By Spencer Dirrig On March 6, 2017, President Donald Trump signed an “Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States,” as it is named by the White House. This is a revised version of a previous executive order that was deemed unconstitutional by a unanimous decision of the 9th Circuit Appeals Court on February 9. According to CNN, the original “unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel means that citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries will continue to be able to travel to the US, despite Trump's executive order last month.” The situation caused widespread panic and confusion on all levels of the domestic government and prompted protests in dozens of airports around the nation. Despite the opinion of the Court of Appeals, the Trump administration claimed before and now with the new order that, according to Forbes, “The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 gives the President authority to suspend entry of ‘any class of aliens’ he deems appropriate, ‘by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary.’” The White House believes that this act gives the president the authority to control immigration as he deems fit. However, the 9th Circuit disagreed with the wide-ranging authority that the White House evoked by citing the 1952 law. The Court ruled in their decision that while “the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies... the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination." The legal argument presented by the White House was simply inadequate to justify the burden placed on the public interest. The opinion stated that "the government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.” After the opinion was released on February 9, the President tweeted a response, saying “SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!” Perhaps he was unaware of the irony of telling three Appeals Court judges that he would “see them in court”... again. The White House decided that, rather than appeal the decision, they would simply present a new, slightly less severe executive order. The order essentially maintained the same goal of barring people from Muslim-majority countries (or as the president calls them, “terrorists”) from entering the United States. Within 10 days of the new executive order being signed, judges in Hawaii and Maryland had already enacted temporary stays on a number of the provisions in the law. As Forbes explains, “The conflict illustrates the deep divide among judges over whether states and U.S. citizens can mount constitutional challenges to presidential orders affecting the rights of non-citizens outside U.S. borders. The states and citizen plaintiffs say yes: Like any law or executive action, the president's immigration policies are subject to judicial review, especially when they have collateral effects within the U.S. But the Ninth Circuit dissenters argue that when it comes to immigration policy, Congress has given the executive branch broad authority to decide who gets to enter this country and who stays out.” Both judges in Maryland and Hawaii ruled that the executive order, in some manner, violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution that prohibits religious discrimination. Additionally, the U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii ruled that the order exceeded the Constitutional right of the president by directly impeding on the rights of people in the United States and abroad. As the administration prepares to challenge these opinions, it is clear that the relationship between the Trump White House and the judicial system, especially concerning immigration control, will continue to see conflict going forward. The question is: will it stop him? Works Cited
Fisher, Daniel. "As Judges Block Trump's Immigration Order, Ninth Circuit Dissenters Rebel." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 16 Mar. 2017. Web. 27 Mar. 2017. De Voguex, Ariane, and Laura Jarrett. "Trump Furious after Court Upholds Block on Travel Ban." CNN. Cable News Network, 10 Feb. 2017. Web. 27 Mar. 2017. Trump, Donald. "Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States." The White House. The United States Government, 06 Mar. 2017. Web. 27 Mar. 2017.
0 Comments
By Samuel Huryn It’s every law (or prospective law) student’s favorite time of the year: not spring break, but the releasing of new law school rankings. Law school admissions consulting group Spivey Consulting released the list, leaking it ahead of official publication. According to Above the Law, this list features “some key changes at the top — with the top 14 schools changing for the first time since the inception of the rankings”, with Georgetown falling out of the prestigious Top 14, Berkeley falling out of the top 10, and UT Austin breaking into the Top 14. The entire list, which will undoubtedly have ramifications for employers, students, and universities, can be found here.
Additionally, the National Law Journal released a list that ranked “the top 50 law schools according to the percentage of their 2016 juris doctors who took associate jobs at the largest 100 firms” earlier this month. Columbia Law School and University of Chicago College of Law ranked first and second, respectively. Obviously this is not as conclusive a list as the overall law school rankings, nor is it intended to be, but it does offer a different viewpoint from the overall rankings. The National Law Journal list may be useful for those individuals who are targeting positions in larger law firms. That being said, it is essentially a reshuffling of the top spots in a slightly different order. Interview with Dianna Howie, the Pro Bono Coordinator at the Legal Aid Society for Columbus3/20/2017 by: Casey Aguinaga Dianna Howie is the Pro Bono Coordinator at the Legal Aid Society of Columbus. She engages the Columbus community by overseeing and providing assistance with cases where individuals cannot afford traditional legal representation.
