ACS Podcast

Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides two avenues for amending the Constitution. One of those avenues – an Article V Convention – has never before been used, in part because it could put the entire Constitution on the chopping block. Factions of the far Right, however, are now actively working to orchestrate such a convention, with the goal of radically rewriting the U.S. Constitution to achieve partisan outcomes. If the outcomes of a mock convention held by factions of the Right in 2016 are any indication, an Article V Convention could see amendments aimed at disassembling modern government and the century-old New Deal consensus, returning the country to the troubling, splintered times when the federal government could do little to provide for national welfare or defense. This could include amendments to repeal the federal income tax, to require onerous supermajorities akin to the filibuster to raise other taxes, and to enable state legislatures to nullify federal laws and regulations. Given current political dynamics, it's easy to also imagine amendments to ban abortion and enshrine extreme interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. ACS is actively educating the public about the dangers of this radical effort and the potential for it to send this country into a constitutional crisis even more dire than January 6th.

This conversation was recorded via Twitter Spaces on Thursday, June 16 as part of the ACS National Convention in Washington, D.C. ACS Director of Chapters Peggy Li moderates a discussion about all things #reprorights with Rosann Mariappuram of Jane's Due Process and Jenny Ma from the Center for Reproductive Rights.

This conversation was recorded via Twitter Spaces on Friday, June 24, just after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health ruling came down from the U.S. Supreme Court which overturned the long-standing precedent in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Featured in this discussion are Jeanne Hruska, ACS's Senior Advisor for Communications and Strategy, and Lindsay Langholz, Director of Policy and Program.

On May 3, 2022, the American Constitution Society held a Twitter Space discussion in response to the leaked draft Supreme Court opinion on Dobbs and Roe.

The killing of George Floyd is not a singular or unique event. Nationally, black people are three times as likely as white people to be killed by police, with even more people of color surviving police violence but suffering grievous physical and emotional injuries that reverberate throughout their communities. Join the American Constitution Society, the National Bar Association, and the Society of American Law Teachers, for a discussion of the institutional and systemic racism within our criminal legal system that leads to disproportionate police violence against black and brown people and against the protesters who take to the streets demanding change, and the ways we can address it. Welcome Russ Feingold, President, American Constitution Society Alfreda Robinson, President & CEO, National Bar Association; Associate Dean & Director, Litigation & Dispute Resolution Program, George Washington University Law School Featuring Justin Hansford, Professor of Law and Executive Director, Thurgood Marshall Civil Rights Center, Howard University School of Law Taja-Nia Henderson, Dean, Rutgers Graduate School – Newark; Professor, Rutgers Law School Teressa Ravenell, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Faculty Research and Development, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Christopher Wright Durocher, Senior Director of Policy & Program, American Constitution Society, Moderator

As states across the country begin to relax stay-at-home orders despite public health experts' serious concerns, corporate America is poised to be one of the most important players in the pandemic. At-risk industries like grocery stores, meatpacking and poultry plants, transportation services, and warehouses, such as Amazon fulfillment centers, have been criticized for not taking adequate steps to protect their workers. And as non-essential businesses take the first steps to bring employees and customers back, some companies have retaliated against whistleblowers and aligned with congressional leaders to advocate for legislation that would protect businesses from liability for behavior that may unnecessarily expose employees and consumers to the risk of COVID-19 infection. Meanwhile, neither the CDC nor OSHA have issued mandates that employers implement any protective measures. Join ACS for a discussion of what employees and consumers can and should expect from corporate America during a public health crisis. Welcome: Russ Feingold, President, ACS Featured Speakers: Rebecca Dixon, Executive Director, National Employment Law Project Heidi Li Feldman, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center Deepak Gupta, Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLC Christopher Wright Durocher, Senior Director of Policy & Program, ACS, Moderator

