

 

The past two administrations, led by President Barack Obama and President George W. Bush, have overseen responses to the largest domestic terrorist attack in U.S. history, the beginning and imminent end of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the development of laws supporting non-Article III military commissions, the rise and dismantling of terrorist networks, and the evolution of various forms of warfare.  There is much debate surrounding how these administrations may have differed or aligned in their interpretation of the Constitution when formulating national security policy in this area.  How have the two administrations differed in their interpretation of executive power and effectuating policies to fight the war on terror?  How has the Obama administration justified actions relating to the War Powers Act, military commissions, Authorization for Use of Military Force, and drone warfare?  Finally, what is the progressive vision for national security policy, and how might that comport with and differ from this administration’s current policies? 

 

John B. Bellinger, III , Partner, Arnold & Porter LLP

David D. Cole, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center

Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director, American Civil Liberties Union

Dawn Johnsen, Walter W. Foskett Professor of Law, Indiana University Maurer School of Law; Member, ACS Board of Directors

Martin S. Lederman, Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center

 

 

The United States incarcerates more than 2 million people, imprisoning more people than any other country in the world.  This unprecedented prison population can be attributed to federal and state policies implemented over the past few decades, including mandatory minimums, three strikes, and life without parole.  Our culture of incarceration is reflected in a variety of contexts, from the War on Drugs to the School to Prison Pipeline, where criminalization has prevailed over other approaches to social problems.  Mass incarceration has had a disproportionate impact on people and communities of color, with African Americans and Latinos constituting approximately 60% of the prison population.  What are the consequences of mass incarceration for our society?  What policies and practices are driving these high levels of imprisonment?  Are there constitutional tools at our disposal, like the pardon power and the Eighth Amendment, which can assist in ending the era of mass incarceration?            

 

Judge Mark W. Bennett, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa

Mark Osler, Professor of Law, University of St. Thomas School of Law

Matt Pillischer, Producer and Director, Broken On All Sides

Kemba Smith Pradia, Author, Poster Child: The Kemba Smith Story; Founder, Kemba Smith Foundation

Nkechi Taifa, Senior Policy Analyst, Open Society Foundations and Open Society Policy Center

James E. Williams, Jr., Public Defender, Orange and Chatham Counties, North Carolina        

 

 

 

The Richard D. Cudahy Writing Competition on Regulatory and Administrative Law Award and David Carliner Public Interest Award were given during the 2013 ACS National Convention. The Carliner Award was presented to Kara Hartzler, an appellate attorney at the Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. The Richard D. Cudahy Writing Competition which honors Judge Cudahy’s decades of distinguished service as one of the nation’s finest appellate judges went to Cary Adickman in the student category and Bruce Kraus, Partner, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, and Connor Raso, Attorney-Advisor, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the lawyer category.