ACS Podcast

Hours before Justice Kennedy announced his retirement, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Janus v. AFSCME, overturning a 40-year-old precedent that had served as the bedrock of American labor law and demonstrating what Justice Kagan described in her dissent as “little regard for the usual principles of stare decisis.” What does this disregard for stare decisis mean as we evaluate President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee? Join ACS for a briefing that will provide an overview of the Janus decision, forecast what’s next for American workers, and place the decision in the larger context of what the decision may mean for other long-established precedents that Americans have come to rely upon, including Roe v. Wade.

As the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election continues, its critics have levied a number of constitutional claims against it that are highly disputed, increasing the likelihood that the Supreme Court will ultimately have to resolve such legal disagreements. Questions of executive power therefore must play a central role in the evaluation of the qualifications and suitability of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. On Thursday, July 12, 2018, the American Constitution Society held a briefing addressing the legality of the special counsel’s investigation, the constitutional scope of executive power, and how to thoroughly question the nominee’s views on these subjects.

Speakers:

Prof. Victoria Nourse, Georgetown Law

Prof. Neil Kinkopf, Georgia State Law

Debra Perlin, American Constitution Society

On July 10, ACS hosted a discussion of the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

With this nomination, just about every issue we care about is at stake – reproductive freedom, access to health care, immigration, voting rights, workers' rights, LGBTQ rights, environmental protections – to name a few. Kavanaugh's nomination has the potential to shift the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence for at least a generation. As the real debate begins, we must demand a transparent nominations process so that the public can fully assess the nominee, and Senators can carry out their constitutional role to advise and consent.

Featuring:

Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, Berkeley Law

Jill Dash, ACS Vice President of Strategic Engagement

Caroline Fredrickson, ACS President

Michele Goodwin, Chancellor’s Professor at the University of California, Irvine

Ricki Seidman, Senior Principal at TSD Communications

On June 18th, the Supreme Court released two decisions—Gill v. Whitford and Benisek v. Lamone—that focused on partisan gerrymandering. A third decision on another redistricting case—Abbott v. Perez—is still pending and is expected to come down any day. Although the Court did not reach the merits in either Gill or Benisek, the justices did provide some insight as to how a claim on partisan gerrymandering could be framed in order to be successful. And although it was not the result that many had hoped for, the Court’s decisions leave an opportunity for future challenges. Please join ACS for a webinar that will provide an overview of these decisions, the status of redistricting, and the larger legal context in the redistricting battle.

Moderator: Jenni Katzman, Director of Policy and Program, American Constitution Society

Speakers: Paul Smith, Vice President, Litigation and Strategy, The Campaign Legal Center

Michael Li, Senior Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice

As many of us know, a Supreme Court vacancy could arise at any moment. We know from the right’s singular focus on packing the lower courts with ideological judges, many of whom are on this Administration’s Supreme Court short list, that the goal is to shift the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence for a generation, with a particular eye on overturning Roe, Obergefell, and numerous other decisions that recognize important rights that we should not take for granted.

Featuring:

Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, University of California, Berkeley School of Law and Member, ACS National Board of Directors

Caroline Fredrickson, President, American Constitution Society (moderator)

Pamela S. Karlan, Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law; Co-director, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, Stanford Law School and Chair, ACS National Board of Directors

Melissa Murray, Alexander F. and May T. Morrison Professor of Law; Faculty Director, Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice, University of California, Berkeley School of Law and Member, ACS National Board of Directors

On the 64th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, the New Jersey Coalition for Diverse and Inclusive Schools filed suit to integrate New Jersey schools and fix the state’s segregated education system, ranked the 6th most segregated in the country.

Join the ACS to learn about the groundbreaking case and policies that drive longstanding discrimination. Speakers will discuss New Jersey’s history leading the way in civil rights, with landmark decisions that promote residential integration and ensure fair funding for poor urban schools. The webinar will address proposed remedies to integrate schools.

For more information on the suit brought in New Jersey and efforts to desegregate schools, visit inclusiveschoolsnj.org.

Speakers:

Hon. Gary Saul Stein, former Associate Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court

Elise Boddie, ACS Board Member and Professor of Law, Rutgers University

Caroline Fredrickson, ACS President (moderator)

On Thursday, July 21, 2016, the American Constitution Society hosted a conference call with Theodore M. Shaw, Julius L. Chambers Distinguished Professor of Law and director of the Center for Civil Rights at the University of North Carolina School of Law at Chapel Hill. Shaw responded to recent injustices and discussed the current racial climate in America.

On Thursday August 11, 2016, ACS hosted a conference call discussing the ways in which forced arbitration clauses prevent consumers from vindicating their rights and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's comment period, which will influence its final regulations. Karla Gilbride, Cartwright-Baron Staff Attorney, Public Justice and Jean Sternlight, Michael and Sonja Saltman Professor of Law, UNLV William S. Boyd School of Law, join the call to help further explore the regulation's consequences.

On Tuesday, Dec. 13, two of the nation’s top constitutional law scholars released an open letter to Donald Trump signed by over 40 leading constitutional law scholars. The letter outlines seven areas of “great concern” that several constitutional scholars have with the next president. Neil Siegel, David W. Ichel Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science, co-director of the Program in Public Law, director of the DC Summer Institute on Law and Policy at Duke University School of Law and ACS Board of Academic Advisors member explained the need for the letter. Pamela Karlan, Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law, co-director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School and ACS Board Member discussed the substance of the letter and explained what constitutional scholars expect out of the next administration.

On Dec. 19 ACS hosted a phone call lead by two leaders in constitutional scholarship, William E. Forbath, associate dean for research and Lloyd M. Bentsen Chair in Law at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law and Richard W. Painter, S. Walter Richey Professor of Corporate Law at the University of Minnesota Law School; associate counsel to President George W. Bush, to discuss the implications of electing an international business tycoon as president of the United States, a President-elect who is assembling what could be the richest administration in history. Professors Forbath and Painter considered the following questions: What conflicts of interest will President-elect Trump likely have when he is sworn into office next month? Will he be in violation of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause or other laws and ethical rules? And what do his recent cabinet picks means for our democracy? Are we headed for plutocracy?