- JUNE 2007 -

JUDGES SAY U.S. CAN'T HOLD MAN AS ENEMY COMBATANT: In the case of Ali al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar now in military custody in Charleston, S.C., Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote for the majority of a divided three-judge panel that, "military detention of al-Marri must cease." On June 11, 2007, the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., ruled that the president may not declare civilians in this country to be "enemy combatants" and have the military hold them indefinitely. The ruling is contrary to one of the Bush administration's central assertions about the scope of executive authority to combat terrorism. Ali al-Marri is the only person on the American mainland known to be held as an enemy combatant. [See June 11, 2007, FindLaw article] [See al-Marri vs. Wright opinion (.pdf)]

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S DILEMMA REGARDING A POSSIBLE LIBBY PARDON: Former counsel to the president John Dean discusses the possibility -- and the risks -- of a potential pardon by President Bush of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Mr. Libby was convicted by a jury of false statements, perjury, and obstruction of justice charges arising from the Special Counsel Investigation of the revelation of the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame. Dean estimates how long a sentence of imprisonment Judge Walton is likely to give to Libby and when he will be required to begin serving it. [See June 1, 2007, FindLaw article.]

MONTANA JUDGE IS CLEARLY A BEATLES FAN: Before his sentencing earlier this year on a felony burglary conviction, Andrew McCormack filled out a form which asked for a "recommendation as to what you think the Court should do in this case." The Montana man wrote, "Like the Beetles say, 'Let It Be.'" District Court Judge Gregory Todd's sentencing memorandum corrected McCormack's "Beatles" misspelling and included numerous references to the Beatles discography. [See June 1, 2007 memorandum decision at The Smoking Gun.]

- MAY 2007 -

SOME LARGER CONSTITUTIONAL LESSONS FROM THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS' FIRINGS: Professors Vikram Amar (UC Hastings) and Alan Brownstein (UC Davis) discuss the scandal relating to the firing of a series of U.S. Attorneys. Professor's Amar and Brownstein explain why -- beyond the issues raised relating to federal statutes and the public good -- there is a constitutional dimension to the scandal. They then explain the particular aspects of the Constitution that militate strongly against government partisanship in situations like this one. In addition, they contend that their analysis is not itself partisan, but rather, is endorsed in part by such eminent conservatives as Justice Antonin Scalia. [See May 25, 2007, FindLaw article.]

BAY AREA LAW FIRMS MATCH WAGES IN NEW YORK: San Francisco law firms Legal firms Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe and O'Melveny & Myers have bumped starting salaries for Bay Area associates just out of law school to $160,000, matching A-list New York firms, which in January fired the opening salvo in the cutthroat competition for the nation's elite graduates. The increase comes just four months after the last escalation in the salary war that boosted Bay Area first-year pay for lawyers to $145,000 from $135,000. [See May 5, 2007, San Francisco Chronicle article.]

GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEES REFUSE TO SEE LAWYERS: Many of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are no longer cooperating with their lawyers, adding a largely invisible struggle between the lawyers and their own clients to the legal battle over the Bush administration's detention policies. Some detainees refuse to see their lawyers, while others decline mail from their lawyers or refuse to provide them information on their cases, according to court documents, writings of some of the detainees, and recent interviews. The detainees' resistance appears to have been fueled by frustration over their long detention and suspicion about whether their lawyers are working for the government, as well as anti-American sentiment. [See New York Times News Service article in the May 5, 2007 Boston Globe.]

UNIVERSITY ACTIONS AGAINST STUDENTS BASED ON MYSPACE PROFILES: Can universities take adverse actions against students based on their MySpace profiles? In her May 4, 2007, FindLaw article, Prof. Anita Ramasastry from the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle suggests that it depends in part on whether the university followed its own code of conduct.

NEW JUSTICES, NEW RULES: THE SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS THE FEDERAL PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2003: Hofstra law professors Joanna Grossman and Linda McClain, analyze the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart, in which the Court upheld the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act (PBABA). Grossman and McClain explain the evolution of abortion law on the Court, up to and through this recent and important decision. In addition, they explain why -- due to the replacement of Justice O'Connor with Justice Alito -- the Court reached a result, in this case, directly opposite to the result it reached in 2000 when considering Nebraska's ban on "partial birth abortion." [See May 1, 2007 FindLaw article.]

- APRIL 2007 -

DOES IT VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO REMOVE A CITIZEN FROM A CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR MAKING A NAZI SALUTE GESTURE?: Professors Vikram Amar (UC Hastings) and Alan Brownstein (U.C. Davis) discuss a suit challenging, on First Amendment grounds, the Santa Cruz City Council's decision to expel an audience member who expressed his displeasure via a one-second Nazi salute. Amar and Brownstein contend that the district court was wrong to rule against the audience member, and they consider, more generally, the issue of how thick-skinned officials in a democracy must be when they encounter citizens' disagreement and protest. [See April 27, 2007 FindLaw article.]

HOUSE TACKLES "FEMICIDE" IN LATIN AMERICA: House Resolution 100 (.pdf) is an effort by a large bipartisan group of representatives to try to end a deadly phenomenon known as "femicide" in Guatemala and elsewhere in Central and South America. Efforts to raise awareness of femicide have been spearheaded by numerous immigration and human rights organizations. Chief among them is Hastings College of the Law's Center for Gender and Refugee Studies (CGRS). Karen Musalo from CGRS stated, "The brutal murders of thousands of women with total impunity has gone on for all too long, and we are grateful that the House of Representatives has now gone on record calling for the Guatemalan government to bring an end to this disgraceful impunity." [See April 9, 2007 article from truthout.org]

US INTELLIGENCE CHIEF CRITICIZES SURVEILLANCE LAWS: On Wednesday April 4, 2007, John M. "Mike" McConnell, who succeeded John Negroponte as US Director of National Intelligence in February, delivered a policy address (.pdf) to the 2007 Excellence in Government Conference criticizing federal surveillance laws as outdated and unresponsive to terrorist threats. [See April 5, 2007 Jurist news report.]

- MARCH 2007 -

CAN A PASSENGER BE CONSTITUTIONALLY SEARCHED AFTER AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TRAFFIC STOP?: U.C. Hastings law professor Vikram Amar analyzes the Fourth Amendment issues raised in California v. Brendlin, a case that the Supreme Court will decide this Term. While the Fourth Amendment rights of a car's driver are well-established -- since it's clear that a driver is "seized" when the police stop his or her car -- the Fourth Amendment rights of a passenger, as Amar explains, are much less clear. Amar contends that a passenger is, indeed, "seized" when the car in which he is riding is stopped, since most passengers would be very wary of attempting to leave when a police officer is questioning the driver, whether or not they are expressly ordered to stay still. He points out, however, that even if the Court recognizes a "seizure," and a Fourth Amendment violation here, it may still be reluctant to apply the "exclusionary rule" that would remove the confiscated drug paraphernalia from the evidence adduced against the passenger. [See March 30, 2007 FindLaw article.]