Q: At what point in your academic or professional career did you know that you wanted to do pro bono work? A: I started off as a journalism major and realized that I wanted to be more involved in trying to solve issues as opposed to just reporting on them. I was deciding between social work and public interest law when about halfway through college I decided to go into public interest law. Q: What past experiences led you to your current job? A: During law school I did a lot of public interest oriented activities. I volunteered for a program called the Youth Empowerment Program that works with homeless youth and engages them in policy change. I also volunteered for Legal Aid as a student and for other nonprofits. The experiences that I had as a student and where I donated my time really framed what I wanted to do with my career and enabled me to make connections with those programs so that I could get employed by them. My first job out of law school was a fellowship with one of the nonprofits that I had worked with as a clerk. Because they had worked with me, they felt comfortable applying for a fellowship with me so that I could be funded and work with their program for two more years. Q: What does a typical day look like at your job? A: I manage the pro bono program generally, which is basically the volunteer component of our program. We are a nonprofit law firm that provides civil legal aid to people who are low income in our community. We have staff attorneys who are paid to work and represent clients full time. We also have a lot of attorneys from the community who donate their time. So for example, when a client calls our office and they want help with their eviction, bankruptcy, or divorce, instead of having a legal aid attorney take their case we might refer them to a pro bono attorney out in the community. We also have brief advice clinics, which are events all around the community throughout the month where a low-income person can show up and receive brief information, potentially a referral, or even some helpful guidance on their legal issues so that they can navigate it more seamlessly or better than they would have if they were totally on their own. In overseeing all of this, my average day is made up of a lot of little projects. I plan trainings for our pro bono attorneys so that they can feel more comfortable donating their time. They come from all different areas of practice so they sometimes need some guidance on how they can provide their service. I also field pro bono attorney questions if they are in the middle of a case, and I do recruitment presentations at law firms and bar association meetings to talk about the legal aid program and volunteer opportunities. Along with this, I interview law students, undergraduates, and attorneys who are interested in volunteering so that I can make sure that they have everything that they need and that they understand the program. And finally, I help conduct referrals to pro bono attorneys, where I screen cases, and place cases with volunteer lawyers. Q: How does LASC make themselves accessible to individuals who may not have access to the internet and engage in community outreach? A: I have been in legal aid about 13 years, and more and more of our client population has access to the internet or to smart phones. That is a bit of an evolution that I have seen, so there is not a huge issue with internet accessibility. In terms of community outreach, we work a lot with community partners. This could be advocacy organizations, social workers, homeless shelters, the VA, and other entities that have direct contact with our client population. We make sure that they have up to date information about what we do, informational brochures, and our fliers. We also do presentations for caseworkers which is an efficient way of getting the word out. For example, at homeless shelters there is typically a large turnover because the goal is for individuals to transition back into housing. So, if we were to do a presentation for all of the homeless residents it would be a constant presentation. Whereas if we can train the caseworker, they can relay that information individually when they meet with residents. We are also included on the summons for certain types of cases in court. So for example if you are facing an eviction, you will get a court summons that tells you when you have to go to court for your eviction hearing. Along with this, we just started a project at eviction court where we are physically located at the court every single morning outside of the courtroom where people go for their evictions. If clients are interested in getting services, they can access us right on the spot. Q: What are the most common legal issues facing Columbus residents? A: Right now, we are seeing a lot of housing condition issues. For example, we are seeing low income renters who are living in substandard housing that their landlords are responsible for keeping up but are not. So there are a lot of code violations, such as the landlord might not have paid a utility bill that they were responsible for. Something that is unique to Columbus is our eviction rate. We have a pretty extraordinary number of eviction filings if you look at the size of our population and the number of people who are renting. We have a disproportionately high rate. This is part of the reason why we have started our new project and will be at eviction court each day. Q: Do you anticipate a change in the type of legal aid that is sought out because of potential policy changes introduced by the new White House administration? A: As a program, we are expecting that there could be Medicaid-related challenges because of likely changes to who qualifies