Tuesday, March 31, 2020
Sunday, March 29, 2020
Rev. Joseph Lowery, MLK aide, at 98 - The Boston Globe
Rev. Joseph Lowery, MLK aide, at 98 - The Boston Globe...
A founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, he delivered the benediction at Barack Obama's inauguration.
Saturday, March 28, 2020
Congress Moves to Make Lynching a Federal Crime After 120 Years of Failure - The New York Times
Congress Moves to Make Lynching a Federal Crime After 120 Years of Failure - The New York Times
February 27, 2020 Passed
Referred to Senate
Friday, March 27, 2020
Desegregation or Integration of Public Schools - Zoom 2:30 PM Monday 3/30/20
Zoom session 2:30 PM Monday March 30, 2020
Brown II 349 U.S. 294 (1955)
U.S. v. Jefferson County (1967)
* en banc majority opinion and decree -
Creating segregation:
Forgotten history: how the federal government segregated America - Excerpt from The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein
School Integration Part 1 - Post Brown - The first decade
Wednesday, March 25, 2020
Lecture: From the Founding to the Second Founding 1776 - 1877
1866 Civil Rights Act
The Ku Klux Klan Act - the Enforcement Act of 1870
Snubbed Landmark: Cruikshank v. U.S.A. - key points
SLIDES
Bruce Aylward: WHO Test, isolate, test, isolate, repeat - Time interview
Bruce Aylward WHO: test, isolate,test,test,test the suspects. https://t.co/QszptscAQe— George Conk (@GeorgeConk) March 25, 2020
Darius Swann, lead plaintiff in Supreme Court busing case, dies at 95 - The Washington Post
Subsequent court rulings dismantled busing programs around the country, although the system became a source of civic pride during the nearly three decades it lasted in Charlotte. “Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s proudest achievement of the past 20 years is not the city’s impressive skyline or its strong, growing economy,” the Charlotte Observer wrote in a 1984 editorial. “Its proudest achievement is its fully integrated schools.”
KEEP READING
Monday, March 23, 2020
Mexico-U.S. Border closed for migrants, non-essential travel
42 USC 265 authorizes the Surgeon General of the United States to designate countries as a source of dangerous "communicable disease" and "prohibit the introduction of persons and property" from such countries. The Trump administration has announced such a ban. Those who "illegally" cross the border will not be held for "processing" but rather will be immediately returned to Mexico or their country of origin "to the extent feasible". The Administration will doubtless claim that this public health measure overrides the treaty and statutory duty to consider applications for asylum, or to avoid removal for fear of torture. - gwc
Detention Facilities
Those encountered between ports of entry after illegally crossing the border similarly will not be held in congregate areas for processing and instead, to the maximum extent feasible, will immediately be returned to their country of last transit. These aliens are processed in stations designed for short-term processing, where distancing is not a viable option, creating a serious danger of an outbreak.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has determined that these conditions present a serious infection control challenge and are a risk to public health. Should an outbreak occur at these facilities, local medical facilities would be forced to devote extensive resources and may become overwhelmed.
- Migrants from Coronavirus Impacted Areas: Since the beginning of the FY20 fiscal year in October 2019 through the end of February 2020 (over the period of October 1, 2019 to February 29, 2020), foreign nationals from 122 separate countries have been apprehended or denied entry (inadmissible) at the U.S. Southwest border, for a total of over 190,000 apprehended or inadmissible migrants from countries currently with confirmed COVID cases.
- Size and Scale: Every week, CBP apprehends between 7,000 – 9,000 individuals between ports of entry —the equivalent of 2.5 Diamond Princess cruise ships per week.
- Human-to-human Spread: The spread of coronavirus is exacerbated by human-to-human transmission and the need for detention. CBP law enforcement facilities are for short-term holding and do not provide for needed large-scale isolation, diagnosis, or treatment of such a novel disease.
- CBP Facilities: CBP facilities are not structured or equipped to effectively quarantine an infected population. CBP would be forced to rely on state and local hospitals to provide longer-term medical care for individuals who fall ill, further burdening our strained healthcare system and depriving Americans of key medical resources.
Sunday, March 22, 2020
Wednesday, March 18, 2020
Tuesday, March 17, 2020
Trump: "it's all going to be fine...I always thought it was a pandemic"
Today, @realdonaldtrump said: “I’ve always known this is a pandemic. I’ve felt that it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic ... I’ve always viewed it as serious.”