THE FBI'S MISUSE OF NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS REVEALS THE OFTEN-FALSE DICHOTOMY BETWEEN SECURITY AND PRIVACY: Columbia law professor Michael Dorf discusses the recent report by the Justice Department's Inspector General on the FBI's use of National Security Letters (NSLs) -- warrantless requests for customer information issued to entities including Internet Service Providers, banks, and telecommunications companies. Dorf points out that some of the problems the report unearthed -- such as poor recordkeeping, overuse of the "exigent" designation, and production of more information than had been requested, due to confusion on the part of the NSL recipient -- jeopardize both individual privacy and national security, two values that are often opposed, but here militate in the very same direction. [See March 14, 2007 FindLaw article.]

- FEBRUARY 2007 -

DOES CALIFORNIA'S CURRENT CRIMINAL SENTENCING SYSTEM VIOLATE A DEFENDANT'S 6TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS?: In late January, the Supreme Court issued perhaps the biggest decision of the Term to date: Cunningham v. California. There, the Court held that California's current criminal sentencing system violates a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. The Court's ruling seemed to be a straightforward application of a rule developed in Apprendi v. New Jersey and several subsequent cases - namely, that a judge may not impose a sentence above the statutory "maximum" based on his or her own fact-finding. For purposes of this rule, the statutory maximum is defined as the highest sentence that the defendant could lawfully receive based solely on the jury's verdict or the defendant's guilty plea (that is, without any additional fact-finding by the judge). California's system violated this rule, since it permitted judges to exceed the presumptive sentence set by the legislature based on their own finding of aggravating factors, rather than on account of facts found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Prof. Vikram Amar and Prof. Aaron Rappaport from the Hastings College of the Law discuss one of the most interesting features of the Cunningham case, Justice Alito's intricate dissenting opinion. As one of Justice Alito's first opinions in this controversial area of criminal constitutional law -- and one of his most prominent opinions to date more generally -- his writing deserves careful study. [See February 16, 2007 FindLaw article, "Justice Alito's Dissent in Cunningham v. California: How Can Someone So Wrong, Be So Right?"]

WHEN LEGISLATION MAKES PEOPLE GIGGLE: The San Francisco Chronicle summarizes some of the legislation recently introduced in California. [See February 15, 2007 San Francisco Chronicle article.]

- JANUARY 2007 -

ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T GUARANTEE HABEAS CORPUS: One of the Bush administration's most far-reaching assertions of government power was revealed quietly last week when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified that habeas corpus -- the right to go to federal court and challenge one's imprisonment -- is not protected by the Constitution. "The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas,'' Gonzales told Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Jan. 17. Gonzales acknowledged that the Constitution declares "habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless ... in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.'' But he insisted that "there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.'' [See January 24, 2007 San Francisco Chronicle article.]

THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE CRITICISM OF FIRMS REPRESENTING DETAINEES: Assistant Secretary for Detainee Affairs Cully Stimson, a Defense Department official, has suggested that corporate America's leaders should think twice about engaging law firms whose attorneys have been offering pro bono legal services to represent Guantanamo detainees in their habeas corpus proceedings. Since these comments, many lawyers, academics, and commentators have condemned Stimson's comments. In fact, the criticism of Stimson's remarks has been so steady and overwhelming that the Defense Department promptly distanced itself from his statements, and Stimson himself published an apology in the Washington Post. Hastings professor Vikram Amar writes about the issues surrounding this controversey in his January 19, 2007, FindLaw article. Prof. Amar says that Stimson was clearly wrong for saying what he said, and goes on to explain precisely why Stimson was wrong, and how some critics of his statements may themselves be saying things that are, if not wrong, not completely right either.

PROPOSED LAW - SPANK A KID, GO TO JAIL: A San Francisco Bay Area lawmaker has said that she will introduce a bill next week seeking to make California the first state in the nation to ban spanking children who are 3 years old and younger. The legislation would make the violation a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail or a fine of up to $1,000. "I think we ought to have a law against beating children," said Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View. Professor Lois Weithorn, who teaches family law at UC's Hastings College of the Law, said while there are both civil and criminal statutes addressing child abuse, there is room for subjectivity on what constitutes abuse. "There are laws on the books, but corporal punishment has always been a challenge to deal with. Most jurisdictions do not sanction parents (for) corporal punishment that doesn't result in physical injury." Assemblywoman Lieber contends that's the reason California needs a law that clearly delineates what is legal or not. "Under current law, parents can beat their children to a reasonable degree," Lileber said. "I just think that that's plain wrong and we ought to ban any sort of physical attack on children who are not old enough to defend themselves." But Weithorn said even Lieber's bill could potentially be open to interpretation, such as what is spanking versus a pat on the bottom. "We're dealing with the challenge of drawing lines," the law professor said. [See January 19, 2007 San Francisco Chronicle article.]

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT URGED TO RESCIND SUBPOENAS OF BALCO REPORTERS: The new Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee urged the Justice Department to withdraw its subpoenas of two San Francisco Chronicle reporters, which seek to force them to name their confidential sources for federal grand jury testimony in which top athletes admitted illegal steroid use. House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers of Michigan and Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, the top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, wrote Attorney General Alberto Gonzales criticizing the agency's efforts to jail Chronicle reporters Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada for refusing to comply with the subpoenas. "The subpoenas issued to those reporters and their newspaper seeking confidential source information are troubling both on the specific facts of their case and because of the great damage they could cause to our nation's press and the First Amendment," the lawmakers wrote. The Justice Department was reviewing the letter, but a spokeswoman insisted the agency "issues subpoenas to members of the media only when absolutely necessary." The unusual bipartisan letter showed that Congress is closely watching the case of the two San Francisco Bay Area journalists, who could be ordered to jail for refusing to comply with a federal judge's order to divulge their sources. Lawmakers and legal experts say it's a crucial test of how far the government will be allowed to go to extract information from journalists. [See January 19, 2007 San Francisco Chronicle article.]

BOALT HALL DEAN CALLS FOR HIGHER STUDENT FEES FOR UC STUDENTS: The dean of UC Berkeley's law school warned that he and his top faculty will probably leave if he doesn't get a commitment for hefty student fee increases to keep improving his school, already one of the best in the country. During his appearance before regents, Dean Christopher Edley Jr. spoke in support of a long-term plan for increasing fees at all UC's professional schools, which include law, medicine, business and dentistry. The regents took no action and are not expected to consider raising fees until at least March. [See January 18, 2007 San Francisco Chronicle article.]

BUSH TEAM REVERSES COURSE ON WARRANTLESS SURVEILLANCE: Dan Eggen of the Washington Post reported that the Bush administration has agreed to disband a controversial warrantless surveillance program run by the National Security Agency, replacing it with a new effort that will be overseen by the secret court that governs spying in the United States. The change -- revealed by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in a letter Wednesday to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- marks an abrupt reversal by the administration, which for more than a year has aggressively defended the legality of the NSA surveillance program and disputed court authority to oversee it. Under the new plan, Gonzales said, the secret court that administers the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, will oversee eavesdropping on phone calls and e-mails to and from the United States when "there is probable cause to believe" that one of the targets is a member of al Qaeda or an associated terrorist group. Under the previous approach, such intercepts were authorized by intelligence officers without the involvement of any court or judge -- prompting objections from privacy advocates and many Democrats that the program was illegal. . [See January 18, 2007 San Francisco Chronicle article.]

