Yesterday, on the anniversary of former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, the Federalist Society released an excerpt from a documentary about his life and legacy. The eight-minute video includes quotes from his children and the other Supreme Court Justices, and some clips of him in action. “On the anniversary of his passing, some of the people who knew him best recount the life and legacy of the ‘inimitable’ Antonin Scalia–father, husband, jurist,” says a statement on the conservative organization’s website.

“He was a principled man.” – Chief Justice Roberts
“I miss him every day. He was inimitable.” – Justice Ginsburg https://t.co/ya7rFSbXfL

— Federalist Society (@FedSoc) February 14, 2017

Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court has been empty ever since he passed away, as Republicans refused to vote, or even consider, former President Obama’s nominee to replace him, Merrick Garland. Now that President Trump has nominated Neil Gorsuch, who is a conservative judge very similar to Scalia in many ways, a lot of Democrats have criticized what they call the GOP’s double standard. Outspoken civil rights activist Reverend Al Sharpton said over the weekend:

Now they want to talk about, since Trump has nominated Gorsuch, how qualified he is. Well, he ain’t no more qualified than Garland was. The danger of this proceeding is, are you now saying that you will select Supreme Court judges based on if the party on the White House corresponds with the party that is the majority of the Senate, then you have in effect changed the constitutional requirements to select a Supreme Court judge.

It’s unclear if or when the Federalist Society will release a full-length documentary about the former justice. But the video clip ends with the words “coming soon.” In the meantime, Neil Gorsuch is on the long road of questionnaires, procedures, and hearings that make up the confirmation process, to finally replace the vacancy left by Scalia.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Federalist Society Released Part of a Documentary about Antonin Scalia appeared first on Law Street.

Tuesday evening, the process of filling the vacant Supreme Court seat began, when President Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to succeed conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away last February. At 49, Gorsuch is the youngest Supreme Court nominee in 25 years and, if confirmed, would restore the 5-to-4 conservative bent of the court, which has been ideologically split since Scalia’s passing.

Gorsuch, a Denver native who practiced law in Washington D.C. and was in the same class as President Barack Obama at Harvard Law School, is widely seen as fitting the right-wing mold of Scalia. He has served for nearly a decade on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver, and earlier in his career, clerked for two Supreme Court justices, Justice Byron White and Justice Anthony Kennedy. Here are five cases which provide a window into Gorsuch’s judicial philosophy:

Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius

One of the mandates in the Affordable Care Act is that employers must provide their employees with health insurance that covers contraceptives. In 2013, the owner of an Oklahoma-based arts-and-crafts chain, Hobby Lobby, challenged that mandate at the 10th Circuit appeals court. David Green argued that the ACA’s mandate infringed upon his religious liberty; providing health insurance that covered contraceptives went against his Christian faith.

Gorsuch, and four of his colleagues, agreed, and Green won the challenge. The Supreme Court later affirmed the 10th Circuit’s ruling. “As the Greens explain their complaint, the ACA’s mandate requires them to violate their religious faith by forcing them to lend an impermissible degree of assistance to conduct their religion teaches to be gravely wrong,” Gorsuch wrote in his concurring opinion.

Yellowbear v. Lampert

Andrew Yellowbear, an inmate at a prison in Wyoming, sued the director of the Wyoming Department of Corrections for denying him access to the prison’s sweat lodge. As part of his Native American heritage and religious beliefs Yellowbear, serving a life sentence for murdering his daughter, wished to use the sweat lodge for prayer and meditation. In 2014, Gorsuch and his colleagues at the 10th Circuit court agreed with the plaintiff, and reversed an earlier district court ruling.

Writing in the majority opinion, Gorsuch said: “While those convicted of crime in our society lawfully forfeit a great many civil liberties, Congress has (repeatedly) instructed that the sincere exercise of religion should not be among them — at least in the absence of a compelling reason. In this record we can find no reason like that.”

A.M. v. Holmes

In May 2011, a seventh grade student in Albuquerque, New Mexico interrupted a gym class by making fake burping sounds. He was arrested and charged with a misdemeanor. The student’s mother brought a case against the school’s principle and the police officer to a district court in New Mexico. The judges ruled in favor of the defendants, and last summer, the case wound up in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

The justices confirmed the decision of the lower court, and sided with the defendants–the school and police. But Gorsuch disagreed with the majority opinion. “If a seventh grader starts trading fake burps for laughs in gym class, what’s a teacher to do? Order extra laps? Detention? A trip to the principal’s office? Maybe,” he wrote in his dissenting opinion. “Respectfully, I remain unpersuaded.”

American Atheists Inc. v. Davenport

In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit found that memorial crosses that ran along a highway in Utah were unconstitutional as an “endorsement of religion” by the government. Gorsuch and three of his fellow justices disagreed with the majority on the case. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case in 2011.

In his dissenting opinion, Gorsuch cited a Supreme Court precedent that found roadside memorial crosses “need not be taken as a statement of governmental support for sectarian beliefs.” He also said the court’s finding that a “reasonable observer” might not be able to read the names on the crosses as they drove past, and thus that they could interpret the crosses as a government endorsement of Christianity is a moot point. “Most Utahans, the record shows, don’t even revere the cross,” he added.

Direct Marketing Association Inc. v. Brohl

This case centers around a 1992 Supreme Court decision, Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which found that if an online retailer does not have a physical presence in a state (like Amazon), it is not required to collect a state sales tax. But an online retailer that does have a physical presence in a state (like Best Buy), is required to collect a sales tax.

Colorado enacted a law in 2010 that forced online retailers, no matter their brick-and-mortar presence in the state, to collect a state sales tax. Direct Marketing Association, a group of businesses, challenged the law in court. Last February, the case ended up in the 10th Circuit appeals court in Denver. The court reversed district court rulings in favor of the DMA, and found that the law does not “discriminate against nor does it unduly burden interstate commerce.” Gorsuch concurred.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch: Five Key Rulings appeared first on Law Street.

The George Mason University School of Law, located just outside of Washington, DC, in Arlington, Virginia, is getting a new name. After a series of donations totaling $30 million, the school will be renamed after the late, great Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The new full name of the school will be the Antonin Scalia School of Law at George Mason University.

The $30 million total in donations was the largest fundraising haul in the school’s history. An anonymous donor gave a staggering $20 million, and the Charles Koch Foundation donated $10 million. The Board of Visitors approved renaming the law school to honor Antonin Scalia’s recent passing–the $20 million donation was contingent on that name change.  By July, the name change will be complete, including signs and logos.

The money will go to funding three new scholarships at the law school. According to Bloomberg:

One, called the Antonin Scalia Scholarship, will award students with top academic credentials. Another, the A. Linwood Holton, Jr. Leadership Scholarship, will award students who have overcome barriers to academic success, demonstrated outstanding leadership qualities, or who have helped others overcome discrimination in any facet of life. The third, the F.A. Hayek Law, Legislation and Liberty Scholarship, will award students who have demonstrated interest in studying the application of economic principles to the law.

George Mason’s Law School does have a conservative lean, rendering the new Scalia name particularly appropriate–many of its professors are known for being libertarian.

Scalia’s colleague, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg lent her support for the renaming, stating:

Justice Scalia was a law teacher, public servant, legal commentator, and jurist nonpareil. As a colleague who held him in highest esteem and great affection, I miss his bright company and the stimulus he provided, his opinions ever challenging me to meet his best efforts with my own. It is a tribute altogether fitting that George Mason University’s law school will bear his name. May the funds for scholarships, faculty growth, and curricular development aid the Antonin Scalia School of Law to achieve the excellence characteristic of Justice Scalia, grand master in life and law.