After the federal government failed to announce a clear, national strategy for combating the COVID-19 health crisis, some state and local leaders took charge. Relying on the Constitution's federal structure, they closed schools and non-essential businesses, issued stay-at-home orders, mandated moratoriums on evictions, and dispensed emergency vouchers to help people buy food. Others, however, initially resisted such shutdowns until the public health guidance became unambiguous. As the economic impact of the pandemic quickly became its own crisis, Congress passed legislation designed to alleviate some of the stress felt by employers and individuals now forced out of work, but as the shutdown drags on, some state leaders are deciding to lift their stay-at-home orders much before others believe it is safe to do so. And the administration's concern about the economy has led the President to claim "total authority" to supersede state directives, while the Attorney General recently suggested the government is considering litigation against governors who want to retain lockdowns longer than the administration believes necessary. How does the Constitution divide decision-making authority in a public health crisis between the federal and state governments? Can the administration force states to follow its lead? What does the patchwork of state responses mean for our national recovery (both health and economic)? Ultimately, is our federal system an advantage or disadvantage in the fight against COVID-19? Welcome: Russ Feingold, President, ACS Featured Speakers: Aziz Huq, Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School, ACS Board of Directors Miriam Seifter, Associate Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School Debra Perlin, Director of Policy & Program, ACS, Moderator

As we continue to learn more about COVID-19, it has become clear that this pandemic is disparately impacting people of color, and in particular, the Black community. A recent report from Mother Jones shows that Black Americans have disproportionately contracted and died from the coronavirus. Attacks on voting rights, abortion rights, and fair housing have long targeted people of color and the resulting damage of those attacks has been exacerbated during this time of crisis. What direct and indirect harms are being done to communities of color by the pandemic and the government’s response? What legal tools are available to address these disparities and where are there gaps? What should lawmakers consider as they attempt to craft a response to this crisis? Welcome: Russ Feingold, President, ACS Featured Speakers: Michele Goodwin, Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Biotechnology and Global Health Policy, University of California Irvine School of Law, Moderator Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Berkeley Law School Patricia Williams, University Distinguished Professor of Law and Humanities, Northeastern University School of Law Dr. George Woods, Immediate Past President of the International Academy of Law and Mental Health

On Thursday, April 23, ACS finished its 2020 Student Convention Virtual Series with a discussion with Harvard Law professor Michael Klarman entitled “The Degradation of Democracy – and the Courts.” Featuring: Michael Klarman, Kirkland and Ellis Professor of Law, Harvard Law School ACS is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) educational organization. It does not take positions on candidates, pending legislation, or judicial nominees.

The COVID-19 pandemic is posing challenges for everyone, but the hardships it poses for immigrants and the immigration system have been especially harsh. While prisons and jails across the country move to reduce their populations, immigrants in ICE detention centers continue to fear exposure to the virus. Some immigration courts remain open for detainee hearings, but the Department of Justice has failed to set uniform policies, a cause of concern to judges, lawyers, and their clients. Citizenship ceremonies are on hold, but Customs and Border Patrol has begun to employ expedited deportation at the border. At the same time, immigrant workers are on the front lines in the battle against the virus in the health, restaurant, and other essential industries. How can we accomplish our public health goals in a manner in keeping with our laws and traditions as a nation of immigrants? Welcome: Russ Feingold, President, ACS Featured Speakers: Ahilan Arulanantham, Senior Counsel, ACLU of Southern California Jacinta Ma, Vice President of Policy & Advocacy, National Immigration Forum Hon. Ashley Tabaddor, President, National Association of Immigration Judges Kara Stein, ACS Vice President of Policy & Program, Moderator

As public health experts predict that current social distancing measures may need to be in place weeks or months longer than originally anticipated, federal and state criminal and civil courts must grapple with what that means for judges, parties coming before courts, jurors, and court personnel. Yet, a recent survey of judges found that nearly sixty percent do not feel adequately prepared to make decisions about how to manage their dockets and protect parties’ rights in the face of the coronavirus outbreak. Many courts have closed or suspended in-person business for the time being to minimize exposure. The suspension of jury trials, legal deadlines, and statutes of limitations, however, could prove harmful to parties in criminal and civil cases seeking to vindicate their rights and, more worrisome, potentially fatal to criminal defendants forced to remain in overcrowded, unsanitary pretrial detention facilities, like Rikers Island, which has already reported COVID-19 cases. Can courts balance their role as protectors of the rule of law with the public health measures necessary to quell a pandemic? Welcome Russ Feingold, President, American Constitution Society Speakers Elaine Poon, Managing Attorney, Legal Aid Justice Center Jonathan Smith, Executive Director, Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs Hon. Shira Scheindlin (Ret.), U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Christopher Wright Durocher, Senior Director of Policy and Program, ACS, Moderator