ATTORNEY GENERAL ALBERTO GONZALES WARNS JUDGES NOT TO MEDDLE: On Wednesday January 17, 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales warned federal judges not to meddle in cases involving national security, following a string of judicial rebukes of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism initiatives. In a speech to the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, Gonzales said federal judges are not "equipped to make decisions about" actions the president takes in the name of preserving national security. "A judge will never be in the position to know what is in the national security interest of the country," Gonzales said. [See January 18, 2007 San Francisco Chronicle article.] [See transcript of the January 17, 2007 speech by Gonzales to the American Enterprise Institute].

RETURN TO TOP

- DECEMBER 2006 -

NEW CALIFORNIA LAWS: The new California laws taking effect January 1, 2007, include stiffer penalties for pet owners who endanger their animals, additional stickers for hybrid cars to access carpool lanes without restriction, a trip to the dentist for youngsters entering school, discount prescription drugs for poorer Californians, and a raise for the state's roughly 1.4 million minimum-wage earners. California's lowest wage earners will see their hourly pay go up by 75 cents to $7.50 starting Jan. 1. The minimum wage rate will get another 50-cent boost at the beginning of 2008. [See December 29, 2006 San Francisco Chronicle article for more details and a list of other new California laws.]

GAYS AND LESBIANS GAIN NEW RIGHTS AS 8 LAWS TAKE EFFECT: On the long list of new laws that will take effect January 1, 2007, are a bevy of measures that address California's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender residents. The eight laws, involving issues ranging from tax filings to court proceedings to protections from discrimination, will be the most pro-gay measures enacted at one time anywhere in the country, according to the California gay rights lobbying group that sponsored all of the bills. Also, with the enactment of a law to allow registered domestic partners to file joint state income-tax returns beginning in 2008, California domestic partners will have all the rights of marriage possible under state law. "The common thread through most of the new laws is the expansion of nondiscrimination protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people," said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, the state's leading lobbying group for gay and lesbian Californians. [See December 29, 2006 San Francisco Chronicle article.]

IS U.S. CURRENCY ILLEGAL?: The Treasury Department has until Tuesday December 12th to respond to a federal judge's ruling that would require the agency to reshape dollars to accommodate the nation's legally blind and an additional 2.3 million low-vision Americans. U.S. District Judge James Robertson agreed with lawyers from the advocacy group American Council of the Blind that the current universal shape for all bills -- 6.14 inches by 2.61 inches -- violates the federal Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination against the disabled. Yet former government officials and vending merchants say redesigning the 37 million currency bills printed each day would be an unduly expensive effort. They argue that the change would force the redesign of hundreds of everyday objects, such as ATMs, cash registers and wallets. The ruling also is opposed by a larger blind advocacy group, the National Federation of the Blind, which calls the American Council of the Blind's effort "dangerously misguided" in suggesting that blind people are incapable of identifying currency. [See December 10, 2006 San Francisco Chronicle article.]

LAWYERS DEBATE PUBLISHING OF NATIONAL SECRETS: A panel discussion on the topic of whistle-blowers, leaks of classified information and the news media was among the highlights at the ABA's 16th Annual Review of National Security Law in Washington. Jeffrey H. Smith spoke on the topic. His law firm of Arnold & Porter in Washington, D.C., has been retained by the American Newspaper Publishers Association to thwart any move by the Bush administration or Congress to make it a crime for newspapers and their publishers, editors and reporters to disclose state secrets in their news stories. In a recent ABA journal article, Geoffrey Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, wrote that, "For more than 215 years, the United States has flourished in the absence of any federal legislation directly prohibiting the press from publishing government secrets." [See December 5, 2006 San Francisco Chronicle article.] [Also see Prof. Stone's comments in a June 6, 2006 Los Angeles Times article.]

SCHOOL INTEGRATION BACK BEFORE U.S. SUPREME COURT: More than 50 years after the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed racial segregation in public schools, the justices are about to consider whether a school district can voluntarily integrate by considering race in campus assignments. In cases from Seattle and Louisville, Ky., to be argued Monday, December 4, 2006, the justices will address the question left unanswered by the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling in 1954: What can the government do when the last vestiges of state-sponsored segregation are erased and schools nevertheless remain racially isolated because of housing patterns, parental choice and perhaps societal discrimination? The cases before the Supreme Court are Parents Involved in Community Schools vs. Seattle School District, 05-908, and Meredith vs. Jefferson County Board of Education, 05-915. [See December 3, 2006 San Francisco Chronicle article.]

- NOVEMBER 2006 -

RENEWED EFFORTS TO CHARGE RUMSFELD WITH WAR CRIMES: Lawyers representing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib renewed their efforts to get a foreign prosecutor to charge Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with war crimes and torture. Since the post-World War II Nuremberg tribunals, it has been clear that "governments have the right to put on trials of (other nations') officials for international crimes,'' said Joel Paul, a professor of international law at UC Hastings College of the Law. [See November 14, 2006 San Francisco Chronicle article.]

SAN FRANCISCO RESTAURANT GROUP SUES OVER HEALTH PLAN: The Golden Gate Restaurant Association, a culinary trade group with more than 800 members in San Francisco, has filed a lawsuit against the city to block part of an ordinance that requires businesses with 20 or more employees to contribute to the cost of workers' health care. The ordinance is scheduled to take effect in July 2007 and is designed to provide health care coverage to the 82,000 uninsured San Francisco residents. [See November 14, 2006 report from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.] [See November 10, 2006 San Francisco Chronicle article.] [See San Francisco ordinance 0218-06 .pdf]

U.S. SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS CALIFORNIA DEATH PENALTY JURY INSTRUCTION: On Monday November 13th, the US Supreme Court upheld California's "catch-all" jury instruction for death penalty cases, ruling that the instructions provide adequate opportunity for jurors to weigh evidence that favors the defendant. In Ayers v. Belmontes (synopsis | opinion .pdf), the Court reinstated Belmontes' conviction for first degree murder in the killing of a 19 year old woman during a burglary. Belmontes had appealed his death penalty sentence, arguing that the jury instructions did not require the jury to consider all mitigating factors, including his probable future conduct in prison. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the sentence [opinion .pdf] and California prosecutors appealed to have his sentence reinstated.

THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL DIMENSIONS OF THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT: In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, (126 S.Ct. 2749 .pdf)the US Supreme Court held that the military commission prosecuting Salim Ahmed Hamdan, an alleged Al-Qaeda affiliate captured during the US invasion of Afghanistan, lacked power to proceed. The Court based its decision in part on its finding that the establishment of the commission and rules governing commission proceedings violated relevant provisions of US law. In so doing, the Court found the international law of armed conflict – including the standards of Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions – to be judicially cognizable in US courts, at least insofar as the Court construed it to be incorporated by reference in an Act of Congress. In the wake of this decision, the Office of the US Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum noting that “[t]he Supreme Court has determined that Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 applies as a matter of law to the conflict with Al Qaeda," and requesting Defense Department leadership to take steps to ensure compliance by all personnel. Shortly thereafter, the Bush Administration stated its intention to go to the US Congress to seek authorization to reconstitute the impugned commissions in light of the Court’s decision. Its efforts resulted in the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which was signed into law by President Bush on October 17, 2006 (Public Law 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600). Professor John P. Cerone from the New England School of Law discusses the international legal dimensions of that Act in his November 13, 2006, ASIL Insight article "The Military Commissions Act of 2006: Examining the Relationship between the International Law of Armed Conflict and US Law." [Also see wikipedia.org discussion of the Military Commissions Act.]

- OCTOBER 2006 -

THE BATTLE OVER SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN VARIOUS STATES: Hastings law professors Vikram Amar and Joseph Grodin weigh in on the separate-but-equal status for same-sex couples vs. the hurdle of label equality. A recent New Jersey Supreme Court ruling declared that same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual married couples, but they do not have a fundamental right to wed under New Jersey's Constitution. This case and the proposed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage under consideration in various states are discussed in an October 26, 2006, San Francisco Chronicle article.

THE PLAN TO ENFORCE THE LAW WITH A BIG FENCE: On October 26, 2006, President Bush signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-367) .pdf. The Act is designed to “establish operational control over the international land and maritime borders of the United States.” The Act calls for the Secretary of Homeland Security to take all actions he deems necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the U.S. including systematic surveillance, and physical infrastructure enhancements to “prevent unlawful entry by aliens” into the United States. He is to report to Congress annually on the progress made in obtaining and preserving operational control of the border of the United States. The Act amends the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to permit the installation of hundreds of miles of reinforced fencing and an interlocking surveillance camera system. It calls for a study to be conducted to examine the feasibility, necessity, and economic impact of implementing a state of the art infrastructure security system along the northern international land and maritime border of the United States, and for a report to be issued a year from the date of the signing of the Act containing the findings of the study.

SYNAGOGUE EXPANSION & THE RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT: In Tiburon, California, a passionate debate is in process regarding a controversial synagogue expansion proposal. Proponents insist this is a matter of religious freedom and are relying on the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), passed in 2000. Neighbors opposing the project suggest that the debate is not about stopping expression of religion, instead they simply say the project is too big. Professor Calvin Massey of the University of California's Hastings College of the Law suggests that RLUIPA places the burden on Tiburon to provide a compelling reason to deny the expansion. He included the prevention of traffic congestion and responding to neighborhood concerns as valid reasons. "All of those are legitimate," he said. "Are they compelling? All of this is a fuzzy business. It's certainly legitimate to cater to the case of the neighbors but I have my doubts it's sufficiently compelling." Prof. Massey suggested that there could be alternative ways the town could address concerns without denying the synagogue's permit. These include a smaller, shorter structure, more parking spaces and underground parking garage. Prof. Massey proposed another argument available to the town. "That this entire act is an unconstitutional establishment of religion in that its purpose and principle effect is to deliver favors to religion," he said. Massey noted the Supreme Court has yet to decide whether the land use portion of the act is constitutionally valid. [October 25, 2006, Marin Independent Journal article.]

WHY WOMEN LEAVE THE WORKFORCE: The Center for WorkLife Law—a research and advocacy group at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law—released a new report on Tuesday, October 17, 2006 showing the flaws in how newspapers typically cover why women leave the workforce. The report, "Opt Out" or Pushed Out?: How the Press Covers Work/Family Conflict – The Untold Story of Why Women Leave the Workforce .pdf, reviews more than 100 news articles and shows that they: 1) focus overwhelmingly on the lives of professional/managerial women, who comprise only about 8% of American women; 2) pinpoint the pull of family life as the main reason why women quit, whereas a recent study showed that 86% of women cite workplace pushes (such as inflexible jobs) as a key reason for their decision to leave; 3) give an unrealistic picture of how easy it will be for women to re-enter the workforce; and 4) virtually always feature women in one situation: after they leave the workforce and before they are divorced, which is unrealistic in a country with a 50% divorce rate.

- SEPTEMBER 2006 -

LAPTOPS IN THE CLASSROOM: In her article "Taking Notes Without a Computer: How Laptops Distract From Classroom Learning," FindLaw columnist and Rutgers law professor Sherry Colb discusses the issue of whether students should be able to use laptops in the classroom. With researchers finding high web-surfing rates, should Internet access be prohibited? What about note-taking via laptop, rather than via good old-fashioned pen and paper? [September 6, 2006, FindLaw article.]

SPYING AND THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT: In her article "The Further Dangers of Secrecy: A Federal District Court Interprets the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to Allow Spying on Those Who Are Neither Spies Nor Terrorists," FindLaw columnist Jennifer Van Bergen, a journalist with a law degree, discusses the recent ruling by a federal district court validating the use of the Foreign Surveillance Act (FISA) against two U.S. lobbyists. Van Bergen tracks the history of recent amendments to the relevant provision of FISA, and argues that it was inappropriate to try to fit the defendants within the definition of "an agent of a foreign power." [September 5, 2006, FindLaw article.]

- AUGUST 2006 -

LESS THAN 20% OF THE INCOMING U.S. SUPREME COURT LAW CLERKS ARE WOMEN: In his FindLaw article "This Year's New Supreme Court Clerks: Why Are Only Twenty Percent Women? The Question, and the Unfortunate Conversation It Caused," FindLaw columnist, attorney and author Edward Lazarus discusses a controversy recently noted in the New York Times and the popular Volokh Conspiracy legal blog, regarding the scarcity of women among the Supreme Court law clerks to serve for the coming Term. Lazarus notes and criticizes the Larry-Summers-like suggestion that there may just not be enough female "geniuses" to fill the clerking ranks, and explains why, in any case, intelligence is only one of many factors that leads to a particular candidate's getting a clerkship. [August 31, 2006, FindLaw article.]

NOW IT'S THE KENNEDY COURT: Duke University School of Law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky's analysis of the recently completed Supreme Court concludes that Justice Anthony Kennedy was the swing vote that decided the result and scope of the Court's opinions. [August 2006, California Bar Journal article.]

NEW ABA REPORT: A new report issued by the American Bar Association explores why so few women of color reach the highest ranks of law firms. The report, "Visible Invisibility: Women of Color in Law Firms," found that perceived discrimination was prompting minority women to abandon the nation's largest law firms. Among the statistics cited in the report, 44 percent of women of color said they were denied desirable assignments, versus 2 percent of white men. [August 6, 2006, San Francisco Chronicle article.]

NORTH CAROLINA LAUNCHES INNOCENCE COMMISSION: North Carolina prisoners who claim they were wrongly convicted now have a new way to petition their innocence. Legislation signed into law by Governor Mike Easley on August 3rd will create the nation's first Innocence Inquiry Commission. The commission will review innocence claims from people presenting new evidence not previously considered in court. If five or more commission members agree there is enough evidence of potential innocence, the case would be sent to a panel of three Superior Court judges. Overturning a conviction would require a unanimous decision by the three judges. [August 3, 2006, San Francisco Chronicle article.]