If George Mason Law is looking to climb up in various law school rankings and attract more students–offering these scholarships is certainly a solid start.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post George Mason University School of Law to Be Renamed After Justice Antonin Scalia appeared first on Law Street.

After the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on February 13, President Obama announced that he would nominate an “indisputably qualified” candidate to take Scalia’s place. Apparently to many House republicans, “indisputable” is indeed, disputable. And while it’s all well and good to take your time evaluating the credentials of a person who could feasibly be making important decisions for the country for the next forty-plus years, refusing outright to look at any nominees is obstructionist nonsense. As with most political nonsense, members of Congress are finding excuses for their actions. Here are a few of their “reasons” behind that un-constitutional garbage, each dumber than the last:

1. The Thurmond Rule

Several GOP candidates have cited “The Thurmond Rule” as a reason to avoid appointing a new justice in an election year. For the unfamiliar, here’s a recap on the person behind The Thurmond rule:

Strom Thurmond, a South Carolina senator, was one of the most aggressive segregationists in modern American history. This is a man who never fully renounced his belief in segregation all the way to his death in 2003. That’s right, iPods existed, and this influential man still didn’t dial back his position that black people and white people should use separate bathrooms. This is a man who impregnated his family’s sixteen year-old black maid, fathered an illegitimate mixed-race daughter, and secretly paid for her schooling while railing against her right to share a bus seat with a white person.  This is a man who makes George Wallace look like Beyoncé Knowles.

So now that we’ve gotten a quick re-cap on the historically heinous opinions of Mr. Thurmond, we can understand just how much weight we should give his opinion on Supreme Court Nominations. And while people refer to Thurmond’s argument as a “rule,” it’s really just one guy’s suggestion. That suggestion is that the Senate should not nominate a Supreme Court justice. And even if we were to take this rule of thumb as the letter of the law, we’d need to look at Thurmond’s exact quote. In a moment where he wasn’t disparaging ethnic minorities, he said: “No lifetime judicial appointments should move in the last six months or so of a lame-duck presidency.”

Barack Obama has over eleven months left in his presidency, and nine months until the presidential election. By any measure, that’s more than six months, and this rule of thumb shouldn’t apply.

2. “Conflict of Interest”

In a cart-before-the-horse argument, Rand Paul said that Obama should not be allowed to appoint a justice, because potential nominees would support the Presidents’ own issues facing the Supreme Court, such as his executive actions concerning immigration, and his climate change regulations.

There will always be a potential for a president to choose a nominee who supports the same interpretation of the law as they do. In fact, the court’s more conservatives justices; Alito, Thomas, Roberts, and formerly Scalia, were all appointed by Republican presidents. The more liberal justices, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer were all appointed by Democratic presidents. That’s kind of just how it works. Obviously it works in the President’s own favor to elect a similarly-minded justice. That’s why we democratically elect a president whose political ideologies align best with the majority of Americans–so that his political decisions won’t be subject to an arbitrary whim.

Here’s the thing: if Obama picks a strongly biased or crony nominee, that person won’t make it through the Senate’s approval. That’s the check on Obama’s power that already exists, and which should be used regardless of political affiliation to make sure that the person nominated is qualified, and not unduly biased.

Thankfully, Paul qualified his argument to be less resolute “It’s going to be very, very, very difficult to get me to vote for a presidential nomination from this president,” he said. “I will look at it if it comes down, but my threshold for voting for somebody is going to be very, very high.” I’d hope that his threshold would he high regardless, and not exceptionally high simply because a Democrat is in office. We’ll have to see how he ends up voting.

3. We Owe It To Scalia / There’s No Precedent

We’ve heard a lot from GOP presidential candidates about honoring Justice Scalia’s legacy, How do you best honor the passing of a strict originalist? By ignoring the text of the constitution, of course.

Senate Majority Leader and alleged turtle Mitch McConnell responded to Scalia’s death by saying “This vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” But Scalia was known for his very literal reading of the constitution.

If Scalia had been asked about the nomination for his successor, he’d pull out his pocket-sized (but never abridged) copy of the Constitution, and zero-in on article II, Section 2. That section says “[The president] shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint … judges of the Supreme Court.” Then Justice Scalia could slap Mitch McConnell across the face with that Constitution for misrepresenting the founders’ original intent.

Unfortunately in his absence, we have candidates decrying that there’s no precedent for a Supreme Court appointment in an election year, and that there’s no time for a candidate to be vetted. The only trouble with those arguments are that they are just not true. For one, there have indeed been Supreme Court appointments during an election year, as NPR explains brilliantly in its rundown of SCOTUS history.

And the notion that there’s no time is also unfounded. The longest Supreme Court Justice nomination took 125 days, after Louis D. Brandeis was confirmed in 1916. Actually, if the Senate waited until our 45th president nominated a Supreme Court Justice, the country would endure the longest vacancy on the court in the last thirty years: well above the earlier record of 237 days.

No matter how you slice it, President Obama is well within his constitutional rights to appoint a Supreme Court Justice of his choosing, so long as the Senate fulfills its constitutional obligation to fairly assess and vet the nominee. All of the reasons presented by these legislators are simply excuses for being deliberately obstructive to the legal procedure mandated by the Constitution.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The 3 Dumbest Reasons To Block Obama’s SCOTUS Pick appeared first on Law Street.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead at 79 today at Cibolo Creek Ranch, in Texas. A conservative fixture on the court since he was appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986, Scalia’s death leaves a hole in the bench–filling it already promises to be contentious in today’s hostile political environment.

According to sources, Scalia was in Texas at a resort this weekend. He complained that he did not feel well last night, went to bed, and didn’t show up for breakfast this morning, so his hunting party left without him. He was later found to have passed away in his sleep, from natural causes.

His colleagues, as well as other top political voices, mourned his passing. Chief Justice John Roberts stated:

He was an extraordinary individual and jurist, admired and treasured by his colleagues. His passing is a great loss to the Court and the country he so loyally served. We extend our deepest condolences to his wife Maureen and his family.

Additionally, 2016 candidates weighed in on Scalia’s legacy:

My thoughts and prayers are with Justice Scalia’s family and his colleagues on the court who mourn his passing. pic.twitter.com/Y51xUMMEId

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 13, 2016

The totally unexpected loss of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a massive setback for the Conservative movement and our COUNTRY! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 13, 2016

Statement on the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: pic.twitter.com/xazj9dDd5c

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) February 14, 2016

Justice Scalia was an American hero. We owe it to him, & the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement. — Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) February 13, 2016

Jeanette & I mourn the loss of Justice Scalia, and our thoughts & prayers are with his wife Maureen & his family. pic.twitter.com/e03KRZRM6q

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) February 13, 2016

President Barack Obama stated:

Obviously, today is a time to remember Justice Scalia’s legacy. I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time. These are responsibilities I take seriously, as should everyone.

However, the arguably most controversial statement came from Senator Mitch McConnell, who stated: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

Given President Obama’s sitting duck status, the fight to replace Scalia will probably be incredibly controversial, especially given McConnell’s fighting words. But for now, the United States mourns a leading legal mind.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Found Dead appeared first on Law Street.

Today the Supreme Court handed down an historic ruling on marriage, striking down state laws that ban same-sex marriage. Always one to out-do himself, Justice Scalia delivered a dissenting opinion of immense rhetorical heft, perhaps even better than his Obamacare dissent. Here are the highlights:

10. “The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.”

Hey, Ginsburg was drunk at ONE State of the Union, don’t hold it against her.

9. “Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.”

No, I’m pretty sure this guy still rules everything that the light touches.