— John Heilemann (@jheil) March 17, 2020
Really??? Let’s roll the tape. pic.twitter.com/NpUTzGiokW
Saturday, March 14, 2020
Thursday, March 12, 2020
Tuesday, March 10, 2020
Contempt of court?
If you watch just one twitter video today, make it this one, if only for the reaction of Brice Rhodes' attorney after he suggests the judge is having sex with the prosecutor. And then accuses judge of being in KKK. pic.twitter.com/k0Saf2kEwa
— Jason Riley (@JasonRileyWDRB) March 10, 2020
The Plenary Power Meets the Police Power: Federalism at the Intersection of Health & Immigration by Wendy E. Parmet :: SSRN
Wendy Parmet explores the issues. - GWC
The Plenary Power Meets the Police Power: Federalism at the Intersection of Health & Immigration by Wendy E. Parmet :: SSRN
Northeastern University - School of Law
Abstract
Monday, March 9, 2020
Symposium: Justices to tackle disputes over access to Trump financial records - SCOTUSblog
by Amy Howe
Segregation at all costs: Birmingham, Alabama 1963
Sunday, March 8, 2020
Trump v. Mazars briefs
An impressive array of amicus briefs from across the ideological spectrum were filed this week in the #Mazars and #DeutscheBank cases at #SCOTUS, in support of the power of Congress to get information pursuant to its investigations. Scroll through this thread to learn more!
— CAC (@MyConstitution) March 6, 2020
Wednesday, March 4, 2020
3rd Circuit Restores Uber drivers class action
One of the many potholes of the "gig economy" is that the "independent contractor" label is a tool to avoid what remains of legislative protection of workers rights. Prime among those rights are workers compensation benefits, employer health insurance plans, and the wage and hour laws mandating minimum wages and premium overtime pay. In the atomized workplace of the "world wide web" the independent contractor scheme must be fought in the courts and the legislatures. California's Assembly Bill 5 is of course the cutting edge.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit - which last year refused to enforce a mandatory arbitration clause for Uber drivers - has now taken the next step.
In a precedential opinion Judge Joseph Greenaway, for a unanimous panel, has reversed a grant of summary judgment in the putative class action Razak v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Drivers for Uber, while online, cannot respond to calls from other apps, the court notes. It further explains that there is much in the record to support the argument that drivers relying on the UberBLACK app are subject to the online giant's control:
“The district court, in this case, ruled that this factor strongly favored independent contractor status because drivers could be strategic in determining when, where, and how to utilize the Driver App to obtain more lucrative trip requests and to generate more profits,” Greenaway said. “Plaintiffs could also work for competitors and transport private clients. However, other material facts reveal that there was and still is a genuine dispute. For example, Uber decides (1) the fare; (2) which driver receives a trip request; (3) whether to refund or cancel a passenger’s fare; and (4) a driver’s territory, which is subject to change without notice.”
For this and other reasons summary judgment was improperly granted - as there is a substantial factual dispute. The 3rd Circuit therefore vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case to the trial court. - gwc
Gorsuch Decision on Arbitration Could Open Courthouse Doors for More Workers
NJ Law Journal Editorial comment on New Prime v. Oliveira
High Court Weighing State Arbitration Law's Effect on Wage Claims by FAA-Exempt Truckers | New Jersey Law Journal
The workers here are bringing Fair Labor Standards Act wage and hour claims. The putative classes of truckers is faced with a mandatory arbitration clause - a far less desirable venue generally than a judicial forum. In a twist on the usual stance - where workers are trying to escape the reach of the Federal Arbitration Act - plaintiffs here argue that it applies - and preempts the New Jersey Arbitration Act. Because the FAA does not extend to transportation workers (and perhaps more - See New Prime) plaintiffs counsel argues that it exempts such workers from mandatory arbitration, contrary to the Appellate Division in Colon v. Strategic Delivery Solutions.
In the second case Arafa v. Health Express the Appellate Division refused to enforce an arbitration clause which declared it was based on the FAA - which excludes transportation workers whether direct employees or independent contractors (see NJ Law Journal editorial commentary on New Prime).
But as Justice Jaynee LaVecchia suggested during argument the FAA exclusion simply leaves New Jersey free to make its own law. And the New Jersey Act does - it permits collectively bargained mandatory arbitration. But it does not bar such provisions for non-union workers.