L.A. JURY FINDS MERCK NOT LIABLE: On August 2nd, a twelve-person jury cleared Vioxx manufacturer Merck of liability in a lawsuit brought by an elderly man who claimed his heart ailments were caused by the drug. Merck pulled Vioxx from the market in 2004 after a study found that it increased the risk of heart attacks. Although jurors agreed that there were potential risks for users taking Vioxx, they concluded that Vioxx was not the cause of the plaintiff's heart problems. [August 3, 2006, San Francisco Chronicle article.]

BLOGGER AND FREELANCE JOURNALIST JAILED FOR CONTEMPT: Josh Wolf, a freelance journalist and blogger was sent to federal prison on August 1st after refusing a grand jury's demand that he turn over videotapes of a 2005 anarchist demonstration in which protesters clashed with San Francisco police. Earlier this year, federal prosecutors subpoenaed Mr. Wolf to testify before the grand jury and turn over the videos. When Wolf refused to hand over the tapes, Federal District Court Judge William Alsup found him in contempt of court. While California has a so-called shield law meant to protect journalists and their sources, no such law exists at the federal level. [August 2, 2006, San Francisco Chronicle article.]

- JULY 2006 -

HOW THE LAW CHANGED THIS YEAR'S TOUR DE FRANCE: On July 3, 2006 former cycling trainer Freddy Sergant was sentenced to four years in jail in a trial centered on a doping ring that supplied a cocktail of amphetamines, cocaine and heroin to riders in France and Belgium. Sergant received the harshest of 23 sentences, with none of the defendants escaping punishment. The sentencing comes amid a scandal that threw the Tour de France into chaos on the eve of the race. Several top cyclists including Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich were not allowed to race this year because of evidence released from a police investigation in Spain. Confronted with a report on that investigation, which targeted a doctor in Spain, Ullrich and Basso's teams sent them home the day before the start of the Tour. Under the new cycling code of conduct, teams have agreed to bench riders implicated in doping scandals, but only if the allegations appear credible. [July 2, 2006, San Francisco Chronicle article.] [July 3, 2006 AP News.]

JUSTICE KENNEDY - THE SWING VOTE: Anthony Kennedy, a 69-year-old Californian about to begin his 20th year on the Supreme Court, stepped into the swing-vote role of the retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and proceeded to lay down the law for the court during the just completed 2005-06 term. He wrote several of the important decisions this past year and is expected to play a key role in the direction the court takes on major 2006-2007 cases involving the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, race as a factor in public school admissions, and California's sentencing law. [July 2, 2006, San Francisco Chronicle article.]

- JUNE 2006 -

SUPREME COURT BLOCKS BUSH ON TERROR TRIBUNALS: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 29th that suspected terrorists held abroad by the United States, including detainees at Guantanamo Bay, are protected by international law. This decision could serve to limit President Bush's assertion of wide-ranging wartime powers. The court ruled 5-3 on the final day of its 2005-06 term that Bush lacks the authority from Congress to order military tribunals for suspected terrorists held at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. Bush immediately said he would consider working with Congress to authorize the tribunals that he established on his own three years ago. Joel Paul, a professor of international law at UC Hastings analyzed the case stating that, "everybody in Guantanamo is entitled, at a minimum, to something that looks like a genuine judicial proceeding.'' In particular, Prof. Paul thinks the ruling should help prisoners who have been labeled enemy combatants by special military review panels at Guantanamo -- allowing their indefinite detention -- but have not been charged with crimes. Those prisoners have no legal representation at hearings to determine their combatant status and have little access to evidence and limited rights of appeal, restrictions that could be vulnerable under this decision. [June 30, 2006 San Francisco Chronicle article.]

HOWARD J. VOGEL - SERIAL PLAINTIFF: "When it came to investing, Howard J. Vogel seemed to possess a perverse kind of Midas touch. In early October 1997, he bought 50 shares of Oxford Health Plans. Three weeks later, the stock nose-dived, and Mr. Vogel lost about $3,000 of his investment. Still, Mr. Vogel reaped $1.1 million." "Mr. Vogel was a plaintiff in a shareholder lawsuit filed by the New York securities litigation powerhouse Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach against Oxford Health. In 2003, the company, along with other parties that were sued, paid $300 million to settle. Mr. Vogel, who has since moved to Florida, is a central figure in the government's case against Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, as the law firm is now called. Last month, a federal grand jury in Los Angeles indicted the firm and two of its name partners on several criminal charges, including racketeering conspiracy and money laundering. The firm is accused of making $11.3 million in illegal secret payments to Mr. Vogel and two others who served as plaintiffs in more than 150 lawsuits." [June 6, 2006, New York Times article.]

JUSTICES TAKE CASES ON RACE-BASED ENROLLMENT: The U.S. Supreme Court returned to the incendiary issue of race in public schools, agreeing to decide two cases that have the potential to affect student enrollment in every state except -- according to most legal analysts -- California. The justices granted review of appeals by white parents challenging programs in Seattle and Jefferson County, Ky., that take race into account to achieve or preserve desegregated schools. The cases, to be heard this fall, give the court's increasingly conservative majority a chance to narrow -- perhaps even overturn -- a 2003 ruling allowing limited use of race-based affirmative action in higher education. "Whichever way the Supreme Court goes, the most they're going to say is that using race a little bit was permissible under those circumstances. California under 209 has already said it's not going to do that,'' said UC Hastings law professor David Levine, who represented Chinese American parents in a lawsuit that eliminated use of race in San Francisco school admissions. Hastings professor Vikram Amar, who favors race-based affirmative action programs, agreed with Levine that Prop. 209 would stop any California public school from using race in enrollment, even if the Supreme Court allowed it nationally. [June 6, 2006, San Francisco Chronicle article.]

- MAY 2006 -

COURT RULES BLOGGERS CAN SHIELD SOURCES: In a decision that could set the tone for journalism in the digital age, a California appeals court ruled on May 26th that bloggers, like traditional reporters, have the right to keep their sources confidential. [May 27, 2006, San Francisco Chronicle article.]

ENRON'S EX-CHIEFS GUILTY IN FRAUD CASE: Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, the chief executives who guided Enron through its spectacular rise and even more stunning fall, were found guilty on May 25th of fraud and conspiracy. [May 26, 2006, New York Times article.]

THE PROBLEM OF HUNG JURIES -- AND HOW TO SOLVE IT: UC Hastings professor Ethan Leib analyzes the problem of hung juries. Currently, both acquittals and convictions must be unanimous -- in federal court and in forty-eight states. Prof. Leib suggests this isn't fair to the defendant because the defendant fails to get the benefit of a clear outcome that would allow repose, and he faces the risk of retrial, even if eleven jurors thought either that he was innocent, or that the government had failed to prove its case. Leib recommends that a supermajority be required to convict, and a mere majority be required to acquit. He argues these reforms would effectively abolish the hung jury. [May 12, 2006, FindLaw article.]