8. “Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before the fall.”

Hey, as long as you fall with style, it’s all good.

7. “The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic.”

Good thing Scalia’s got his glasses on.

6. “But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch.”

Putsch. noun \ˈpu̇ch\ :  a secretly plotted and suddenly executed attempt to overthrow a government.

Is Ginsburg the Mockingjay?

5. “Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages…”

Yikes. I hope they have some ice at the Supreme Court

4. Referring to the makeup of the Supreme Court: “Not a single South-westerner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count).”

You’re not even real California, just get over it!

3. “…but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that the happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.”

Scalia’s wife may have some words for him when he gets home today.

2. “The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me.”

I don’t think he found any.

1. “Ask the nearest hippie?”

Upon inquiry, the hippie responded, “Who’s Antonin Scalia?”

Bonus:  (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?)

Takeway of the day: Scalia is very confused. And those brackets certainly aren’t helping.

To read more Scalia fun, make sure to check out the Top 10 Most Creative Quotes from Antonin Scalia’s Obamacare Dissent.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Top 10 Most Creative Quotes From Antonin Scalia’s Marriage Equality Dissent appeared first on Law Street.

Today the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to uphold important provisions of the Affordable Care Act. But in his strongly worded dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia used some of the most creative and entertaining language in Supreme Court history. Here are the top 10 funniest quotes from the dissent:

10. “The Court’s insistence on making a choice that should be made by Congress both aggrandizes judicial power and encourages congressional lassitude.”

I absolutely agree. Not to mention the vociferous remonstrance the Court will face after their incongruous conjecture.

9. “Words no longer have meaning.”

Finally, we can all throw away our dictionaries.

8. “Could anyone maintain with a straight face that §36B is unclear?”

Sorry, I tried my best, but I couldn’t

7. “What are the odds, do you think, that the same slip of the pen occurred in seven separate places?”

Well if we take the number of words written in the bill at 381, 517 and multiply that by the chances of a writing error at 1 in 1000 words, but account for the flux of the earth’s gravitational field using Gauss’s theorem as it pertains to the Capitol Building, then the chances are 1 in 999, BUT multiplying by the chance of it occurring in the exact places where the issue is mentioned using a factorial… it’s not very likely.

6.”We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”

It does have a nice ring to it, but I don’t know how Obama would feel about that.

5 “Understatement, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!” Later, “Impossible possibility, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!” (tie)

Rhetorical mastery, thy name is Justice Scalia

4. “A sense of belt-and-suspenders caution.”

I hope the Court isn’t ruling on any fashion issues anytime soon.

3. “The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a State.” Later, “Because the Secretary is neither one of the 50 States nor the District of Columbia.” (tie)

image courtesy of Gage via Wikipedia

Image Cortesy of Carol Norquist via Flickr

I don’t know. I’m definitely seeing some resemblance here.

2. “Pure Applesauce”

Really, just for me!? No additives or anything!?

1. “The Court’s next bit of interpretive jiggery-pokery…”

It’s jiggery-POkery, not jiggery-poKERY

Bonus Quote:

“Imagine that a university sends around a bulletin reminding every professor to take the ‘interests of graduate students’ into account when setting office hours, but that some professors teach only undergraduates. Would anybody reason that the bulletin implicitly presupposes that every professor has ‘graduate students,’ so that ‘graduate students’ must really mean ‘graduate or undergraduate students’? Surely not.”

Besides how random this reference is, of course not. Professors don’t care about undergraduates.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Top 10 Most Creative Quotes from Antonin Scalia’s Obamacare Dissent appeared first on Law Street.

Americans must abide by governing laws at a variety of levels throughout the country. Aside from the U.S. Constitution, each state has its own constitution further detailing the everyday relations between the state government and the people. But what about international law? Can we be affected as individuals by agreements the United States has entered into with foreign countries? Although it may seem a little far fetched, these questions have come up time and again in our court system. You may be surprised by how international law can affect you.

International Law in America

Overview

Two sources primarily make up international law: international agreements and customary practice. In adherence to U.S. law, international agreements can be established by entering into a treaty or an executive agreement. The executive branch has authority over treaties and executive agreements, but treaties need the consent of Congress as well. While Congress may be part of a joint agreement between the executive branch and Congress, that is not necessary; the president is only required to notify Congress of an upcoming executive order. Treaties and executive agreements may or may not be self-executing. Non-self-executing treaties and executive agreements do not immediately establish U.S. law, but evoke a promise to enact domestic legislation in order to enforce them in a timely fashion.

The strength of international law within the U.S. court system depends on a variety of circumstances. Self-executing treaties and executive treaties are generally considered to have equal status to federal law, superior status to state law, and inferior status to the Constitution. Generally speaking, non-self-executing agreements have limited strength. The question still remains whether implemented legislation required from these agreements can be reviewed for validity by the Supreme Court.

The second source of international law is customary international practice. Customary international law is essentially general practice–for example genocide has been forbidden by common practice even before it was codified. It is generally understood that U.S. statutes that conflict with customary international practice will reign supreme, although that phenomenon is relatively rare.

What is the Treaty Power?

The Constitution designates that the President has the authority to sign treaties “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate” and a 2/3 vote in the Senate. The treaty power maintains our system of checks and balances and makes passing a treaty a relatively hard process. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution calls treaties “the Supreme Law of the Land.”

The U.S. is governed by both federal and state authority, and jurisdiction is established by the Constitution. The 10th Amendment reserves all power to the states when not specifically delegated otherwise or specifically prohibited in the Constitution. So federal authority can ratify a treaty. But what happens when the laws meant to implement the treaty overstep into state jurisdiction? Technically, that could be increasing Congress’ powers. These kinds of inconsistencies make the integration of international law even more of a gray area.

What is the Necessary and Proper Clause?

The clause, also known as the Elastic Clause, under Article 1 of the Constitution empowers Congress “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.” The Necessary and Proper Clause grants the federal government power to govern outside its set natural jurisdiction when required to enforce federal laws. This clause is specifically used to justify implemented legislation in enforcing international treaties and executive agreement.

Here is a quick video explaining the clause with regard to the 10th Amendment.

These are, of course, not the only aspects of American law that affect the application of international law, but they are the ones that are most often discussed and considered when attempting to determine the scope of that application.

Case Study: Bond v. United States

In some ways, this case is more apt for a soap opera than the U.S. Supreme Court, but very important legal questions were hidden under the dramatics. In this case, international policy implicitly affected a single person. An individual right, specifically the 10th Amendment, was called into question. In an even rarer scenario, the case was brought before the Supreme Court twice. The first question posed to the Supreme Court was whether we can challenge international laws (treaties) as individuals using our individual rights and the 10th Amendment? The second, can the Supreme Court deem unconstitutional implemented legislation brought on by international law?

Summary of the Initial Case

In Lansdale, Pennsylvania, Carol Bond discovered that her friend, Myrlinda Haynes, was pregnant from an affair with her husband, Clifford Bond. In a flare of passion, she vowed revenge. Bond is a trained microbiologist, and at the time worked for the chemical manufacturer Rohm and Haas. She took advantage of her connection to steal 10-chloro-10H-phenoxarsine from Rohm and Haas and ordered potassium dichromate over Amazon. The chemicals can be poisonous with minimal topical contact. Over the course of at least 24 attempts, Bond spread the chemicals on Haynes’ house and car door handles and mailbox. Fortunately, Haynes was often able to spot the chemicals from noticeable color distortions and only suffered from a mild hand burn that was cleaned with water.

