Lobbyists lobby, because otherwise their job title would seem silly. Sometimes they lobby for good reasons and sometimes just for cash. Hey, it’s a job, even if it’s an unseemly job. Or is it?

After his son was accused and subsequently expelled from Washington University in St. Louis last year through the school’s Title IX process, a leading Jefferson City lobbyist launched a campaign to change the law for every campus in the state.

Richard McIntosh has argued to legislators that Title IX, the federal law barring sexual discrimination in education and mandating that schools set up internal systems to police sexual violence, is tilted unfairly against the accused. His proposals — made first as a failed amendment to an unrelated bill near the end of the 2018 session and then this year as a full-fledged bill — create more protections for those accused of Title IX violations.

Continue reading →

What if Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross decided it was a good idea to ask a few interesting questions on the next decennial census?

• How many people in your home had premarital sex?
• How many people in your home have a smartphone?
• How many people in your home know how to drive a stick shift?

Since the Constitution compels a census to be taken every ten years, and requires, per the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2, that it count “the whole number of persons in each State,” why not seize upon the opportunity to throw in a few extra questions of interest? Would anyone care?

Except Ross chose to ask a different question, one about citizenship. There are substantive reasons why this is a problem, that it will likely produce a significant undercount, estimated to be about 5%, and thus undermine the purpose of a census. And since its use is to divvy up congressional districts and funding, it means those undercounted will be denied representation and money to which they are constitutionally entitled. Continue reading →

As Cathy Young notes, maybe Professor Jeffrey Sachs was “a bit premature announcing the victory of free speech principles on campus.” Who would have thunk? Williams College faculty sought to amend its campus policy toward free speech. Uh oh.

A faculty petition at Williams College to adopt the Chicago principles, which many free speech advocates consider the gold standard of free speech philosophy, has divided the campus and pushed administrators to review the college’s policies.

Williams is in “meltdown,” said Luana S. Maroja, an associate professor of biology and one of the faculty members who led the charge for the college to endorse the Chicago principles, known formally as the University of Chicago’s “Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression.”

Continue reading →

While New York tries desperately to dig its way out of the Supreme Court’s consideration of its regulation by suggesting that a proposed change to its rules would moot the case, there is another group arguing in favor of guns. They’re not led by some crazed militia leader or some semi-automatic gun nut. Their spokesperson is Emily Bazelon.

When gun control advocates discuss how to restrict access to lethal weapons, they mostly talk about permit requirements and background checks. But that coin has another side: punishment for people accused of possessing guns without the state’s permission.

New York City is no gun haven. It’s not that there aren’t guns in New York. There are. They just aren’t possessed lawfully, at least according to the regulations of the New York City Police Department, charged with issuing permits for the possession and carry of a firearm. And unless you’re an ex-cop, or have some serious political connections, you’re not getting a permit. Even legit claims for the need for a gun by those carrying large and legal sums of cash or briefcases filled with diamonds are routinely turned away. NYPD does not want anyone to carry a gun, except them. Continue reading →

The Supreme Court has granted cert in three cases, a two-to-one circuit court split, to decide the question of what “sex” means under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is the worst nightmare of gay and transgender advocates, who have worked hard to accomplish through lawfare what they have failed, over and over, to accomplish through legislation. Given their perhaps overly simplistic view of the Court’s partisan players, political hacks when feared, this could spell the end for their efforts to change the meaning of one critical word: Sex.

Will the Supreme Court Protect Gay and Transgender Workers?

The framing of the headline question in the New York Times editorial gives away its posture. If it’s a referendum on supporting gay and transgender workers, then it comes out one way. And if it comes out any other way, then it means the Court endorses discrimination against those workers, because surely it would rule to protect them if the Court wasn’t homophobic and transphobic. Continue reading →

The current reform regime for local prosecutors who have chosen to use their offices to supersede legislatures and decide which duly-enacted criminal laws are worthy of their efforts and which they shall veto has strong support from the progressive reformers. And with some reason, given the inability of divided and overly-partisan legislatures to address laws that few seriously question to be bad, grossly excessive failures.

