In Season 3, Episode 5 of Notorious, we continue to discuss the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment – from Justice Marshall’s viewpoint, as well as Justice Ginsburg’s viewpoint.  This topic is broken up into two episodes, with Episode 5 focusing mostly on Justice Ginsburg’s views and how those views intersect with those of Justice Marshall.

Patterson Belknap attorneys Michelle Bufano, Greg Baker and Catherine Djang discuss the history of the death penalty, as well as the cases of Gregg v. Georgia and Glossip v. Gross, and the impact of their legal legacy on future capital punishment jurisprudence.

Related Resources:

For a selection of Justice Ginsburg’s writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider.

For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see  www.pbwt.com.

For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano.

For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson.

Related People:

Michelle Bufano

Greg Baker

Catherine Djang

Catherine Djang

 

In Season 3, Episode 4 of Notorious, we discuss the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment – from  Justice Marshall’s viewpoint, as well as Justice Ginsburg’s viewpoint.  This topic is broken up into two episodes, with Episode 4 focusing mostly on Justice Marshall’s views and historical context.

Patterson Belknap attorneys Michelle Bufano, Greg Baker and Catherine Djang discuss the history of the death penalty, as well as the cases of Gregg v. Georgia and Glossip v. Gross, and the impact of their legal legacy on future capital punishment jurisprudence.

Related Resources:

For a selection of Justice Ginsburg’s writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider.

For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see  www.pbwt.com.

For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano.

For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson.

Related People:

Michelle Bufano

Greg Baker

Catherine Djang

In Season 3, Episode 3 of Notorious, we discuss campaign finance, from legal viewpoints of Justices Ginsburg and Marshall. Among the issues discussed are what it means to participate in a fair and free election and the intersection between money and its impact on free speech during a political campaign. 

Guests will include Patterson Belknap Partner Alejandro H. Cruz and Patterson Belknap Associates Greg Margolis and Bonita L. Robinson.

Related Resources:

For a selection of Justice Ginsburg’s writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider.

For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see www.pbwt.com.

For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano.

For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson.

Also, check out the Patterson Belknap podcast, How to Build A Nation in 15 Weeks.

Related People:

Michelle M. Bufano

Alejandro H. Cruz

Greg Margolis

Bonita L. Robinson

In Season 3, Episode 2 of Notorious, we discuss the First Amendment and how it was addressed by Justice Ginsburg and Justice Marshall. Specifically, this episode will cover Justice Ginsburg’s and Justice Marshall’s jurisprudence concerning the religious clauses of the First Amendment, including the Establish Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Guests will include Patterson Belknap Partner Michelle Bufano; Patterson Belknap Counsel Jacqueline Bonneau; and Patterson Belknap Associates Greg Margolis and Bonita Robinson.

Related Resources:

For a selection of Justice Ginsburg’s writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider.

For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see www.pbwt.com.

For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano.

For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson.

Also, check out the Patterson Belknap podcast, How to Build A Nation in 15 Weeks.

Related People:

Michelle Bufano

Jacqueline L. Bonneau

Greg Margolis

Bonita L. Robinson

In Season 3, Episode 1 of Notorious, we discuss Justice Thurgood Marshall’s and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s contributions to the Civil Rights Movement, and parallels and differences between their legal and judicial strategies. Guests will include Judge Joseph A. Greenway Jr., who currently sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and previously sat on the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; Gregory L. Diskant, Patterson Belknap Of Counsel and former judicial clerk to Justice Marshall; Patterson Belknap Partner Michelle M. Bufano; and Patterson Belknap Associate Mariana Múnera-Keating.

Related Resources:

For a selection of Justice Ginsburg’s writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider.

For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see www.pbwt.com.

For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano.

For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson.

Also, check out the Patterson Belknap podcast, How to Build A Nation in 15 Weeks.

Related People:

Michelle Bufano

Gregory L. Diskant

Mariana Múnera-Keating

Featuring guest speakers, Corey Brettschneider, a professor at Brown University and editor of Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Selection, and Joshua Block, Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Project.

In Season 2, Episode 6 of Notorious, we discuss the 2020-2021 Supreme Court Term and look back at specific cases and instances where Justice Ginsburg’s influence is still alive and well. Specifically, we discuss the cases, FDA v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System, Tanzin v. Tanvir, and Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

Corey Brettschneider, a professor at Brown University and editor of Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Selection,: Joshua Block, Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Project; and Patterson Belknap Partner Michelle Bufano discuss Justice Ginsburg’s influence and legacy on the Supreme Court.

Related Resources:

For a selection of Justice Ginsburg’s writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider.

For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see www.pbwt.com.

For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano.

For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson.

Also, check out the Patterson Belknap podcast, How to Build A Nation in 15 Weeks.

Related People:

Michelle Bufano

In Season 2, Episode 5 of Notorious, we discuss the case of Ricci v. DeStefano, which involved the question of whether the city of New Haven, Connecticut violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when it rejected the results of a civil service exam given to firefighters. The results of the exam showed that white candidates had out-performed minority candidates and the question was raised as to whether the exam was discriminatory.

The Supreme Court held 5–4 that New Haven's decision to ignore the test results violated Title VII because the city did not have a "strong basis in evidence" that it would have subjected itself to disparate impact liability. Because the plaintiffs won under their Title VII claim, the Court did not consider the plaintiffs' Equal Protection Clause argument. The majority opinion was written by Justice Kennedy, joined by Justice Scalia, Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito.