Join the ACS Student Chapters Team for another installment of our 2020 Student Convention Virtual Series! This panel sought to bring together those using courageous, creative litigation to take on powerful, systemic behemoths whose vast stature, resources, and political clout seems to put them beyond legal liability. We discussed the strategy, philosophy, and grit needed for legal "Davids" to successfully hold societal "Goliaths" to account. Featuring: Randolph Chen, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia Kalpana Kotagal, Partner, Cohen Milstein Toby Merrill, Founder and Director, Project on Predatory Student Lending, Harvard Law School Sharmila L. Murthy, Associate Professor of Law ACS Faculty Advisor, Suffolk University Law School Moderated by: Katie Cion, Programs Director, ACS Harvard Law School Student Chapter

In an effort to stop the spread of COVID-19, the U.S. government is considering using technology to enforce “social distancing” and track the whereabouts of infected Americans. Although details of such government proposals are still vague, critics question whether the government is trying to sidestep the Fourth Amendment and sanction warrantless surveillance in the name of public health. These proposals are particularly sensitive for technology companies who faced a severe backlash in 2013 following disclosures about the role they played in surveillance by the National Security Agency. Can the government use digital surveillance to combat COVID-19 without violating the Fourth Amendment? What safeguards might be put in place to allow technology to be helpful in combatting the pandemic while observing constitutional rights? What role beyond surveillance might technology play in addressing the COVID-19 crisis that might not raise constitutional concerns? And how do we ensure that any surveillance authorized in the context of this crisis is no longer permitted after the pandemic is over? Featured speakers: Welcome by Russ Feingold, President, ACS Jennifer Daskal, Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Tech, Law, and Security Program, American University Washington College of Law Greg Nojeim, Senior Counsel and Director of the Freedom, Security, and Technology Program, Center for Democracy and Technology Debra Perlin, Director of Policy and Programs, ACS, Moderator

As COVID-19 spreads throughout the country, more than a million workers are expected to lose their jobs by the end of March. Those who remain employed face other obstacles, especially healthcare workers, who may lack protective gear, and minimum wage workers without paid sick and family leave. As federal and state governments mobilize to combat COVID-19 and shore up the economy, what can they do to protect American workers? How can gaps in our social safety net be addressed in the short and the long-term? And what role should industry play in cooperation with government to make sure that workers are central to whatever solutions are adopted? Featured Speakers: Welcome by Russ Feingold, President, ACS Charlotte Garden, Co-Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development and Associate Professor of Law, Seattle University School of Law Satoshi Yanai, Supervising Deputy Attorney General in the Worker Rights and Fair Labor Bureau, Office of the California Attorney General Debra Perlin, Director, ACS Policy and Programs, Moderator

Listen in with Alex Gulotta and Hannah Klain for a discussion on the 2020 voting landscape and how students can get involved in voter protection efforts. From the history of voting rights and the impact of the Shelby County decision to our current global pandemic, ensuring the right to vote in 2020 is no small task! Learn about how you can play your part to support fair, efficient, and safe elections for all. Featuring: Alex Gulotta, Arizona State Director, All Voting is Local Hannah Klain, Equal Justice Works Selbin Family Fellow, Democracy Program, Brennan Center for Justice

Listen to our Student Leader Townhall with ACS President Russ Feingold! This event is the first was the Student Convention Virtual Series. Radhe Patel, ACS Harvard Law School Chapter President, provided introductory remarks. Then, ACS President Russ Feingold briefed attendees on the mission of ACS and the role of ACS student chapters. Introduction by Radhe Patel, ACS Harvard Law School Chapter President Remarks by Russ Feingold, ACS President