After several attempts to contact local police to no avail, Haynes brought the matter to federal officers of the Postal Service. At the culmination of the investigation, Bond was ultimately charged with two counts of possessing and using a chemical weapon in violation of Title 18 of the United States Code and section 229 of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 and two counts of mail theft. Bond pleaded guilty and had the right to appeal. She was sentenced to six years in federal prison.

What is the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998?

The Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act (CWCIA) of 1998 implements the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) into U.S. federal legislation. Section 229 is the penalty provision.

Read More: The Forgotten Chemical WMDs: Chemical Weapons

The United States signed the CWC on January 13, 1993 and initiated it in April 1997. The international convention currently has 190 state parties. The CWC prohibits the development, production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. The National Implementation Measures clause prohibits “natural and legal persons anywhere on its territory … from undertaking any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.” Section 229 of the CWCIA specifically decrees it “unlawful for any person knowingly to develop, produce, otherwise acquire….retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon.”

The CWC was signed with specific intentions aimed at international peace. It is a ceasefire for all countries involved in the manufacture or possession of chemical weapons or weapons of mass destruction, as means of combat to ensure global safety. The treaty is non-self-executing, meaning the CWC itself didn’t establish any U.S. laws, but evoked a promise from the U.S. to enact future legislation in accordance to the treaty.

First Supreme Court Case

The first question at hand: Does Bond have standing to challenge the federal chemical weapons charges filed against her under the CWCIA claiming her 10th Amendment rights? The answer ended up being yes. The court found that a federally indicted criminal defendant has the right to challenge the statue raising the question of federalism and states’ rights under the 10th Amendment.

The following video recaps the initial case summary and further details the defense’s arguments.

The court also questioned whether the CWCIA is valid under the “necessary and proper” clause to enforce the Treaty Power. The Supreme Court opted out of making that decision and remanded the case to the Third Circuit.

Third Circuit Case

The Third Circuit stated the validity of a treaty was “beyond [its] ken.” The creation of treaties is outside the courts’ powers; they are created by the President and Senate. The court ruled that for a valid treaty, implementing legislation need only to be “rationally related.”

The Third Circuit used the 1920 case Missouri v. Holland as precedent. That case concerned the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, a treaty established with Great Britain. The regulation of the hunting of migratory birds was previously deemed as a state concern, outside of Congress’ jurisdiction. The former case declared “the premise that principles of federalism will ordinarily impose no limitation on Congress’ ability to write laws supporting treaties” is implicit under the “necessary and proper” clause.

This decision raised natural concerns. Onlookers worried that if the court refused to decide on the validity of treaties, then anything goes. The President and Senate could ultimately ratify a treaty that required implementing laws that would otherwise be gravely illegal. Congress could theoretically grant itself powers it previously lacked through the Treaty Power.

This video features Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, a Law Professor at Georgetown University and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, further discussing the merits of the Treaty Power with regard to the case. Rosenkranz advocates limited power of the Treaty Power and enforcement of domestic law.

Second Supreme Court Case

The case was brought back to the Supreme Court to further test the scope of the treaty power. The case had an opportunity to create a landmark decision but fell short. The majority response failed to make a decision in that regard. It did side with the defense, however, claiming that Bond’s actions didn’t fall within the CWCIA in the first place.

The Court emphasized the importance of Congress’ intent when implementing federal laws with regard to treaties. The CWCIA was not intended to punish local criminal activity, which has generally been a state concern. The Court also considered the definition of a chemical weapon, and decided Bond’s chemical choices did not fit. Justice Roberts explained, “In sum, the global need to prevent chemical warfare does not require the Federal Government to reach into the kitchen cupboard, or to treat a local assault with a chemi­cal irritant as the deployment of a chemical weapon.” Although Bond’s actions didn’t fall under the CWCIA, the decision casted “serious doubts about whether the treaty power can reach local crimes.”

The Court unanimously decided  in favor of Bond, although Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas wrote separate concurring opinions. They did not agree with the majority opinion that Bond’s actions didn’t fall under the CWCIA. They believed the CWCIA expressly prohibited “toxic substances” outside of “peaceful purposes.” The three justices sided with Bond in belief that the CWCIA is unconstitutional and goes outside of Congress’ enumerated powers. Treaties should only concern “matters of international intercourse,” not “matters of purely domestic regulation.”

So although the majority avoided the issues of the Treaty Power, Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas faced it right on. While the gray areas of international law and national application still exist, this at least hints to the fact that the Supreme Court may not hold American citizens to international laws that infringe on their rights in the future.

Conclusion

Can Americans be held to International Laws? It seems so. What if they intrude on individual and states’ rights?  The first Bond v. U.S. decision decreed we have the legal right to raise objections. The Supreme Court decision ensures our right as individuals to check the federal government when entering international agreements. It is important that the balance between state and federal government power stays in check. Even if the President and Senate can legally ratify international treaties, it doesn’t mean they should if they “violate traditional American rights, including the individual rights of federalism and the separation of powers.” American law, as always, reigns triumphant in the U.S.

Reources

Primary

Congressional Research Service: International Laws and Agreements

Justia: Bond v. United States

U.S. Chemical Weapons Convention: National Implementation Measures

Additional

Cornell University Law School: 18 U.S. Code & 229

Heritage Guide: Necessary and Proper Clause

Heritage Guide: Treaty Clause

Legal Information Institute: CRS Annotated Constitution

Atlantic: Bond v. U.S. Doesn’t Mean Latvian Cops Are Coming For Your Guns

The Heritage Foundation: Bond v. United States

Slate: Chemical Reaction

Washington Post: Thoughts on Bond v United States

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Are Your Individual Rights When it Comes to International Law? appeared first on Law Street.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is pretty much the best. At 81, she’s cooler than I could ever hope to be. I would very much like to be her friend. Or she can be my mentor/life coach. Either way, you should all aspire to be friends with RGB too, and here are just a few of the reasons why.

She’d Be a Great Drinking Buddy

This article was inspired by the comments Ginsburg made yesterday about why she looked so sleepy at last month’s State of the Union.

RBG is my spirit animal MT @voxdotcom I wasn’t “100% sober” at the State of the Union http://t.co/dpXnb4gwPupic.twitter.com/jTbVqyBolE

— Erin K. Stabile (@erinkstabile) February 13, 2015

She explained that she wasn’t “100 percent” sober, after she had enjoyed a “very fine California wine” brought to dinner by fellow Justice Anthony Kennedy.

That’s right, kids, our Supreme Court Justices–at least two of the cool ones–pre-gamed the State of the Union.

She’d Motivate You to Work Out

I would like to point out again, RBG is 81 years old. That being said, she has been working out with a personal trainer since 1999. She explained her workout routine, saying :

I do a variety of weight-lifting, elliptical glider, stretching exercises, push-ups. And I do the Canadian Air Force exercises almost every day.

Although she had some health concerns in November, I bet she’s still prioritizing her health and hitting the gym. Meanwhile, I am 100 percent sure I could not do anything called “Canadian Air Force exercises,” so I could really use a work out buddy like RBG to kick my ass into gear.

She’d Definitely Be Down for a Galentine’s Day Party

When asked at what point Ginsburg believes there are enough women on the Supreme Court, she had an awesome answer: when there are nine. She went on to explain that there were nine men for many years, so why not try out nine women?

She’s long been a strong feminist who isn’t afraid to put her views out there. She also is aware of the fact that she’s an outlier from a generation where women weren’t necessarily given the same opportunities as men. She at one point remembered:

My mother told me two things constantly. One was to be a lady, and the other was to be independent. The study of law was unusual for women of my generation. For most girls growing up in the ’40s, the most important degree was not your B.A., but your M.R.S

I can’t think of a better role model for young women who want to pursue their dreams.