- APRIL 2006 -

BATTERED WOMEN LEFT IN ASYLUM LIMBO: In the unlikely event that the U.S. Congress reaches agreement on an immigration bill, it remains doubtful that legislators will include one of the simpler issues in this complex debate: granting asylum to battered women. Inter Press Service News Agency (IPS) reports on this critical failing of U.S. immigration policy, citing the example of Rodi Alvarado, whose immigration asylum case is being handled by Karen Musalo of the UC Hastings based Center for Gender and Refugee Studies (CGRS). [See the April 26, 2006 article.]

LANDMARK CASE UPHOLDING HASTINGS COLLEGE OF THE LAW'S POLICY PROHIBITING RECOGNIZED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS FROM DISCRIMINATING ON THE BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND RELIGION: On April 17, 2006, Judge Jeffrey S. White of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment for Hastings College of the Law in a case brought by the Christian Legal Society. The case was the first in the country definitively to reject claims by Christian student groups that public colleges and universities may be compelled to fund their activities and to allow them to use college facilities even though such groups admittedly discriminate in the selection of members and officers on the basis of religion and sexual orientation. [See the April 17, 2006 press release from Howard Rice.] [See the April 17, 2006, Order Granting Summary Judgment in Christian Legal Society v. Kane, No. C 04-04484 JSW.]

BASEBALL PLAYER CANNOT SUE OVER BEANBALL PITCH: On April 6, 2006, the California Supreme Court (Avila v. Citrus Community College Dist. .pdf) ruled that a baseball player who is hit in the head by a pitch has no grounds for a lawsuit because beanballs, even at the community college level, are part of the game. Schools can be sued for injuries suffered by students in organized athletics if the cause was an act or dangerous condition that exceeded the ordinary risks of a particular sport, the court said. But the justices, citing former players such as Sal "the barber" Maglie and Don Drysdale as experts, ruled 6-1 that getting hit by a pitch, even deliberately, is one of the inherent risks of baseball and that victims can't turn to the legal system for redress. [April 7, 2006, San Francisco Chronicle article.]

DA VINCI CODE PUBLISHERS WIN PLAGIARISM CASE: Dan Brown and publisher Random House Inc. won a lawsuit over allegations the author plagiarized the plot of his international bestseller The Da Vinci Code. Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, authors of the non-fiction The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, sued Random House in London for copyright infringement. Justice Peter Smith at the High Court in London rejected their case, saying there was no infringement of copyright law. [April 7, 2006, Bloomberg.com]

- MARCH 2006 -

HOW NOT TO CROSS-EXAMINE A WITNESS: Let it be a lesson to young lawyers everywhere --- be prepared before you cross examine a witness. Zacarias Moussaoui managed to identify himself as the unnamed terrorist who dreamed of flying a plane into the White House during a self-destructive cross-examination of another terror suspect shown in a videotaped deposition that was played at his Sept. 11 death-penalty sentencing trial. [Details of the cross examination can be read in this March 9, 2006, Newsday story.]

HIGH COURT LETS MILITARY RECRUIT AT LAW SCHOOLS: On March 6, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a college can be stripped of federal funding if its law school denies full access to military recruiters because it opposes the "don't ask, don't tell'' policy on gays and lesbians in the armed forces. [See March 7, 2006, San Francisco Chronicle article.]

STUDENTS WIN SUIT OVER UC FEE HIKES: A San Francisco judge ordered the University of California to pay more than $33.8 million to about 40,000 students who claimed their fees had been improperly raised, despite promises they would remain steady. Superior Court Judge James Warren ruled that the University of California had breached its contract with the students. [See March 7, 2006, San Francisco Chronicle article.]

- FEBRUARY 2006 -

THE REMOVAL OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION FROM THE INTERNET: UC Hastings reference librarian Susan Nevelow Mart discusses the bases of the public's right to government information and the types of such information that have been removed from federal government Web sites on the Internet. She considers whether the rationale given for such removals is appropriate, and suggests using the federal Freedom of Information Act in an innovative manner to return the information to the Internet. [See "Let the People Know the Facts: Can Government Information Removed From the Internet Be Reclaimed?", Law Library Journal, Winter 2006, Vol 98, No. 1.]

THE CONFIRMATION OF JUSTICE ALITO AND CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: UC Hastings professor Vikram David Amar reflects on the Supreme Court confirmation process after Roberts And Alito. Amar comments on what works - and what doesn't - in the process, and how the process can be improved. [See February 10, 2006, FindLaw article.]

JUSTICE ALITO'S QUICK START: In his first day at work, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was immediately confronted with emergency appeals in three death row cases. In his first month on the bench, Justice Alito will find himself involved in numerous important legal disputes covering topics such as the environment, evidence rules for accused killers, and Texas politics. [See February 1, 2006, AP article on FindLaw.]

- JANUARY 2006 -

JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO'S CONFIRMATION: On January 31, 2006, Samuel Alito was sworn in as the 110th justice of U.S. Supreme Court [See February 1, 2006 CNN article.]

ANALYSIS OF JUDGE ALITO'S TESTIMONY: Hastings professor Ethan Leib comments on Samuel Alito's testimony during his confirmation hearing. Prof. Leib notes that the biggest surprise of Judge Alito's confirmation hearing may be that it actually yielded some surprises. Leib says that Alito's candor has complicated the caricature of him held by many on both the left and the right. Leib analyzes three issues where Alito's testimony offered some unexpected twists. [See January 11, 2006, The New Republic article "Surprise Witness: Three Surprises from Alito's Testimony" Article Summary / Full-Text .pdf]

LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE WEST VIRGINIA MINE CATASTROPHE: Hastings professor Ethan Leib wrote the January 10, 2006, FindLaw article, "Is it a Tort When a Company Gives Bad News, Then Good News, Then Bad News? Why the West Virginia Miners' Families Can Probably Sue for Their Emotional Distress."

NEW CALIFORNIA LAWS FOR 2006: Here are some of the new California laws that went into effect January 1, 2006 --- Employment Laws --- Motor Vehicle Laws --- Business Laws, Regulations, and Court Decisions.

RETURN TO TOP

- DECEMBER 2005 -

IMPORTANT VICTORY FOR THE CENTER FOR GENDER AND REFUGEE STUDIES: Karen Musalo, Stephen Knight and their colleagues at the UC Hastings Center for Gender and Refugee Studies litigated, briefed and argued Abebe v. Gonzales, a very important genital mutilation asylum case. On December 30, 2005, the Ninth Circuit issued an en banc opinion deciding in favor of Mr. Sisay Mengistu and his wife, Ms. Almaz Abebe (together Petitioners). The Abebe decision is important procedurally as well as substantively. Not only does the Court recognize genital mutilation as a basis for asylum (and possibly derivative asylum for parents of a girl who would be subject to it), but on a more general level, the opinion allows such claims to be reviewed on appeal so long as the Immigration Judge decided the issue and the BIA has endorsed that decision. Because of its more general applicability, this procedural ruling portends to be every bit as influential as the substantive ruling. [See Abebe v. Gonzales, No. 02-72390, 06 C.D.O.S. 23; The Daily Journal did a nice front page story about the decision on January 3, 2006.]