With the continuing global spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during a presidential election year, election officials across the country are attempting to quickly devise and implement plans that account for the needs of vulnerable voters and poll workers. What changes to election administration are needed and possible in states holding primary elections over the next several weeks? What can be done to prepare for November? Could a federal election be delayed or even cancelled due to public health concerns, and if so, by whom? Does the federal government have any authority to interfere with primaries, which are regulated by the states, on account of national health emergency? Featured speakers: • Hannah Fried, National Campaign Director, All Voting Is Local • Elizabeth Howard, Counsel, Democracy Program, Brennan Center for Justice • Daniel P. Tokaji, Charles W. Ebersold and Florence Whitcomb Ebersold Professor of Constitutional Law, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law • Lindsay Langholz, Director of Policy and Program, ACS, Moderator

On January 31st, Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar declared a national public health emergency in response to the global spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). With the warnings from health officials that the virus will “almost certainly” spread in the United States becoming reality, what legal authorities do federal and state governments have at their disposal to deal with this outbreak? Is a quarantine possible? Are there war-time precedents that the government can rely upon to force private industry to produce medical supplies? And what limitations on government action exist to ensure that civil liberties aren’t infringed and that the health crisis isn’t misused for political reasons? Featured Speakers: Michele Goodwin, Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Biotechnology and Global Health Policy, University of California Irvine School of Law Stephen Vladeck, A. Dalton Cross Professor of Law, The University of Texas at Austin School of Law Debra Perlin, Director of Policy and Program, ACS, Moderator

On February 19, 2020, we were joined by fantastic panelists to celebrate Black History Month and elevate the accomplishments of black leaders. We heard from esteemed members of the ACS network from a variety of legal backgrounds, including a judge, a professor, a non-profit leader, and in-house counsel. Our speakers discussed their career paths, including accomplishments and challenges they have faced along the way, and shared practical advice for the next generation of black progressive leaders. Speakers: Andrew Lindsay: J.D. Candidate, Duke University School of Law and President of the ACS Duke Student Chapter, Moderator Hon. Bernice Donald: Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Michele Goodwin: Chancellor’s Professor of Law, University of California, Irvine School of Law Andrew Hairston: School-to-Prison Pipeline Project Director, Texas Appleseed and ACS Austin Lawyer Chapter Leader Zaid Zaid: Public Policy Attorney, Facebook and ACS Next Generation Leader

The Trump administration’s decision to kill Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani without congressional authorization will have vast repercussions, geopolitical and otherwise. Indeed, the consequences are already being felt by U.S. citizen Iranian Americans who have been detained and questioned while traveling home from abroad. Amid threats of retaliation by the Iranian government, President Trump has threatened military action that would target 52 Iranian sites, including important cultural sites, which experts argue would constitute a war crime. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has defended the administration's actions as a lawful response to imminent, direct threats to Americans, but some contend that case has not and must be made to Congress. Listen to ACS experts discuss the legality of the strike, threatened further military action, and the detention of American citizens based on their nation of origin. Featured Speakers: Stephen Vladeck, A. Dalton Cross Professor in Law, The University of Texas at Austin School of Law Cecillia Wang, Deputy Legal Director and Director of Center for Democracy, ACLU Debra Perlin, Director of Policy and Program, ACS, Moderator

This ACS webinar featured an expert discussion of the House’s articles of impeachment against President Trump, what they mean, and what we can expect as this process, so infrequently carried out in American history, moves forward. Featured Speakers: Mieke Eoyang, Vice President for the National Security Program, Third Way Neil Kinkopf, Professor of Law and ACS Faculty Advisor, Georgia State University College of Law Paul Rosenzweig, Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law School Jill Dash, Vice President of Strategic Engagement, American Constitution Society, Moderator

This ACS conference call centered around creating a dialog around the "Remain in Mexico" policy, raising awareness of its effects, and lifting up student responses. Speakers included Savannah Kumar, University of Texas School of Law ACS President, and Elissa Steglich, Clinical Professor, University of Texas School of Law.