for Medicaid in our community. We are keeping an eye on that and making sure that we are communicating regularly with our community partners and other stakeholders. We also anticipate that there will be challenges with general eligibility for programs for immigrants, regardless of their category. We are keeping an eye on this so as to communicate accurately what the policies are for our client community so that there is not confusion. But also, when it comes down to it, we are advocating for our client population when there are changes. We are not allowed to lobby without invitation because of our receipt of federal funding, so there are some restrictions on what we are allowed to do on the lobbying end. However, there are still many things that we do to make sure our clients voices are heard. Q: What is the difference between a pro bono attorney, attorneys who provide legal aid, and a court-appointed attorney? A: If you hear someone being referred to as a legal aid attorney, then that is likely someone who is on staff at a nonprofit that provides civil legal help to people who are low-income. Pro bono can pertain to anyone who is volunteering their time for free. Court-appointed attorneys are only applicable to certain types of cases. It can happen in certain types of family law cases where you have a right to an attorney. So for example if you are facing a custody case with your children, they will give you a court-appointed lawyer. The court has a list of attorneys from the community who agree to be on the list. If you are assigned a case through the court appointment, then you get paid a certain amount of money to assist the individual with their case. There are also court appointments in criminal cases. If you are eligible for the public defender but the public defender has some type of conflict of interest, then the court will appoint a private attorney who will get a certain pay fee to represent the defendant in their criminal case. This also happens in rural communities where there is not an actual public defender because of the size of the county. And for that, they will have a list of attorneys who have been appointed by the court. An important point about legal aid is that you actually do not have a right to a civil attorney. So if you are filing a bankruptcy, facing eviction, facing a lawsuit for some type of debt, or trying to get your security deposit back, you do not have a right to a lawyer. So there is never going to be a court appointment for that type of case and that is why people end up coming to us. But because of that, sometimes we do not have the funding for everyone to get a legal aid attorney. There are a limited number of staff resources and pro bono lawyers which is why we do community outreach to community law firms and the bar association. Q: What kind of preparation or involvement would you suggest to students who aspire to work for nonprofits? A: I would encourage undergraduate students to start volunteering now. It was not something that was available to me when I was in college. It is a great way for you to see what is involved at the ground level of nonprofit legal work. There is a lot that undergraduates can do, whether it is coming down to our office, or to some of our evening clinics. It is also a really good way to meet other people who care about these issues and begin to make contacts for when you are applying to law school. It also has the potential to shape your personal statement, helping you to stand out amongst your peers as someone who is truly interested in public interest work. Once you are in law school, I think being as involved in student groups that are public interest oriented or volunteering with legal aid or the public defender’s office is extremely helpful. by Zach Valdman On February 27th, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Packingham v. North Carolina. The case centers on a law passed by the state of North Carolina that prohibits registered sex offenders from participating in or accessing various social media sites such as Facebook and Youtube if the site allows minors to create accounts. The main question the judges must grapple with is whether this law is constitutional or not under the First Amendment of the Constitution. Lester Packingham pled guilty to taking indecent liberties with a minor in 2002 when he was 21 years old. 8 years later he posted an innocuous status on Facebook about a traffic ticket: “Man God is Good! How about I got so much favor they dismiss the ticket before court even started. No fine, No court costs, no nothing spent.... Praise be to GOD, WOW! Thanks JESUS!” An officer subsequently arrested Packingham for violating North Carolina’s law banning sex offenders from social media sites. Packingham argued that the law infringed upon his First Amendment rights to free speech, while North Carolina argued that the law is necessary to protect minors from sex offenders who can stalk and contact minors on these sites. The North Carolina law is part of a growing trend of states trying to pass laws restricting social media to particular groups, and Packingham is the first to make its way to the Supreme Court. These states argue that just as felons lose their right to purchase a gun, convicted sex offenders should lose their right to access these sites where they can potentially prey on minors. On the other side, besides the possible unconstitutionality of the law itself, many are worried that restricting sex offenders First Amendment rights could lead to a slippery slope whereby the government could restrict other classes of people from social media, such as those on the no-fly list, ex-felons, specific minorities, etc. They argue that banning a class of people from social media just because they are statistically more likely than others to commit a certain type of crime is unconstitutionally broad. They believe that the attempted targeting of sex offenders within the law may be narrow, but sets a dangerous precedent for First Amendment freedom of speech. This case is a microcosm of the growing body of law around social media websites, usage, and classifications. The law has been slow to catch up to the growth of social media, and, like any new technology, the law needs to grow and acclimate to this new form of communication. The ultimate ruling in this case will be an important step towards establishing a basis for laws regulating social media use. The Supreme Court is expected to deliver the verdict this upcoming summer. Works Cited:
