Archive for March 2010
Section 1983 Supreme Court Decisions–2009: A Video Presentation
Introduction
In December, 2009, I spoke to the New Mexico Defense Lawyers Association about the very important Supreme Court section 1983 decisions handed down in 2009. This presentation was videotaped professionally and I am posting it here. Each of these decisions was previously the subject of separate written posts.
Cases Included
1. Haywood v. Drown, 129 S. Ct. 2108 (2009)(state court jurisdiction over section 1983 claims)
2. Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, 129 S. Ct. 788 (2009)(Title IX and preemption of section 1983 equal protection claims)
3. Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S. Ct. 808 (2009)(qualified immunity “order of battle” revisited)
4. Van De Kamp v. Goldstein, 129 S. Ct. 855 (2009)(absolute immunity of supervisory prosecutors)
5. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009)(pleading and supervisory liability)
My presentation also includes discussion of another prosecutorial immunity case, Pottawattamie County v. McGhee, 547 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2008), cert. granted, 129 S. Ct. 2002 (2009), dismissed, 129 S. Ct. — (2010), as well as of supervisory liability after Iqbal.
video link (Requires Real Player)
Real Player is free – download it here for PCs or here for Macs
Supreme Court Decisions, 2007-2008: A Video Presentation
Introduction
In February 2009, I spoke at Chicago-Kent to our law students and others about important decisions handed down in the Supreme Court’s 2007 Term (October 2007–June 2008), and also addressed several pending, and since decided, cases in the 2008 Term which ended in June 2009.
As an experiment, I’m putting the video of this presentation on my blog in the hope that some of you might find it of interest. Please let me know through your comments or via email (snahmod@kentlaw.edu) what you think.
The video link appears below (the video is slightly choppy but it still works just fine and the audio is good).
Coverage of Presentation
The presentation includes the following:
United States v. Williams, 128 S. Ct. 1830 (2008)(child pornography)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008)(Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense in the home)
Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 128 S. Ct. 2146 (2008)(public employment and class-of-one Equal Protection claims)
Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 128 S. Ct. 1610 (2008)(requiring voters to show government-issued photo)
Medellin v. Texas, 128 S. Ct. 1346 (2008)(state criminal procedure, treaties and consular notification)
Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S. Ct. 2229 (2008)(habeas corpus and the war against terrorism)
Pleasant Grove v. Summum (description and assessment of difficult government speech, public forum and Establishment Clause issues before decision handed down subsequently at 129 S. Ct. 1125 (2009))
video link (Requires Real Player)
Real Player is free – download it here for PCs or here for Macs
From Buckley to Citizens United (Part Two of Two)
Introduction
This is the second of two posts on the Supreme Court‘s controversial decision dealing with corporate expenditures and campaign finance reform in Citizens United v. FEC, No. 08-205 (1-21-10). The immediately preceding post, which should be consulted, sets out the relevant case law, from Buckley to Wisconsin Right to Life, leading up to that decision. This post comments on Citizens United.
The thoughtful comments of my colleague, Steve Heyman, on Citizens United are accessible through the following link: http://blogs.kentlaw.edu/faculty/2010/03/the-public-vs-the-supreme-court-a-comment-on-the-citizens-united-case.html
Citizens United: The Decision.
All of this finally brings us to Citizens United. Here, the Court, after oral argument, decided not to deal with the narrow question of the constitutionality of BCRA’s application to a not for profit’s documentary about Hillary Clinton that it wanted to make available through video on demand within 30 days of primary elections for President (an “electioneering communication” under BCRA). Instead, the Court ordered reargument, asking the parties to address and argue the broader issue of the facial validity of BCRA with regard to profit and not for profit corporations and labor unions. This latter issue was not really raised by the parties.
The Court ultimately found the electioneering communications provisions unconstitutional, and more. In the course of a 57 page opinion by Justice Kennedy, Austin and McConnell (in part) were overruled. Applying strict scrutiny, the Court determined that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as individuals. According to the Court, corporations could make unlimited independent expenditures for candidates for federal office from their general treasury funds; there was no constitutional need to create PACs.
The Court reached this conclusion for the following reasons:
1. It was only in 1947, in the Labor Management Relations Act, that Congress prohibited independent expenditures by corporations and labor unions.
2. Buckley did not address the issue of corporate campaign expenditures.
3. The rationale of Bellotti was clear and covered this case directly.
4. Austin, a 1990 decision, was the first case that allowed the imposition of a direct restriction on independent corporate expenditures for political speech. Thus, there was a conflict between the pre-Austin and post-Austin line of cases.
5. The anti-distortion, anti-corruption and shareholder protection rationales relied on in Austin did not justify restrictions on corporate speech for political purposes. Political speech may not be limited based on a speaker’s wealth, and no meaningful distinction between media corporations and others existed. Also, independent corporate expenditures don’t give rise to concerns with quid quo pro corruption and the appearance of corruption. Finally, the shareholder protection rationale also applied to media corporations and this proved too much under the First Amendment.
6. Stare decisis was not controlling here: Austin had been undermined by experience (evasion) and rapid changes in technology, and there also were no serious reliance interests.
Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor, dissented in a 90 page opinion, disagreeing with the Court in virtually every respect.
Observations Read the rest of this entry »
Nahmod Law 