She Knows When to Put Differences Aside for the Sake of Friendship

RBG can teach us that just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean that they don’t have something they can teach you. She and fellow justice Antonin Scalia are basically polar opposites when it comes to beliefs and views. That being said, they can put that all aside and still have a great time together. For many years they had a tradition of spending New Years Eve together along with their spouses. They’ve traveled together–once even riding an elephant together on a trip to India. Another time in France, she went parasailing, although Scalia sat that one out. Being friends with people who force you to defend your opinions and see things a different way is a good thing–Scalia and Ginsburg are absolutely proof of that.

If you can’t get enough of Scalia and Ginsburg’s friendship, there’s actually a one-act comedic opera dedicated to the two. This is the plot:

What happens when Supreme Court justices go before a Higher Power? In this comic opera, Justices Ginsburg and Scalia must pass through three cosmic trials to secure their freedom. The catch: they may have to agree on the Constitution.

Both Ginsburg and Scalia saw it, and liked it.

She’s Very Sassy and Quotable

RBG is well known for her expertly crafted decisions. In the recent Hobby Lobby case, her dissent was nothing short of withering. She called the decision one of “a startling breadth,” and ended with this pretty awesome last paragraph:

In the Court’s view, RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ. Persuaded that Congress enacted RFRA to serve a far less radical purpose, and mindful of the havoc the Court’s judgment can introduce, I dissent.

Or how about this quote in her dissent against the decision that gutted the Voting Rights Act:

Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.

What a BAMF.

So there are a lot of reasons to love RBG, and I didn’t even mention her groundbreaking and brilliant legal career. Either way, she’s definitely a woman who should get a hell of a lot of respect, and if there’s anyone who should be allowed to drink wine and then fall asleep at the State of the Union, it’s her.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Five Reasons Why We Should All Want to Be BFFs With RBG appeared first on Law Street.

As more and more young people become interested in what is going on in the Supreme Court, there has been a call for cameras to be allowed inside the deliberations. With an especially important verdict on gay marriage rights for all 50 states coming in April, as well as many other heavy decisions, it seems like there’s no time like the present to install cameras in the hallowed halls’ however, two justices–Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor–recently spoke against the move, making it unclear if the American people will ever have a glimpse into the court’s proceedings.

There is such transparency for some courts and cases–especially those involving celebrities and high-profile individuals. A group of media and legal organizations have joined together to form an organization called the Coalition for Court Transparency, and it petitioned Chief Justice John Roberts to start televising the arguments occurring in the nation’s capital. His response? “There are no plans to change the Court’s current practices.”

Throughout the last two decades or so, the justices have given many different reasons for banning cameras inside of the courtroom, including: cameras will encourage “showy” testimonials, the media will use embarrassing sound bites, or that people will misunderstand and judge without looking into the details; however, there are some who speak of the importance of having some transparency within the Supreme Court because it would encourage Americans to learn more about their judicial system: “There’s a real hunger out there from people to know more about the Supreme Court and the justices,” said Ariane de Vogue, Supreme Court correspondent for ABC News. “I think it would be a marvelous educational opportunity.”

Read on to learn about the considerations that must be taken into account during the debate over whether or not to put cameras in the Supreme Court.

Why should we break tradition?

The Supreme Court stands virtually alone when it comes to cameras inside the courtroom. States make their own rules when it comes to this issue, but many do allow them–as do the highest courts in some nations. Some states even livestream proceedings.

Jerry Goldman, director of the Oyez Project at the Chicago-Kent College of Law at the Illinois Institute of Technology says that the Supreme Court is simply behind the times and always will be unless there is some new blood within its walls: “It’s just uncomfortable with change,” said Goldman, whose website catalogs oral argument audio. “They’re always in the caboose.”

Another professor, Sonja West from the University of Georgia School of Law, sees it a different way: the Supreme Court Justices fear breaking something that already works well, afraid what such a monumental change will bring: “They feel very much like the guardians of a very important institution,” said West, who wrote about the Court’s camera policy in the Brigham Young University Law Review. West also says that the Court is so staunchly traditional because of the respect that shroud of secrecy gives–and respect is a main source of power.

Yet another professor, this one of Constitutional Law at Georgia State, Eric Segall, argues that because the justices are government officials, they should not have the choice of whether or not to be transparent. He suggests that the Court should have the burden of proving why cameras should not be allowed, and not the other way around. “This is a public hearing,” Segall said. “It’s open to the public. It’s material. It’s relevant, and people want to televise it. We should be allowed to see it.”

“We have three branches of government,” Dahlia Lithwick, who covers the Supreme Court for Slate, said about camera access. “Two of them are totally transparent, and one of them is completely secret, and that’s a problem.”

Why might the Supreme Court not want cameras?

There have been a few arguments made repeatedly by the Supreme Court justices and those who support them in their calls for privacy. Each one has reasons why it’s a good idea to retain some mystery, but there are also reasons why the need for transparency may overcome the possible adverse effects.

The Public Will Misunderstand What is Going On

Justices have traditionally opposed cameras because people will not understand the role of oral arguments and will jump to conclusions and “root” for an outcome of the case. Justice Scalia has even gone on record to say that the complexity and interworking of the law “is why the University of Chicago Law Review is not sold at a 7-Eleven.”

Sotomayor told a reporter that arguments should not be televised in part because most viewers “don’t take the time to appreciate what the Court is doing.”

However, to some, this view has it backward. Broadcasts of arguments would help the public learn about the Court’s operations, according to Segall. “The more we see Justice [Antonin] Scalia being obnoxious, the more we see Justice [Anthony] Kennedy acting like a law professor, the more we see Justice [Clarence] Thomas sitting there and doing nothing, the more we have insight into the people who work for us.”

Still, there is a chance that people will misunderstand what is happening with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has always had problems when it comes to public opinion with consistent periods of low approval ratings, it is easy to see why that could be a fear. A simple misunderstanding could create mistrust between the public and the Court, undermining their effectiveness.

Even for those who are college educated, law isn’t typically a mandatory course like math or even political science. It will be difficult for the general public to grasp some of what is happening within the Supreme Court.

Picking and Choosing

Justices have also feared that putting video cameras into the proceedings will allows journalists to take quotes from the hearing and use them as sound bites for laughs and shock.

Kennedy once said he does not want the Court to become part of “the national entertainment network.”

And Scalia told the Senate Judiciary Committee, “[F]or every ten people who sat through our proceedings gavel to gavel, there would be 10,000 who would see nothing but a thirty-second takeout from one of the proceedings, which I guarantee you would not be representative of what we do.”

Pretty much every news network uses videos of politicians in order to prove points–and taking things out of context seems to be the norm. So, is there something to be said about fearing the editing process? Of course–as with anything. However, it will be up to the journalist to uphold ethics when reporting the news. What comes out of the mouths of the Justices isn’t always how they truly feel or how they want the case to go. Any footage that is taken from the proceedings will have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Cameras and Audio

In addition to video imaging from within the Supreme Court, there has also been a ban on audio recording from within the chambers. In the past, audio recordings have been doctored and then misreported by news outlets, leading to headaches. That has slackened some, and audio recordings are now available after the verdict has been announced. Sometimes they will release same-day audio for high-profile cases, but this is extremely rare.

Notably, one can still get same-day written transcripts of the oral arguments and opinion announcements; however, these do not take things like tone and delivery into consideration. The Justices have learned to choose their words wisely so that they do not come across wrong on paper.