As the House’s impeachment inquiry ramps up, listen to an ACS briefing call with experts on the procedures and legal standards for impeachment, how those standards apply to the allegations against President Trump, and the implications for our national security. Featured Speakers: Mieke Eoyang, Vice President for the National Security Program, Third Way Michael Gerhardt, Burton Craige Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, UNC School of Law Kara Stein, ACS Vice President of Policy Program, Moderator

On September 17, ACS held a discussion of what’s at stake and what the candidates should be asked as they seek our nation’s highest office. As the presidential election heats up, the future of reproductive justice, voting rights, and criminal justice, among other constitutional commitments, are all at stake. Regardless of who is elected, the president will be asked not only to articulate their vision of the Constitution and who is included in “We the People,” but will also have an opportunity to make that vision and these commitments real through the appointment of judges. Featured Speakers: Leah Litman, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School Vincent Southerland, Executive Director, NYU School of Law’s Center on Race, Inequality, and the Law Daniel Tokaji, Associate Dean for Faculty and The Charles W. Ebersold and Florence Whitcomb Ebersold Professor of Constitutional Law, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Debra Perlin, Director of Policy and Program, ACS, Moderator

In a recent filing with the D.C. federal court overseeing the grand jury convened by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the House Judiciary Committee has asked for the release of the full Mueller Report and underlying materials. The Committee asserts that because Justice Department policy holds that a sitting president may not be indicted, it is up to Congress to hold President Trump accountable for the actions described in the Report, and thus it must have access to this information to determine whether to move forward with articles of impeachment. Briefs are due in September, with a decision possible as early as October. With talk of impeachment ramping up, ACS held a discussion with experts on the relevant legal standards and how they apply to the findings of the Mueller Report and other alleged misdoings of the Trump administration. Featured Speakers: Caroline Fredrickson, ACS President, Moderator Neil Kinkopf, Professor of Law, Georgia State University, Counselor to Sen. Joseph Biden for the Impeachment Trial of President Clinton Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Leroy Highbaugh Sr. Research Chair and Professor of Law, Stetson University

Special Counsel Mueller testified Wednesday before two House committees, repeatedly reiterating his report’s conclusion that the president is not exonerated from wrongdoing. Commentators are now asking whether his testimony will build momentum for further investigation into the report’s conclusions of presidential misconduct and Russian interference in the U.S. elections. Featuring: Caroline Fredrickson, ACS President Josh Geltzer, Executive Director, Georgetown Institute of Constitutional Advocacy and Protection Debra Perlin, ACS Director of Policy and Program, moderator Jed Shugerman, Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law

ACS President Caroline Fredrickson, Lisa Graves, and Jamal Greene discuss the new exposé by The Washington Post, which documents a well-financed network of wealthy donors who install judges sympathetic to a far-right agenda. The Post’s reporting builds on research supported by ACS; contributing researchers and experts will discuss the implications of the far-right’s strategy on the courts and for future nominations fights, and how to defend our courts from attacks to core freedoms and principles.

Shortly after the release of Special Counsel Mueller’s “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election,” congressional committees issued subpoenas for follow-up oral testimony and written documents. In response, President Trump vowed to fight “all the subpoenas.” This strategy has led House Democrats to complain that Congress’s authority as a co-equal branch of government is being thwarted. What are Congress’s constitutional oversight responsibilities and how can it perform them under these circumstances? Is it unprecedented for an administration to withhold documents? What are the remedies left to Congress in response? How will this showdown be resolved? Featuring: Caroline Fredrickson, President, American Constitution Society (moderator) Alan B. Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service Law, George Washington University Law School Donald K. Sherman, Deputy Director, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW); former Chief Oversight Counsel House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

On April 29, ACS hosted a discussion of the recently released Mueller Report. As we continue to digest Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, serious legal questions remain regarding Congress’s power to subpoena a sitting president, the alleged legal impediments that prevented Mueller from indicting Trump associates for campaign finance violations, and what the law of obstruction actually provides. These questions take on more importance as we ask, what comes next? As talk of impeachment surfaces in both Democratic and Republican circles, what do we know about the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors”? Featuring: Bob Bauer, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence, New York University Law School; White House Counsel to President Barack Obama Neil Kinkopf, Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law; Counselor to then-Senator Joseph Biden for the Impeachment Trial of President Clinton Barbara McQuade, Professor from Practice, University of Michigan Law School; Former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan Caroline Fredrickson, President, American Constitution Society