http://www.cleveland19.com/story/34658308/supreme-court-hears-sex-offender-social-media-case http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Petition-for-Writ-Packingham-v-State-of-North-Carolina.pdf http://www.businessinsider.com/packingham-north-carolina-supreme-court-social-media-2017-3 by Eleni Christofides In the waking nightmare of the Donald J. Trump presidency, it is difficult not to feel that the law is impotent in protecting its people, or even cruel in the wrong hands. We have seen President Trump sign immoral – and potentially unconstitutional – immigration bans and threaten a federal crackdown on the possession of legalized drugs. But, when one sees the lawyers who swoop in to airports nationwide to defend clients who are unlawfully detained, these lawyers, or "freedom nerds," bring hope that the power of the law can be a helping force. In the next four years of Donald Trump’s presidency, it will become vital that legal leaders not only use the law to fight intolerance, but also use it to heal. Therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) is the idea that the law should aim to help individuals who come in contact with the justice system to fix chronic problems in order to prevent future legal encounters (1). This legal principle emphasizes a proactive and non-adversarial response rather than reactive punishment. It also integrates the findings of social and behavioral sciences that better understand how the law affects psychological and emotional well-being. The purpose is not to patronize or coerce people into behaving a certain way that is prescribed by a judge; it is to make the law an empowering social force and humanize the legal process. Drug courts, mental health courts and other specialized court programs are part of the TJ reform movement: they attempt to place the law in a richer context, individualizing its reactions to people appropriately and taking their experiences and needs into account. Most specialty courts share a few key features: immediate intervention such as substance use counseling, non-adversarial and frequent court appearances, clear objectives for people before the court, and most importantly an interdisciplinary approach to problems (1). By taking a holistic approach to each individual case, attorneys and judges can treat the causes of crime instead of the symptoms. A day in a court that incorporates the principles of TJ is nothing like the high-stakes, aggressive scenes from legal dramas on television. Instead, it's a place of understanding and genuine efforts to find solutions to real problems. Judge Herbert's CATCH (Changing Actions To Change Habits) Court is a specialized docket program in Columbus that embodies this perfectly: after mistaking a woman facing prostitution charges for a domestic violence victim, Judge Herbert realized that the law's treatment of crimes like prostitution as victimless was all wrong. "What influences, forces, and other things might impact a woman in order for her to take what's most personally precious, and sell it to vile strangers?" (3). He began to study the complex problems that lead to prostitution: frequently it involves women who are on their own and struggling to survive, addicted to drugs and alcohol, being trafficked and sold for sex. CATCH Court is an example of a program that takes a holistic approach to crime, and by trying to understand the context in which an individual crime occurs, the program treats its subjects as people, not merely defendants. CATCH Court requires its members to meet probation officers and attend therapy, and encourages them to take classes and improve their education. Most importantly, it offers volunteer mentors and a support system of women with similar experiences. The program is efficient and effective: according to a recent study, 77 percent of its graduates had no new arrests between 2009 and 2013 (6). The success of programs like this proves that empathy in the criminal justice system is not “soft on crime” and improves outcomes both for the community and the individual. When President Barack Obama nominated Justice Sotomayor to the Supreme Court in 2009, his administration mentioned "...his goal of selecting someone with the empathy factor – real-world, practical experience and understanding of how the law affects real people" (4). President Obama was criticized by many conservatives for using the “E word.” They denounced the comment as trying to bring emotionality into the law. But, a practical legal system that builds people up rather than tearing them down is one to strive for, and it requires empathy. President Obama was on the right side of history when he encouraged empathy in legal decisions, and with the principle of therapeutic jurisprudence at the forefront of the justice reform movement, these policies will hopefully become the norm of the American criminal justice system. Works Cited
|
Archives
March 2018
Categories |