Sotomayor discussed the problems with all reporting to The New York Times, saying:

I don’t think most viewers take the time to actually delve into either the briefs or the legal arguments to appreciate what the court is doing,” she said. “They speculate about, oh, the judge favors this point rather than that point. Very few of them understand what the process is, which is to play devil’s advocate.

It obviously took a while to get to the point where audio recordings are allowed as well, and it might seem like they’re pretty much the same thing as video recordings; however, they’re probably less likely to be mass-distributed on platforms such as news shows, and therefore, less likely to be misconstrued.

Performance Issues

There are also concerns that if cameras are brought into the Supreme Court, the advocates will pander to them. Instead of focusing on the merit of their arguments, they will try to be more convincing and flashy. That being said, that worry gives very little credit to the attorneys arguing the cases–their arguments would still be what the Supreme Court decided on, so there would be little value in creating a performance for outside audiences.

Conclusion

Putting cameras in the Supreme Court is going to take some work from everyone involved. It isn’t going to be something that can have a seamless transition and just happen overnight. Instead, it is something that journalists, viewers, lawyers, and justices will have to come to terms with, and change their behaviors accordingly.

Whatever the change is, there needs to be more transparency in a system that is broken. The Coalition for Court Transparency claims:

Currently, to attend Supreme Court hearings, individuals must stand in line outside the building and wait to be ushered in. There are roughly 400 seats in the courtroom, only a fraction of which are available to the public. That means countless Americans hoping to view the arguments are unable to, especially in cases that have broad public interest, such as the marriage equality, Obamacare, voting rights, and affirmative action cases in recent terms. For these types of cases, interested citizens must often line up hours, if not days, in advance of the arguments. In some instances they have to compete with “line-standers” whose employers have been paid thousands of dollars to hold a powerful or wealthy person’s place in line.

Stay tuned for the next few months as the changes are sure to come quickly.

Resources

Primary

Oyez Project: Latest 

Supreme Court: Transcripts and Recordings of Oral Arguments

Additional 

BYU Law Review: The Monster in the Courtroom

Slate: Amicus: Cameras in the Courtroom

Open SCOTUS: Coalition Letter

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: Holding Out Against Cameras at the Supreme Court

National Constitution Center: Justices’ Comments Cast More Doubts on Supreme Court Cameras 

USA Today: Justices Rock it on the Road, If You Can Find Them

Blaze: New Push to Get Video Cameras in Supreme Court

NPR: Once Under Wraps, Supreme Court Audio Trove Now Online

Slate: Punch and Judge Judy

Tampa Bay Times: Sotomayor No Longer Favors Video Cameras at Supreme Court

CNN: Supreme Court Agrees to Take on Same-Sex Marriage Issue

Slate: Supreme Court Justices Are Not Really Judges

Daily Signal: Public Opinion and the Supreme Court

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Televised Trials: Should Cameras Be Allowed in the Supreme Court? appeared first on Law Street.

This is going to hurt me a lot more than it is going to hurt you: Justice Antonin Scalia might have a point.

I know, I know. His “orthodoxy” and “originalism” are nothing but facades that make a joke out of Constitutional interpretation. His recalcitrance has a deteriorating effect on America. His arrogance knows no limits. But one of his thoughts contains a basic interpretation of the Constitution that is extremely important. A recent Denver Post article quotes Scalia saying, “’There are those who would have us believe that the separation of church and state must mean that God must be driven out of the public forum…That is simply not what our Constitution has ever meant.’”

I’ve already written about why it’s okay — and good — to include religion in the public discourse. So I will simply sum up my argument here: religion is still an integral part of American life, religion is still an integral American social institution, and religion still informs the morals of American public officials. Instead of dismissing that out of fear of a too-close relationship between church and state, let’s have it out in the open for our discussions. Now this one is hard for me to swallow, but it behooves me to agree with a basic component of Scalia’s belief. The separation of church and state, vital as it is, does not necessitate the eradication of religiosity from American life, public or private.

Despite feeling empty inside for supporting something that Justice Scalia said, I’ll press on. The topic is of utmost importance right now as more Americans are unhappy about perceived lack of religiosity, according to Pew Research. As 72 percent of Americans believe that religion has lost influence in the country, “a growing share of the American public wants religion to play a role in U.S. politics,” Pew’s Religion & Public Life Project claims. Scalia and I are on to something: religious presence in American public life is not only Constitutionally acceptable, but desired by an increasing number of people in the country.

What does this mean for political alignments in America? On one hand Pew notes that more “of the general public sees the Republican Party as friendly toward religion (47%) than sees the Democratic Party that way (29%).” On the other hand, there are “some signs of discontent within the GOP among its supporters, including evangelicals.” While Christians still dominate the American religious atmosphere, their political spread is complicated. Black Protestants overwhelmingly support the Democratic party as opposed to their White Republican counterparts. Meanwhile, the Catholic demographic is split between Republican Whites and Democratic Hispanics.

These spreads indicate how differentiated all religious Americans — even Christian Americans — are politically. Therefore, the growing number of Americans looking to see more religiosity in the U.S. political sphere is comprised of a variety of political interests. Neither liberals nor conservatives, then, should be too optimistic or pessimistic because of these demographics. Only those who oppose Scalia’s conception of church and state should be concerned. While religion may be less prevalent in public life right now, those who oppose religion in public life also have waning clout.

Scalia’s statement is consistent with the growing public sentiment, but how should the Supreme Court interpret this opinion? Of course, according to Scalia, the Supreme Court should completely ignore the current public dynamic and focus only on the “original” meaning of the Constitution. And in Scalia’s eyes, the “original” meaning of the First Amendment “explicitly favors religion” over non-religion, as he mentions in a recent Court opinion. Will the Supreme Court, and Scalia, look to the recent sentiments of the public to validate a preference of the religious over the non-religious? Or will some members of the Court defend agnostic and atheistic rights when applicable? With the Court slated to hear a few cases on religion in the near future, these questions should be mainstream.

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Justice Scalia Gets It Right: There is a Political Demand for Religion appeared first on Law Street.

As a student considering attending law school in a couple years, I can’t help but hope that the University of Arizona’s James E. Rogers College of Law is starting a trend. The law school recently announced that they were slashing their out of state tuition by over 25 percent, lowering their yearly tuition from $38,841 to $29,000 for nonresident students. There are several reasons why this might become a trend, but the main one is that law school enrollment is down and many law schools are losing money. These schools have to respond to a changing market. And the University of Arizona is doing a truly laudable job with their response.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia certainly thinks that shifts like Arizona’s will become a trend. Scalia, in his commencement address to William and Mary Law School graduates, bluntly dismissed any “law school in two years” concept.  According to Scalia, law is not a trade but a profession, and there is no way to learn all that needs to be learned in just two years. He thinks that a student must have a wide base of knowledge in the many types of law and requires three years of study. However, he also thinks that law schools are currently overvalued. The solution to Scalia, therefore, is for law schools to lower prices rather than offer two-year programs.

Scalia also has plans for how law schools will survive the loss in revenue. He thinks that there are too many law professors and that they get paid too much. Some law professors get paid twice as much as federal judges, despite a less intense workload. In Scalia’s eyes, it would be reasonable to pay law professors less and expect them to teach more.

So is Scalia right and is Arizona a part of the beginning of a trend for law school tuition decreases? It’s hard to imagine that they are not. Based on an Arizona Board of Regents report, Arizona’s law school is now 30 percent cheaper than the average cost of other law schools. Dean Marc Miller told The Arizona Daily Star that, “we’re responding to the market in changing times. It will have more students looking at us more seriously early on.” If the dean is correct, and saving over ten grand in tuition draws students to Arizona in high numbers, other schools will have to follow suit.