ACS experts discuss whether the addition of a citizenship question to the census violates the Administrative Procedures Act and/or the Constitution’s enumerations clause, and whether the trial court had the authority to order the deposition of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to ascertain the motive for the question’s inclusion. On April 23rd, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Department of Commerce v. New York, a case that raises questions of administrative and constitutional law, and that has the potential to affect the accuracy of the 2020 Census, thereby impacting congressional representation and federal funding decisions. Featured Speakers: Jennifer Nou, Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School Daniel Tokaji, Associate Dean for Faculty and The Charles W. Ebersold and Florence Whitcomb Ebersold Professor of Constitutional Law, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Kara Stein, ACS Vice President of Policy and Program

On April 5, ACS and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) hosted a discussion of whether these justifications should operate as categorical bars to releasing the Report and related evidence. The American people want to see the Mueller Report and the evidence underlying it, and Congress needs to review the Report and supporting material to fulfill its oversight duties. Yet Attorney General Barr has said he will send only a redacted version of the Report to Congress later this month. Potential justifications for limiting disclosure include grand jury secrecy rules and executive privilege.  Featured Speakers: Barbara McQuade, Professor from Practice, University of Michigan Law School; former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan Andrew Wright, Senior Fellow and Founding Editor of Just Security; Associate Counsel to President Barack Obama Kristin Amerling, ACS/CREW Presidential Investigation Education Project, Moderator

This Term, the Supreme Court will once again tackle the issue of partisan redistricting when it reviews two cases to determine whether state legislatures violated the Constitution by intentionally diluting their citizens' votes for partisan purposes. Last Term, the Court heard two cases on the topic, but never reached the merits. Instead, it decided the cases on jurisdictional grounds.With those issues arguably resolved, the Court now seems ready to weigh in on whether partisan gerrymandering cases are justiciable when it hears Benisek v. Lamone, a challenge to the electoral map drawn by the Democratically-controlled Maryland legislature, and Rucho v. Common Cause, a challenge to the electoral map drawn by the Republican-controlled North Carolina legislature, on March 26, 2019. What test might the Court adopt for determining when redistricting is legitimate or illegitimate, and what are the implications of the various possibilities? How is the Supreme Court, now without Justice Kennedy, likely to rule on the merits? Featured Speakers: Kareem Crayton, Interim Executive Director, Southern Coalition for Social Justice Nicholas Stephanopoulos, Professor of Law, Herbert and Marjorie Fried Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law School Jenni Katzman, moderator, Director of Policy and Program, ACS

In an attempt to bypass Congress, President Trump has announced that he will declare a national emergency to fulfill a campaign pledge and build a wall on the southern border, all allegedly in the name of national security. Join us for a discussion of what this means, what litigation might be possible, and whether or not this will actually protect our national security. Featuring: Mary McCord, Senior Litigator from Practice at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center Peter Shane, Jacob E. Davis and Jacob E. Davis II Chair in Law, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Debra Perlin, ACS Director of Policy and Program, moderator

On Friday, January 11 at 3:00pm, ACS hosted a discussion on the legal and policy implications of the administration’s proposed actions. As the government shutdown drags on, President Trump prepares to declare a national emergency, arguing that there is an immigration crisis at the southern border that authorizes him to fund and build a wall, despite the lack of congressional approval. What is the controlling law regarding the declaration of national emergencies, and what is the scope of the President’s emergency powers? Do they depend on whether there really is an emergency, and if so, who determines that? What is the mechanism by which such a wall could be built, and what legal limitations apply? Featured Speakers: Cristina Rodriguez, Leighton Homer Surbeck Professor of Law, Yale Law School Stephen I. Vladeck, A. Dalton Cross Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law Caroline Fredrickson, ACS President, Moderator

A distinguished panel of judges discuss the benefits of a judicial clerkship, what to expect from clerking, their advice on the application process, and what they look for in clerkship candidates. Speakers will include Judge Beverly Martin (11th Cir.), Judge George Hazel (D. Md.), and Judge Kim Jolson (M.J., S.D. Ohio) and the discussion will be moderated by ACS’s Vice President of Strategic Engagement Jill Dash.