Justice Ginsburg issued a dissent in this case, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Breyer.  Justice Ginsburg opined: 

This case presents an unfortunate situation, one New Haven might well have avoided had it utilized a better selection process in the first place. But what this case does not present is race-based discrimination in violation of Title VII. I dissent from the Court's judgment, which rests on the false premise that respondents showed "a significant statistical disparity," but "nothing more."

Patterson Belknap attorneys Michelle Bufano, Catherine A. Williams, and Leigh E. Barnwell discuss Justice Ginsburg’s impact on this case.

Related Resources:

For a selection of Justice Ginsburg’s writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider.

For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see www.pbwt.com.

For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano.

For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson.

Also, check out the Patterson Belknap podcast, How to Build A Nation in 15 Weeks.

Related People:

Michelle Bufano

Catherine A. Williams

Leigh E. Barnwell

In Season 2, Episode 4 of Notorious, we discuss the case of Adarand Construction v. Pena, which involved whether a federal statute, which provided for favor treatment to a suspect class to remedy past discrimination, violated the Equal Protection Clause as embodied in the Fifth Amendment.

In this case, Adarand, a contractor specializing in highway guard rail work, submitted the lowest bid as a subcontractor for part of a project funded by the United States Department of Transportation. Under the terms of the contract, the prime contractor would receive additional compensation if it hired small businesses controlled by “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.” Gonzalez Construction Company was awarded the work as they were certified as a minority business and Adarand was not. The primary contractor would have accepted Adarand’s bid had it not been for the additional payment it received for hiring Gonzalez. 

Justice O’Connor, writing for the majority, held that racial classifications, imposed by the federal government, must be analyzed under a standard of "strict scrutiny." Strict scrutiny is the most stringent level of judicial review for claims of Equal Protection Clause violations and requires that racial classifications be narrowly tailored to further compelling governmental interests.

Interestingly, there were six different opinions issued in this case, including the majority opinion.  Justice Ginsburg issued a dissent, in which she once again proved herself to be a consensus builder: “I write separately to underscore not the differences the several opinions in this case display, but the considerable field of agreement--the common understandings and concerns--revealed in opinions that together speak for a majority of the Court.”

Patterson Belknap attorneys Michelle Bufano, Melissa Ginsberg, and George Soussou discuss Justice Ginsburg’s impact on this case.

Related Resources:

For a selection of Justice Ginsburg’s writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider.

For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see www.pbwt.com.

For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano.

For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson.

Also, check out the Patterson Belknap podcast, How to Build A Nation in 15 Weeks.

Related People:

Michelle Bufano

Melissa Ginsberg

George Soussou

In Season 2, Episode 3 of Notorious, we discuss the case of Grutter v. Bollinger, which involved the question of whether a law school admissions policy that considered race as a factor in admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The 5-4 majority opinion decided that the law school’s admission policy complied with the Equal Protection Clause and was written by Justice O’Connor and joined in whole by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Stevens, and Justice Breyer. The Court found that the law school’s stated interest that it wanted to maintain diversity of its student body was a compelling government interest and that compelling interest withstood strict scrutiny by the Court.

Justice Ginsburg filed a concurrence, joined by Justice Breyer, agreeing in the judgment and in the overall opinion, but elaborating on Justice O’Connor’s point in reference to the timeline she expected universities and other institutions to maintain race as one of the considerations that go into the admissions process. 

Patterson Belknap attorneys Michelle Bufano, Alejandro Cruz, and Amir Badat discuss Justice Ginsburg’s impact on this case.

Related Resources:

For a selection of Justice Ginsburg’s writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider.

For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see www.pbwt.com.

For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano.

For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson.

Also, check out the Patterson Belknap podcast, How to Build A Nation in 15 Weeks.

Related People:

Michelle Bufano

Alejandro Cruz

Amir Badat

Featuring guest speaker, Mai Ratakonda of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

In Season 2, Episode 2 of Notorious, we discuss the case of Gonzales v. Carhart, which involved the Supreme Court’s consideration of the constitutionality of The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (“the Act”). In 2003, Congress passed and President Bush signed the Act into law. Dr. LeRoy Carhart and other physicians, who performed late term abortions, sued to stop the Act from going into effect. A federal district court agreed and ruled the Act unconstitutional. The government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which upheld the lower court’s ruling.

The question ultimately presented to the Supreme Court was whether the Act was an unconstitutional violation of the personal liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment because the Act lacked an exception for partial birth abortion necessary to protect mothers. In a 5-4 ruling, the majority ruled that there was no undue burden because there are other types of abortions that one could get in their second trimester.

Justice Ginsburg wrote the dissent, joined by Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Breyer. The dissent criticized the majority for failing to follow precedent in this case. Specifically, Justice Ginsburg noted “Retreating from prior rulings that abortion restrictions cannot be imposed absent an exception safeguarding a woman's health, the Court upholds an Act that surely would not survive under the close scrutiny that previously attended state decreed limitations on a woman's reproductive choices.”

Mai Ratakonda of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, joined by Patterson Belknap attorneys Michelle Bufano and Patricia Kim discuss Justice Ginsburg’s impact on this case.

Related Resources:

For a selection of Justice Ginsburg’s writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider.

For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see  www.pbwt.com.

For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano.

For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson.

Also, check out the Patterson Belknap podcast, How to Build A Nation in 15 Weeks.

Related People:

Michelle Bufano

Patricia Kim