On Thursday, the Supreme Court made it more difficult for the government to strip a naturalized American’s citizenship simply because he or she lied during the naturalization proceedings. The case, Maslenjak v. United States, concerns an ethnic Serbian woman who, fleeing war and prosecution from Bosnia in the 1990s, was granted refugee status in the U.S. in 1999. In 2007, she became a citizen, despite lying about her husband’s service in the Bosnian Serb military.

The court’s unanimous decision largely hinged on the standard on which the case was argued and ruled on by the lower courts. Namely, that any sort of lie, no matter its causal link or lack there of to the granting of citizenship, is enough to revoke a naturalized American’s citizenship. That is how the Justice Department’s lawyer, Robert Parker, argued the case. Those were the grounds on which a district court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled. Both sided with the government.

But the Supreme Court fundamentally disagreed that a naturalized citizen’s rights could be revoked based on an immaterial falsehood. It sent the case back to the Sixth Circuit, allowing it to be reviewed on a different standard.

“We hold that the government must establish that an illegal act by the defendant played some role in her acquisition of citizenship,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the unanimous opinion. She continued:

When the illegal act is a false statement, that means demonstrating that the defendant lied about facts that would have mattered to an immigration official, because they would have justified denying naturalization or would predictably have led to other facts warranting that result.

The story begins in 1999, when Divna Maslenjak was granted refugee status. An ethnic Serb fleeing what was then known as Bosnia, Maslenjak said Muslims would mistreat her and her husband because of their ethnicity. At the same time Serbs would punish them because her husband, she claimed, evaded military service. In 2007, Maslenjak and her husband were granted citizenship.

It turns out, however, that Maslenjak did indeed lie about her husband’s circumstances; he served in a Bosnian Serb military unit–one that was accused of committing war crimes. A district court judge ruled that Maslenjak’s falsehood warranted a revocation of her and her husband’s citizenships. The Sixth Circuit, in April 2016, agreed. Their citizenship was revoked, and both Maslenjak and her husband were deported to Serbia.

The Supreme Court’s decision vacates the lower courts’ rulings. In unanimously rejecting the government’s assertion that any lie, regardless of its relevance to citizenship, could lead to revocation, the court strengthened protections for naturalized Americans.

In April, during the arguments for the case, the justices seemed perplexed at the government’s position. In fact, Chief Justice John Roberts confessed to a past misdeed to make a point. “Some time ago, outside the statute of limitations, I drove 60 miles an hour in a 55-mile-an-hour zone,” he said.

If on the citizenship form he answered “no” to the question of whether he had ever committed an offense, Roberts asked Parker, “20 years after I was naturalized as a citizen, you can knock on my door and say, ‘Guess what, you’re not an American citizen after all?” Parker continued to baffle the justices, saying, “If we can prove that you deliberately lied in answering that question, then yes.”

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 Supreme Court Furthers Protections for Naturalized U.S. Citizens appeared first on Law Street.

It’s Women’s History Month, and I think it’s pretty widely recognized that four great role models are the three sitting and one former female Supreme Court justices. As the only women ever on the highest court, Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotamayor are pretty recognizably badass, regardless of their various ideologies. Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor anchor the liberal wing of the Supreme Court, and consistently write some of the most on point and compelling decisions. O’Connor, despite having retired in 2006, continues to work as an activist. In fact, her startup non-profit iCivics was recently awarded a MacArthur Grant to continue its amazing work in American civics education.

Now these four ladies are obviously recognized and lauded on a near-daily basis. There are a lot of awards, speaking engagements, and the like. But I think they just got one of their coolest honors recently–a fan made a set of Legos called the “Legal Justice League” that depict the four justices.

Image courtesy of Maia Weinstock via Flickr

How adorable is that? RBG even has her signature white collar, and Kagan’s hairstyle is spot on. Here’s another picture–look at them working!

Image courtesy of Maia Weinstock via Flickr

Anyway, these are a great, sweet representation of some of the top female minds in American jurisprudence. The creator, Maia Weinstock, stated about her figures:

This set of custom-designed LEGO minifigures, U.S. Supreme Court replica, and SCOTUS library/study aims to celebrate the accomplishments of women in the legal realm, and to encourage girls and women to work toward high positions in the U.S. judicial system.

While I personally think this would be a great set for LEGO to manufacture, the company turned down the idea after Weinstock submitted it. It has a “no politics or political symbols” rule. However, the Supreme Court isn’t, in and of itself, political. It’s actually supposed to be the opposite–a politically agnostic institution tasked with interpreting the law regardless of party lines. While that doesn’t always necessarily happen in practice, I don’t know that making figurines of the female Supreme Court justices–three liberal and one conservative–really makes any sort of political statement.

Although toys have been moving toward being more gender neutral and inclusive in recent years, many little girls’ toys–particularly dolls–still fall more into the Barbie or Bratz category. While there’s nothing wrong with those toys per se, it would be great for young girls to have more options and more exposure to real female role models.

Regardless of LEGO’s decision not to run with them,  Weinstock’s Legal Justice League figures are a great homage to the indubitably awesome female justices, and a great celebration of Women’s History Month!

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 Everything is Not Awesome: LEGO Rejects Female SCOTUS Justices Set 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.

Early last month, the Seventh Circuit of Appeals held that the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Estate must pay attorney’s fees to plaintiff, Leslie Klinger. The payment of attorney’s fees is the latest setback for the Conan Doyle Estate in its attempt to block the publication of Klinger’s two Sherlock Holmes anthologies without first obtaining a licensing fee. In mid-July, Justice Elana Kagan denied the Conan Doyle Estate’s stay (i.e., blocking the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling).

For the readers who don’t know the background preceding the lawsuit, let me summarize it for you: Klinger, who is a Sherlock Holmes scholar, co-edited two Sherlock Holmes anthologies, A Study in Sherlock and In the Company of Sherlock Holmes, which contained new and original short stories about Sherlock Holmes by contemporary authors. The Conan Doyle Estate claimed that Klinger needed to obtain a license from the Conan Doyle Estate to publish A Study in Sherlock with Random House and a second license to publish In the Company of Sherlock Holmes with Pegasus Books. Klinger believed he did not need a license to publish the anthologies because he believed the Holmes and Watson characters were in the public domain. Although Random House acquiesced and purchased a license, Pegasus Books refused to finalize its author agreement with Klinger if he did not seek a license. Thus, stuck without a book contract with Pegasus, Klinger sued the Conan Doyle Estate in 2013 and sought a declaratory judgment (i.e., a legal determination by a court about a particular uncertainty between the parties) on pre-1923 and post-1923 story elements in the Sherlock Holmes canon, including but not limited to, characters, character traits, dialogue, etc., in order to determine whether or not Klinger needed a license from the Conan Doyle Estate.

In December 2013, a federal district court in Illinois ruled in favor of Klinger by stating that he needed to obtain a license from the Conan Doyle Estate for post-1923 story elements but did not need a license for pre-1923 story elements. In June, the Seventh Circuit of Appeals affirmed the Illinois district court’s decision and stated that Klinger did not need to obtain a license for his anthologies because the Holmes and Watson characters were in the public domain.

Justice Kagan’s denial of the Conan Doyle Estate’s stay likely signifies that the lawsuit has finally come to a close. Klinger’s win is advantageous to book publishers because publishers likely do not need to obtain a license from the Conan Doyle Estate to publish anthologies or other literary works. Moreover, Klinger’s victory affects the movie and television industries, which seem to almost always have a Sherlock Holmes television show or motion picture airing or in post-production.

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sherlock Holmes: A Winner for Book Publishers 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.