On November 1, ACS hosted a webinar discussion on the Trump administration's recent proposed border policies. With the mid-term elections around the corner, the Trump Administration has turned its sights on approximately 4000 thousand men, women, and children making their way from Central America on foot to the United States. President Trump alleges that they represent a threat to U.S. security and has suggested that he may close the southern border to the migrants, including those seeking asylum. This week he ordered 5000 troops to the border, and then let it be known that his administration is considering issuing an executive order that would terminate birthright citizenship, in conflict with the 14th Amendment’s promise of citizenship to “All persons born ... in the United States.” Join ACS for a briefing call on these questions and other legal and policy implications of the administration’s actions regarding the caravan and its proposed executive actions affecting the rights of immigrants, refugees, and asylees. Featured speakers: T. Alexander Aleinikoff, University Professor, The New School; United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees (2010-15) Deborah Pearlstein, Professor of Law; Co-Director, Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy; Cardozo School of Law Kara Stein, ACS Vice President of Policy & Program, Moderator

On October 18, ACS hosted a webinar featuring John H. Thompson, the 24th Director of the U.S. Census Bureau, and Robert Yablon, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin Law School, discussing the upcoming 2020 Census and the role that state attorneys general can play to ensure a fair and accurate count.

On September 28, 2018,ACS held a briefing call to discuss the week’s developments - the day after Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding sexual assault allegations brought against Kavanaugh, and the same week in which Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's job was threatened by rumors of his firing, and its implications for the Mueller investigation. Featured Speakers: Christopher Kang, Chief Counsel, Demand Justice; Deputy Counsel to President Barack Obama; ACS National Board Member Judith Lichtman, Senior Advisor, National Partnership for Women & Families; ACS National Board of Advisors Member Thiru Vignarajah, Partner, DLA Piper; former Assistant. U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland serving with then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein Moderated by Jill Dash, ACS Vice President of Strategic Engagement

On September 18, ACS hosted legal experts to parse where things stand with Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court. The process for Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the United States Supreme Court has been fraught from the start with Senate Republicans’ refusal to request his full record of documents, the highly unusual way in which any documents were produced (many of which were labeled “Committee Confidential”), the rush in the nomination process, hearings punctuated with hundreds of protesters and Senators fighting to tell their narrative, and serious questions about the truthfulnees of Kavanaugh’s testimony. Now comes the latest news of sexual assault allegations which raise another set of serious questions. This is all in addition to substantive concerns about this nomination and the effect it will have to swing the Court hard right on a host of issues including personal liberty issues, health care, presidential power, voting, and the list goes on. Featuring: Jill Dash, ACS Vice President of Strategic Engagement Kent Greenfield, Professor and Michael and Helen Lee Distinguished Scholar, ACS Faculty Advisor at Boston College Law Melissa Murray, ACS Board member and Professor of Law, New York University School of Law

On August 23, ACS held a conference call on the new publication authored by Professor Neil Kinkopf and released by ACS and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), The Implications for the Mueller Investigation of Confirming Judge Brett Kavanaugh, which addresses: (1) Can a President commit obstruction of justice with impunity?; (2) Can a President defy a grand jury subpoena for testimony?; (3) May the President terminate a Department of Justice investigation of the President himself?; (4) May the President fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller; (5) May the President pardon himself? The conviction of President Trump’s former campaign manager and the guilty plea of his former lawyer that directly implicated Trump in criminal activity, several Senators appropriately called for a delay in the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, who has expressed some concerning views of executive power. Featured Speakers: Caroline Fredrickson, President, American Constitution Society Neil Kinkopf, Professor of Law, Georgia State University

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?

On Jan. 9 ACS hosted a phone call lead by one of the country's leaders in constitutional scholarship, Stephen Vladeck, professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, to discuss two cases before the U.S. Supreme Court this Term, Ziglar v. Abbasi (Jan. 18) and Hernandez v. Mesa (Feb. 21), where the key question at stake is: under what circumstances, if any, can an individual seek damages against federal officers who violate their constitutional rights? Professor Vladeck, who is co-counsel in Hernandez v. Mesa, will discuss “Bivens remedies,” the only mechanism available to plaintiffs who have had their constitutional rights violated and detail the ACS Issue Brief titled, “The Bivens Term: Why the Supreme Court should reinvigorate damages suits against federal officers,” which he authored.