HASTINGS APPOINTS NEW DEAN: The Hastings Board of Directors announced on Monday December 19, 2005, the appointment of Nell Jessup Newton as the new Chancellor and Dean of the law school. The new appointment takes effect on August 1, 2006, at which time Mary Kay Kane will step down after 13 years as Chancellor and Dean. [See Hastings announcement and 12/30/05 Connecticut Law Tribune article and 12/21/05 entry on PrawfsBlawg.]

HASTINGS GRADUATE NOMINATED TO CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger nominated San Francisco appellate judge Carol Corrigan to the California Supreme Court on Friday, deciding on a moderate Republican and former prosecutor to fill the post of conservative jurist Janice Rogers Brown. Justice Corrigan, a native of Stockton, got her law degree in 1975 from UC Hastings College of the Law. [See 12/9/2005 article on SFGate.]

NEW POLICY FOR DEATH PENALTY APPEALS IN CHINA: The Chinese government has announced that it will make court proceedings on death penalty appeals open to the public to "improve human rights protection." Starting January 1, 2006, the public will have access to death sentence cases involving "major controversy," and on July 1, 2006, the public will be allowed to attend all death sentence appeals. [See December 8, 2005, Jurist article.]

MILITARY RECRUITMENT IN LAW SCHOOLS: On December 6, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Rumsfeld v. FAIR regarding military recruitment in law schools. The question is whether the federal government can legally withhold public funding from universities if they refuse to give military recruiters the same access to on-campus recruiting as given to other employers. A coalition of law schools has argued that the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy conflicts with university non-discrimination policies; schools that require recruiters be non-discriminatory would have to make special accommodations for the military. [See case briefs and other background information at FindLaw and Georgetown University Law Center. Hear oral arguments at Oyez.]

- NOVEMBER 2005 -

WHO IS THE REAL ALITO?: UC Hastings Professor Vikram Amar's November 20, 2005, LA Times op-ed piece discusses Judge Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. Amar notes that Alito's 1985 application for a high-level Justice Department job not only offers a glimpse into his legal thinking, it also lays out the probable course of his confirmation hearings in January. Most revealing, it illuminates the nature of legal conservatism during the last few generations. [Link and discussion available at PrawfsBlawg]

NRA SUES TO BLOCK SAN FRANCISCO HANDGUN BAN: The National Rifle Association is asking a state judge to issue a restraining order preventing the city of San Francisco from implementing Proposition H. Voters passed the measure on Tuesday November 8, 2005, banning the possession, manufacture, distribution, sale, or transfer of handguns and ammunition. Plaintiff Larry Barsetti complains that the law "takes away our right of self-defense." Professor Ethan Leib with the Hastings College of the Law indicates that he thinks that the law would be challenged under the very same theory that it was challenged in 1982, with a very high likelihood that it will again be preempted. [See 11/10/2005 story at KRON4 website.]

- OCTOBER 2005 -

JUDGE SAMUEL A. ALITO NOMINATED AS SUPREME COURT JUSTICE : On October 31, 2005, President Bush nominated Judge Samuel Alito of the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals to fill the US Supreme Court seat left vacant by retiring justice Sandra Day O'Connor. [Full text of President Bush's and Judge Alito's remarks] [Alito's judicial resume from whitehouse.gov] [Notable opinions from SCOTUSblog] [Comments from Hastings law professor Vikram Amar from cbs5.com & nbc11.com] [Alito print and web bibliography compiled by the Library of Congress] [Alito's 1990 confirmation hearings (.pdf)] [FindLaw Profile]

LIBBY INDICTED ON CHARGES OF OBSTRUCTION, PERJURY, AND MAKING FALSE STATEMENT: Vice presidential adviser I. Lewis "Scooter' Libby Jr. was indicted on Friday October 28, 2005, on charges of obstruction of justice, making a false statement, and perjury, in the case investigating the leak of information about a CIA agent. The indictments stem from a two-year investigation by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald into whether Bush administration officials knowingly revealed the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame or lied about their involvement to investigators. The five-count indictment accuses Libby of lying about how and when he 1) learned about CIA official Valerie Plane's identity in 2003, and 2) shared this classified information with reporters. [The Office of Special Counsel's Oct. 28, 2005 News Release (.pdf)] [The Libby indictment (.pdf)]

HARRIET MIERS WITHDRAWS SUPREME COURT NOMINATION: In an October 27, 2005 letter (.pdf) to President Bush, Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to the Supreme Court, expressing concern that the confirmation process would present "a burden for the White House and our staff that is not in the best interest of the country." [See coverage at Jurist & thesmokinggun.com]

ANALYSIS OF THE MIERS SUPREME COURT NOMINATION: U.C. Hastings law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the controversy over the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination. He argues that Republicans who are worried that she will be another Souter -- a Republican nominee with moderate-to-liberal views -- can easily put their fears to rest. How? By insisting that Miers answer questions about her substantive views on major watershed Supreme Court precedents. Amar also argues that, in reality, these worries are probably overstated -- and worries that Miers lacks relevant competence and experience are probably overstated, too. [See "The Miers Nomination: Republican Senators Have the Power to Address Their Fears that She Won't Be Reliably Conservative" at FindLaw.com.]

HARRIET MIERS NOMINATED FOR SUPREME COURT: On October 3, 2005, President Bush nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as an Associate Justice on the US Supreme Court. [See coverage at Jurist]

- SEPTEMBER 2005 -

NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER MILLER TESTIFIES IN CIA LEAK INVESTIGATION: New York Times reporter Judith Miller testified before a grand jury Friday, ending her silence in the investigation into whether White House officials leaked the name of a covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame. Although Miller declined to identify her source, The New York Times identified him as Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. [See Sept. 30, 2005 articles at AP news & CNN.com]

JUDGE KARLTON'S RECENT RULING ON THE WORDS "ONE NATION UNDER GOD": On September 14, federal district court judge Lawrence Karlton struck down a school district's daily practice of inviting students to recite the modern version of the Pledge of Allegiance insofar as the Pledge contains the words "one nation under God." Hastings Professor Vikram Amar analyzes the Newdow case in light of recent Supreme Court guidance . [See Sept. 30, 2005 FindLaw article]

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN G. ROBERTS: John G. Roberts Jr. became the 17th chief justice of the United States by winning support from more than three-fourths of the Senate on Thursday September 29, 2005. The court's new term opens Monday October 3rd. [See coverage at C-SPAN & Jurist]

- AUGUST 2005 -

ANALYSIS OF THE ROBERTS NOMINATION: U.C. Hastings law professor Vikram David Amar argues that Judge Roberts's, and other Supreme Court nominees', confirmation hearings, questions about specific Court precedents ought to be fair game. Although the Senate has recently tended to stay away from -- and nominees have tended to parry -- such questions are, Amar argues, entirely proper. [See August 4, 2005 FindLaw article (part 1) & August 19, 2005 FindLaw article (part 2) & September 2, 2005 FindLaw article (part 3)]

- JULY 2005 -

JUDGE JOHN G. ROBERTS NOMINATED TO US SUPREME COURT: At a brief East Room ceremony on July 19, 2005, President Bush formally announced his nomination of U.S. DC Circuit Court of Appeals judge John Roberts to be an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court. [See coverage at C-SPAN, Jurist & Supreme Court Nominations Blog]

INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT SECRECY: The New York Times reported that government secrecy "has reached a historic high," and that "across the political spectrum there is concern that the hoarding of information could backfire." "Thomas H. Kean, chairman of the Sept. 11 commission and a former Republican governor of New Jersey, said the failure to prevent the 2001 attacks was rooted not in leaks of sensitive information but in the barriers to sharing information between agencies and with the public." [See "Increase in the Number of Documents Classified by the Government" by Scott Shane, New York Times, July 3, 2005.]