If the states can’t do their job of fixing bad laws, isn’t it better that someone does? Sure, it may lack a certain adherence to principle, a violation of separation of powers when far too much power is put into the hands of executive branch officials exercising super-legislative authority.

It’s ironic, in a bad way, that these are the same officials who were accused of abusing their power when it was used harshly, but are now applauded for their even greater exercise of unchecked power when exercised in the way that favors reform. But reform is the outcome demanded by progressives, so principle is a distant second to outcome. In fairness, that was the case before as well, so it’s not as if this progressive view is less principled than its conservative predecessor. It’s just not any better. Continue reading →

I, for one, appreciate that Elie Mystal went to the annual convention of the NALP, the National Association of Law Placement, as it’s good to know what’s happening among the functionaries whose role is to connect law students with law jobs, and far better that Elie should be the one to do so than, well, me.

For those who weren’t paying attention at the time, we lost a generation of law school grads back in 2007-10, when there was little demand for new lawyers and far too many for the jobs available. It was a nightmare for these budding lawyers, as they did everything right and yet ended up with massive law school debt and neither a future in law nor a way to get out from under the burden.

Things have since improved for new lawyers, at least as far as the job market is concerned, but there is a new problem, a terrible problem as Elie tells it, that NALP is now coming to grips with. Continue reading →

Grand Rapids claims it has a problem.

Grand Rapids could soon have an ordinance that would make it a criminal misdemeanor to racially profile people of color for “participating in their lives.”

The “bias crime reporting prohibition” is one of a handful of adjustments that would be made to the city code as part of the proposed human rights ordinance.

A phrase like “participating in their lives” is one of those dubiously vague explanations that can be read entirely differently based on perspective. If it means “walking while black,” then it smacks of racism. If it means engaging in a life of crime, then it means something quite different. How does one know the difference? Continue reading →

If the name isn’t familiar from twitter, it should be from his writing as a founding contributor to Marcy Wheeler’s brilliant burden of bureaucracy, Empty Wheel. Bmaz is a criminal defense lawyer, a friend and a person I know in real life.

Bmaz is a rather large saguaro cactus in the Southwestern Sonoran desert. A lover of the Constitution, law, family, sports, food and spirits. As you might imagine, a bit prickly occasionally. Bmaz has attended all three state universities in Arizona, with both undergraduate and graduate degrees from Arizona State University, and with significant post-graduate work (in physics and organic chemistry, go figure) at both the University of Colorado in Boulder and the University of Arizona.

Married, with both a lovely child and a giant Sasquatch dog. Bmaz has been a participant on the internet since the early 2000’s, including active participation in the precursor to Emptywheel, The Next Hurrah. Formally joined the Emptywheel blog as an original contributing member at its founding in 2007. Continue reading →

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution sets out the Confrontation Clause, which ol’ Nino took very seriously. It also provides for a speedy and public trial, all of which gives rise to a problem when a witness for the prosecution wears a veil.

Eugene Volokh provides the background.

Tyreese Copper was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. (This comes from Commonwealth v. Copper, which was decided in September 2018, but I just learned about it from a follow-up federal opinion filed early this month.) At trial, eyewitness Davina Sparks was called to testify; but she was a veil-wearing Muslim woman, and (to quote the government’s brief),

[C]ounsel objected to Ms. Sparks testifying while wearing her Muslim garb that covered her face. Ms. Sparks refused to remove the garb, citing her religion as the reason for her refusal. Out of deference to Ms. Sparks’s religious beliefs, the court decided to clear the courtroom for Ms. Sparks to testify without her face garb “so I can at least have her taking off her covering only in the presence of the people who are absolutely essential to being here,” i.e. the jury, court staff, defense counsel, and defendant. Trial counsel did not object to the court’s proposal. Ms. Sparks agreed to remove her face garb in a courtroom cleared of spectators.

Continue reading →