Arizona is not the only law school to lower its tuition recently. Roger Williams Law School, Brooklyn Law School, and Iowa Law School have all made similar moves. The cuts have ranged from 15 to 18 percent, although Arizona offered the highest cut in terms of percentage. If these schools experience an increase in applications and enrollment, all law schools, except perhaps the elite ones, will have to lower prices to compete.

As a potential law student, the two-year law degree is very tempting and if it was an option I think I would have to take it. I would imagine most law students would choose that route. It means one less year of school and saves you $30,000-$50,000. That being said, I understand Scalia’s argument and would not be disappointed if the two-year program never came to fruition, especially if costs go down. If Arizona did not reduce cost, but adopted a two year program, it would cost an out of state student $77,682. Under the new reduced cost plan, it will cost a student $87,000 for three years. That bill is still more than a hypothetical two-year program, but the overall savings might make it worth the third year, especially if it enhances your ability to be a lawyer and earn money.

The University of Arizona’s James E. Rogers College of Law staff did not comment as of press time.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Light Brigading via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Law School is Getting Cheaper in Arizona appeared first on Law Street.

What happens when two Supreme Court Justices, who rarely rule the same way, sit down for an hour-long conversation on the First Amendment? Surprisingly, a lot of laughs, and some strong opinions about free speech. On Thursday, April 17, Justices discussed the First Amendment on the Kalb Report at the National Press Club.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg couldn’t be more ideologically different- Scalia is an originalist, meaning the Constitution should be interpreted as it would have been when it was created. Ginsburg, on the other hand, sees the Constitution as a living document, one that can be interpreted differently based on how society has evolved.

Agreement on Free Speech:

But for being so different in their opinions, the two agreed on the most basic idea that freedom of speech is a necessary function of democracy.

“The right to speak my mind, that’s America to me,” Ginsburg said.

Scalia seemed to agree, saying, “democracy means persuading one another […] you can’t run such a system if here is muzzling of one point of view.”

Times v. Sullivan:

The two didn’t agree for long, though. One discussion over the case New York Times v. Sullivan elicited two very different opinions from the Justices.

Times. V. Sullivan was the case that holds public officials have a much harder time suing for libel. Basically, unless they can prove someone made libelous comments on purpose, they don’t have a shot at a lawsuit.

Scalia had no time for that, saying the founding fathers “would have been appalled at the notion they could be libeled with impunity,” and that rather than interpreting the Constitution, the Times v. Sullivan decision revised it.

Ginsburg disagreed, saying, “Times v. Sullivan is now well-accepted […] I suspect that if the founding fathers were around to see what life was like in the 1960s, they would have agreed with that.”

Using your rights… isn’t always right?:

The conversation also pointed to the fact that while the Justices may support First Amendment Rights, it doesn’t mean they agree with the ways in which people utilize those rights.

“You can be using your 1st amendment right and it can be abominable that you are,” Scalia said and continued with,  “I will defend your right to use it, but I will not defend the appropriateness of the manner in which you’re using it now- that can be very wrong.”

Specifically, Ginsburg referred to a case, which Scalia ruled on, that held flag burning was Constitutionally protected, even though he did not personally agree with the idea of it.

“I would have thrown that guy in jail if I were king,” alluding to the fact in a democracy, we don’t have that option.

The First Amendment Debate isn’t Over:

At one point, Ginsburg referenced a case the Supreme Court will hear next week, questioning whether it is legal to lie about candidates running for office.

The case is Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, and it challenges an Ohio law that says groups and individuals can’t make false statements about political candidates. The court will be tasked with deciding whether or not false statements in the context of political races are protected speech.

Though it’s hard to tell how the court will rule, there have been other cases that deal with lies in relation to free speech. In 2012, the court ruled that a man who lied about receiving the Medal of Honor was protected by free speech. In 2006, after Xavier Alvarez lied about receiving a military award, he was prosecuted under the “Stolen Valor Act,” which made it illegal to do so.

Precedent for the Case:

The court held 6-3 that the First Amendment protected Alvarez’s lie. Ginsburg was in the majority; Scalia was not.

The opinion state specifically, “the Court has instructed that falsity alone may not suffice to bring the speech outside the First Amendment; the statement must be a knowing and reckless falsehood.”

The combination of Alvarez and Times as precedent will be make for an interesting decision by the Court, and Ginsburg and Scalia could very easily end up on different sides of the decision again.

Their Friendship hasn’t Waned:

But through the differing opinions on how to interpret the Constitution, Ginsburg and Scalia have remained close friends.

When Kalb asked Ginsburg if she would have voted in favor of the Times case, Scalia jumped in saying, “oh God yes she would have!”

At another point, Ginsburg poked fun at Scalia after he mentioned using telephone booths, saying, “we don’t have to worry about that anymore!”

The moderator, Marvin Kalb, seemed to appreciate the dynamic between the two, saying “they are like the old days in this capital when political differences did not stop a good friendship from flourishing.”

Having two Justices discuss not just their friendship, but views on issues as decisive as the First Amendment, as well, gives the public a great inside look into the reasoning behind Supreme Court decisions. While they had vastly different ideas about how laws should be interpreted, they both had strong reasoning behind their opinions, and respected each other as people regardless of their professional views.

You can watch the whole program here.

[Times v. Sullivan] [Alvarez Case] [Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Petteway, College of the Supreme Court of the United States via Wikipedia]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The First Amendment: Two Supreme Court Justices Debate What it Means appeared first on Law Street.

If you like to collect Supreme Court memorabilia (I mean, who doesn’t?) one of the greatest things you can have is a Supreme Court bobblehead doll.

Law professor Ross Davies from George Mason University came up with the idea about ten years ago. He claims it just came to him while he was in the shower. Since then, he has designed 16 miniature bobblehead versions of Supreme Court justices. Created in Bellvue, Wash. by Alexander Global Productions, four sitting justices are featured: Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy.

Every single detail of the justices’ likenesses has some sort of hidden meaning. For example, mini bobblehead Sandra Day O’Connor wears the same shoes real O’Connor wore when she made history as the first female Supreme Court justice. Little David Souter plays a Modest Mouse song that he referenced in a copyright case when he sat on the court. Tiny Ginsburg stands on the parade grounds of Virginia Military University, a reference to the opinion she wrote striking down their all-male admissions policy. Collectors get together to decode all the details of their favorite bobbleheads. According to one of Davies’ co-creators, Gregory Jacob, “It’s like proof of their legal geekdom.”

Now before you rush out to the store to try to get one, it’s important to point out that these delightful little items are not available for sale — they’re given out for free. The easiest way to get your hands on one is to subscribe to The Green Bag, a legal journal co-edited by Davies. Whenever a bobblehead is finished, one is sent to the justice, and others are given out for free to people with vouchers who claim their prizes at a Washington DC law office. If you aren’t one of those lucky, voucher-winning fans, you might still get one through the occasional law school fundraiser auction, or perhaps for hundreds of dollares on Ebay.

The Justices themselves are great fans of their ceramic likenesses. Davies still has a thank you letter from former Chief Justice Rehnquist, who was the subject of the first bobblehead. Stephen Breyer collects his coworkers. They’re popular among other legal scholars as well. Charmiane Claxton is a federal judge in Tenn. who collects them, even getting her Scalia and O’Connor dolls signed by the justices themselves.

Because of the format in which they are released, some experts have called them  “some of rarest bobbleheads ever produced.” Certificates were recently released for the newest justice to be immortalized in bobble form: John Blair. According to Davies, he’s working on Stephen Breyer’s bobblehead now.