JUSTICE O'CONNOR RETIRING FROM US SUPREME COURT: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the U.S. Supreme Court, announced her retirement July 1, 2005. "This is to inform you of my decision to retire from my position as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, effective upon the nomination and confirmation of my successor," O'Connor, 75, said in a letter to President Bush. [See coverage at C-SPAN, Jurist & Supreme Court Nominations Blog]

- JUNE 2005 -

9TH CIRCUIT CASE INVOLVING THE CENTER FOR GENDER AND REFUGEE STUDIES: CGRS is currently involved in an important asylum case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; oral argument is scheduled for 11:00 on Tues. June 21, 2005. The case raises the question whether parents seeking to protect their child from female genital cutting (FGC) may be eligible for asylum. Abebe v. Gonzales involves an Ethiopian couple who fear that their U.S.-born daughter will be subjected to FGC, and that their efforts to resist the practice would result in their and their daughter's ostracism by their families and by Ethiopian society at large. The practice of FGC is nearly universal in Ethiopia, which has been referred to as the "lion's den" of genital cutting. The applicants first sought asylum based on Mr. Mengistu's long-standing political opposition to the repressive regime in Ethiopia. After their initial application for asylum, the couple gave birth to a daughter, and they raised their fear of FGC before the Immigration Judge. The judge denied both their genital cutting and political opinion claims, and the Board of Immigration Appeals rejected their appeal of that decision. Last year, the denial of asylum in their case was upheld by a panel of the Ninth Circuit, over a strong dissent by Judge Ferguson. Phil Hornik, the applicant's Portland, Oregon, based attorney, sought the assistance of the CGRS in seeking rehearing en banc, which the Ninth Circuit then granted. A new decision by the court will follow. The oral argument will be taped by C-SPAN.

MICHAEL JACKSON CLEARED OF ALL CHARGES: On Monday June 13, 2005, Michael Jackson was found not guilty of molesting a 13 year-old boy in 2003; he was acquitted on all ten charges including molestation, plying the boy with alcohol, conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment, and extortion. Jackson was represented by Thomas Arthur Mesereau Jr., a 1979 graduate from Hastings College of the Law. [See Michael Jackson trial coverage on FindLaw]

HASTINGS COLLEGE OF THE LAW DEAN TO STEP DOWN AFTER SPRING 2006 SEMESTER: Chancellor and Dean Mary Kay Kane plans to retire in June 2006 after 13 years as the Dean at Hastings College of the Law. Dean Kane, who has taught at Hastings since 1977, said she wants to write and travel during a one-year sabbatical, but isn't sure what she will do after that. Dean Kane got her law degree from the University of Michigan in 1971, and began teaching three years later at the State University of New York at Buffalo Law School. Dean Kane has also taught at the University of Michigan, University of Texas, and Boalt Hall School of Law at UC Berkeley. [See article in the June 6, 2005, San Francisco Daily Journal at page 1] [See article in the June 7, 2005, Recorder at page 12]

U.S. SUPREME COURT RULES MEDICINAL POT USERS MAY BE PROSECUTED: The Supreme Court ruled that state laws don't protect medicinal marijuana users from a federal ban on the drug. The decision is important given that 10 states currently have laws allowing the drug's use to treat various illnesses. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana. The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case involving two seriously ill California women who use marijuana. The court said the prosecution of pot users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional. (Gonzales v. Raich) [See June 6, 2005, AP News story] [See analysis by Michael C. Dorf, Professor of Law at Columbia University.]

- MAY 2005 -

THE PROPOSAL TO REAUTHORIZE AND EXPAND PARTS OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT: Professor Anita Ramasastry offers a critique of the PATRIOT Reauthorization Act (PAREA) -- which is currently being considered by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Ramasastry argues that the provisions being renewed trample on Fourth Amendment and privacy rights, and thus should not be made permanent, as PAREA would do, without substantial modification. She takes issue with the new PAREA provision that would add to the PATRIOT Act by expanding the government's power to secretly - and without getting a court's approval - demand people's private records, even though they aren't suspected of terrorist acts. [See May 31, 2005 FindLaw analysis by Anita Ramasastry, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Washington School of Law]

HASTINGS PROFESSOR "SUBSTANTIVELY DISAGREES" WITH ANALYSIS IN TORTURE MEMOS: While working for the Department of Justice after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, UC Berkeley law professor John Yoo helped write a series of legal memos redefining torture and advising President Bush that the Geneva Convention does not apply to members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) has demanded that Yoo and other civilian officials be held accountable for their part in what he called the "torture scandal" over treatment of Iraqi detainees by American soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Naomi Roht-Arriaza, a professor of law and international human rights at UC Hastings College of the Law, said she "substantively disagrees" with Yoo's analysis of the Geneva Convention. She also disagrees with a memo that he co-wrote redefining torture and reinterpreting laws against it. The memo argued that interrogation methods qualify as physical torture only if they inflict pain "of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure." "The reason why it was so upsetting to many of us was that what was presented as mainstream opinion [in Yoo's memos] was very far from mainstream opinion," Roht-Arriaza said. [See May 16, 2005 Los Angeles Times article]

LIBRARIAN'S BRUSH WITH FBI SHAPES HER VIEW OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT: Joan Airoldi, director of the library district in Whatcom County, Washington, stood up to the FBI (and won) after the agency demanded internal patron information. Airoldi told her story in an op-ed piece in the May 16, 2005 USA Today]

NEW LIMIT ON REVIEW OF ASYLUM CASES: Armen Matevosyan said he fled his native Armenia after being jailed and beaten for 30 days because he is a Pentecostal Christian. The immigration judge who heard his claim of political asylum decided Matevosyan was lying about his religious beliefs because he hadn't joined a church in Southern California and because he disagreed with the judge's view of the relevance of the Old Testament to his own faith. A federal appeals court in San Francisco overturned the judge's decision in November, saying it was based on speculation and personal opinion, and reinstated Matevosyan's asylum case. But the court might be barred from making such rulings in the future after President Bush signed a law narro