The plaintiff trial lawyers organization the New Jersey Association for Justice takes a position better grounded in New Jersey law: that their was no meeting of the minds, no informed consent to losing one's right to go to court rather than arbitrate. The Arafa facts seem to be the better fit for that argument. - GWC
High Court Weighing State Arbitration Law's Effect on Wage Claims by FAA-Exempt Truckers | New Jersey Law Journal
by Suzette Parmley
Tuesday, March 3, 2020
Trump cannot block tax records - Boston U Law Profs file amicus brief
BRIEF OF BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAWPROFESSORS SEAN J. KEALY AND JAMES J. WHEATONAS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS
The thought ran through my mind as I read Donald Trump complaint against the New York District Attorney's subpoena to his accountant firm Mazars. How does Trump claim that these records Cyrus Vance seeks are in fact his? Trump is the sole plaintiff - but he lists as Parties a string of LLC's, Trusts, and Corporations of which is variously the sole ultimate owner, beneficiary, managing member, and ultimate majority owner. Boston University Law Profs Sean Kealy and James Wheaton develop the argument - the entities are distinct from Trump. In his strange complaint he asserts his personal interests and the interests of the office of the President of the United States of America.
Donald Trump has claimed the tax benefits and the immunity from liability that the corporate and LLC forms has given him. He as an individual is distinct from the companies he owns and controls. Having claimed the legal benefits - of, for example the bankruptcy laws - he is estopped from claiming he is identical to them. His business own those records. The companies don't have the privacy interests that a natural person does. It's a matter of state law.
Wheaton and Kealy develop their argument in this way:
MOST RECORDS SUBJECT TO THE GRAND JURY SUBPOENA ARE NOT PETITIONER’S RECORDS AT ALL ................................................ 4 A. The Covered Entity Records Subject to the Subpoena Do Not Belong to Petitioner ........................................................... 6 1. State Law Governs Ownership of the Records, and the Records of the Covered Entities Are Not Petitioner’s.... 7 2. The Covered Entities Are Legal Persons Distinct from Petitioner, and Petitioner Has No Right to Assert Claims That Belong Solely to the Entities .......................................... 11 3. Having Consistently and Aggressively Benefitted from His Legal Separation from the Covered Entities, Petitioner Should Not Now Be Permitted to Ignore Their Separateness .................a. In Other Proceedings, Petitioner Has Affirmatively Asserted the Separate Status of the Covered Entities as a Shield, and Explicitly Denied That the Entities are His “Alter Ego” ........................................... 13 b. Petitioner Has Used the Separate Status of the Covered Entities to Benefit from the Federal Bankruptcy System ................................................. 16 c. Petitioner Has Received Presumed Tax and Financial Benefits from Asserting and Maintaining the Separateness of the Covered Entities .... 17
Monday, March 2, 2020
Trump is not immune like a monarch - Former GOP Congress Members, Officials Brief Say in Trump Finance Records Case
Donald Trump has claimed "absolute immunity" from investigation for misconduct by New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. Fighting in the Supreme Court to block turning over his tax and financial records, Trump now faces the opposition of former Republican Members of Congress and officials, including two time former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman.
The President raised the prospect of dozens of harassing subpoenaes and even prosecutions if the Court upholds the Grand Jury subpoena to Trump's accountants to turn over his tax records.
The brief is well worth reading but here is an excerpt that I thought particularly apt:
Petitioner’s argument that denying immunity in this case would permit states to control federal government operations is weak. Perhaps for that reason, Petitioner also makes an argument of a very different kind: he argues that criminal proceedings of any sort must be off the table because of the stigma they carry.
This is a deeply troubling argument, and one that again reflects Petitioner’s understanding of the presidency as a sort of royal office. The idea that the president has a distinctive claim to be protected against stigma, over and above the legitimate practical demands of his office, is more suited to the principles of an aristocracy than those of a republic. A king, perhaps, is entitled to be shielded from stigma: the person of the king is sacred in a monarchical system, and the law can be subordinated to protect his honor. But the Constitution knows no principle of lèse-majesté. To argue that the Constitution shields the president from even the suggestion of involvement in criminal wrongdoing because that suggestion might call him into disrepute is to afford him an aristocratic privilege to which no American is entitled.
- GWC