So on that note, Happy New Year everyone! One of my new New Year’s resolutions is to get one of these bobbleheads in 2014 — who’s with me?

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Jeff Kubina via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Greatest Legal Souvenir Ever? appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning, lovelies. Did you all survive Thanksgiving? How many of you are still battling tryptophan-induced comas?

I know I am!

But all the Thanksgiving gluttony in the world couldn’t hold me back from you all. Nope. And I’ve got some worrying news to open your re-entrance into the world of normal portion sizes and stuffing withdrawal.

2016 is going to be a bitch.

Why? Well, because of a little “nuclear” reactor that was detonated just in time for my turkey to come out of the oven.

It did not look like this.

One week before Thanksgiving, Senator Harry Reid rallied together enough votes in the Senate to eliminate the minority party’s ability to filibuster executive branch nominees and any judgeship below the Supreme Court. What does that mean? Sen. Reid and the majority of his fellow Senators told the GOP to shut the fuck up and stop throwing tantrums already. Who can get anything done with these filibuster-happy, crazy people running around, making medically inadvisable speeches for gazillions of hours?

But actually. Filibustering hinders productivity. FACT.

Also fact: filibustering is sometimes necessary. If the majority party is set on passing some super fucked up legislation, the opposing side has to have some way to stand up and call bullshit. But here’s the problem with these two indisputable facts. Since President Obama was first elected in 2008, the Republicans have been abusing the filibuster.

Literally abusing it. Like, if the filibuster were a person, the GOP would be collectively doing time for assault and battery right now. So, Sen. Reid took the initiative. He got his fellow Senators together, and they stood up to the obnoxious, filibuster-abusing Republicans. And now they can’t filibuster anymore. Yay!

Except that the filibuster ban goes both ways. So, if the Republicans regain control of the Senate in the upcoming 2016 elections, we are in for a SHIT TON of trouble. Now, when I say we, who am I referring to exactly?

Women, queers, people of color, poor people, immigrants, scientists, people who believe in the separation of Church and State, people who believe in reality. A lot of us, shall we say.

How come? Well that’s not hard to figure out. The Christian Right has made it abundantly clear that they’re out for blood. In a perfect world, they’d like to slash women’s access to safe abortions, slash access to healthcare for everyone but the obscenely wealthy, while turning a blind eye to racism, sexism, classism, global warming, and everything else that they’d like to pretend doesn’t exist. They’re also down for warmongering, merging Church and State, and basically turning the U.S. into an even bigger shit show than it already is.

We’re talking about a tyrannical theocracy.

As a lesbian, feminist writer who earns a portion of her living criticizing the government, I would really appreciate this not happening. I don’t want to live in a tyrannical theocracy. No thank you! But, with the demise of the ability to filibuster, come 2016, we could potentially go there.

Now, before we get too crazy, let’s look at the facts for a second. Sen. Reid’s “nuclear” decision didn’t ban all filibusters, everywhere, all the time. Only the ones that revolve around presidential nominees for executive or non-Supreme Court judicial positions. There’s still plenty of room to filibuster on both sides. For example, Ted Cruz’s filibuster of the Affordable Care Act would still be admissible. However, without the ability to filibuster presidential nominees, Congress’s majority party can potentially stack the courts with judges that align with their platform.

If 2016 brings a Republican majority, that means court-stacking à la Justice Antonin Scalia. This is the same guy who claimed that the separation of Church and State is a myth. That’s not a happy prospect. Justices like Hon. Scalia would strip women, queers, people of color, poor people, immigrants, and non-Christians of their rights in a hot second, given the opportunity. And most of the folks on that list don’t have a ton of legal rights to begin with. As my immigrant, Polish, Jewish grandmother would say, oy vey.

But, since we have checks and balances, this is not the end of the world, right? The courts don’t rule the land with an iron fist. The judicial branch is just one arm in a complex tree of government. We’ve still got the legislative branch and the executive branch to even everything out.

Well, sort of. If the legislative and judicial branches are in each other’s pockets, there won’t be much checking or balancing going on there. The same can be said of the executive branch, which will also be up for grabs come 2016. Imagine a Christian Right president, elected alongside a conservative congressional majority, who will both work together to nominate conservative judiciaries.

It’s one possible outcome of 2016 elections, and it’s one where the whole checks and balances thing kind of becomes moot. Not to mention, even in a less-extreme situation, a highly conservative court hinders the legislative and executive branches’ abilities to make lasting reforms.

So, what have we learned about 2016?

Basically, that Sen. Reid’s decision to go nuclear prior to Turkey Day this year could have some serious consequences if the next election swings Right. So let’s jump on that Lefty-loosey bandwagon, mmkay? Keep those neocons at bay!

Featured image courtesy of [Center for American Progress Action Fund via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will We Live in a Tyrannical Theocracy by 2016? appeared first on Law Street.

Town of Greece v. Galloway began oral arguments before the Supreme Court this week. Greece is a small city located just north of Rochester, New York. For the last 14 years, the city of Greece has begun each town council meetings with a prayer, almost exclusively Christian in nature. Each meeting, a different cleric would come before the body and offer up a prayer to the council members and any observers.

In 2008, two retired women living in the town, Linda Stephens and Susan Galloway, complained that these prayers were always Christian, and seemed to align the town with Christianity. Stephens is an atheist, and Galloway is Jewish. The town did respond at first, inviting leaders of other faiths to come in and lead the prayers—including Jewish, Baha’i, and Wiccan. But that was not enough to make up for approximately 10 years of solely Christian prayers, and after those notable outliers, the town returned to mainly Christian speakers.

So, Stephens and Galloway sued their town, contending that Greece has violated the Constitution. The issue is not that the town council meetings are beginning with prayers; the ability to do so was established under the 1983 Supreme Court Case Marsh v. Chambers.  However, Marsh also stated that it’s only legal to begin a meeting with a prayer if the “government does not act with improper motive in selecting prayer-givers or exploit the prayer opportunity to proselytize, advance, or disparage any one faith or belief.” Stephens and Galloway are arguing that by choosing only Christian prayers, the town of Greece has broken those constraints. After a series of contrasting appeals, the case has made it to the Supreme Court.

Oral arguments began on Wednesday, and there have already been some interesting conversations. My guess is that the Supreme Court will stick to precedent, but with this cast of characters on the Court, it’s always hard to predict. Some of the justices who offered questions or comments seem to be suspicious of Greece’s case; perpetual swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy stated, “well, the essence of the argument is we’ve always done it this way, which has some — some force to it. But it seems to me that your argument begins and ends there.” Justice Elena Kagan deviated from purely First Amendment issues and pointed out that we’re all entitled to equal protection under the Constitution, regardless of religious beliefs. Chief Justice John Roberts raised interesting thoughts about the context of tradition in public life. Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia waxed poetic about how no prayer will every satisfy everyone 100 percent of the time. It’s important to note that another player in this case includes the Obama Administration, which is standing on Greece’s side. Deputy Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn was there to advocate the administration’s views.

The balance of faith and secularity in the public sphere is always a contentious topic. It seems like every couple of years there is another instance of a battle over religion in a public school, whether it stems from the use of prayer or the reference to God in “The Star Spangled Banner.” And every single time this issue comes up, there does not seem to be an absolutely right or wrong answer—any sort of balancing test is wobbly at best. There are always people who will be offended, but there’s also always a line that is very easily crossed. The Court will most likely not be able to solve these debates completely, but some guidance would be helpful as our society becomes more religious and culturally diverse in faith.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Michael Peligro via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Considers Prayer in Public Life appeared first on Law Street.