Podcasts about civil rights cases

This Day in Legal History: Civil Rights Act of 1875On March 1, 1875, a significant milestone in the journey toward civil rights in the United States was reached with the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1875. This groundbreaking legislation aimed to eliminate racial discrimination in public accommodations, such as inns, public conveyances, theaters, and other places of public amusement, declaring that all persons, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, were entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of these facilities. The Act represented a bold step towards equality, affirming the rights of African Americans and other minorities to access public services and spaces without discrimination.However, this progressive movement faced a severe setback in 1883 when the Supreme Court, in a series of decisions collectively known as the Civil Rights Cases, declared the Civil Rights Act of 1875 unconstitutional. The Court argued that the Act exceeded the powers granted to Congress by the 13th and 14th Amendments, stating that the federal government could not regulate the conduct of individuals or private businesses. This ruling effectively removed the protections afforded by the 1875 Act, leaving African Americans and other minorities vulnerable to segregation and discrimination in public accommodations for decades to come.The Supreme Court's decision underscored the limitations of the federal government's ability to intervene in matters of racial discrimination in the private sector, a stance that persisted until the civil rights movement of the 20th century. It wasn't until 1957 that Congress would pass another piece of civil rights legislation, marking a long hiatus in the legislative battle against racial discrimination. The 1883 ruling and the ensuing period of legislative inaction highlight the challenges faced in the pursuit of equality and justice, demonstrating the complex interplay between law, society, and the fight for civil rights in America.Elon Musk has initiated legal action against OpenAI and its CEO, Sam Altman, accusing them of deviating from the organization's foundational objective of prioritizing humanity's welfare over profit. Musk, a co-founder of OpenAI who has since divested his stake, asserts that OpenAI's partnership with Microsoft Corp has led the AI startup away from its commitment to open-source technology development, aligning instead with corporate interests. This lawsuit highlights Musk's ongoing concerns about artificial intelligence's potential dangers, especially in the context of the rapid advancements and widespread adoption triggered by OpenAI's ChatGPT. Despite claiming to uphold a charter focused on the broad benefit of humanity, Musk argues that OpenAI has effectively become a "closed-source de facto subsidiary" of Microsoft, betraying its original mission.The legal challenge also scrutinizes the reorganization of OpenAI's leadership, particularly the events surrounding Altman's brief removal and subsequent reinstatement as CEO, which Musk attributes to a collusion between Altman, OpenAI President Greg Brockman, and Microsoft. This shift in governance, according to Musk, replaced a board previously dedicated to AI ethics and governance with individuals more oriented towards profit-making and political connections. The lawsuit emerges amid a context where OpenAI's innovations, like ChatGPT and GPT-4, have propelled AI integration across various industries, with Microsoft leading the charge in leveraging these technologies for its services. Musk's legal action not only spotlights a significant rift within the AI community but also signals potential ramifications for OpenAI's future direction and Microsoft's burgeoning AI ambitions.Musk Sues OpenAI, Altman for Breaching Founding Mission (1)In Georgia, a judge is scheduled to preside over a critical hearing concerning former U.S. President Donald Trump's attempt to disqualify the prosecutor, Fani Willis, in his election interference case. This motion stems from Willis' undisclosed affair with special prosecutor Nathan Wade, which Trump and his co-defendants argue represents a conflict of interest. Trump, leading the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, faces charges of attempting to unlawfully influence Georgia officials to reverse his 2020 election defeat. Despite pleading not guilty alongside 14 others, a potential disqualification of Willis could introduce significant delays into an already complex racketeering case, though it would not necessarily terminate the proceedings.During recent hearings, Willis acknowledged the affair with Wade but disputed allegations regarding its timing and impact on the case. The controversy surfaced after a defense lawyer for a Trump co-defendant cited the relationship as a conflict of interest that unjustly benefited Wade. Despite the defense's accusation of deceit regarding the affair's onset, Willis and Wade maintain that their relationship commenced post-hiring, asserting its irrelevance to the case's integrity.Moreover, Trump is entangled in three additional criminal cases, including allegations of hush money payments, efforts to contest the 2020 election outcome, and mishandling classified documents. His legal challenges are further complicated by debates over the trial dates and potential presidential immunity. Trump contends that these legal battles are politically motivated attempts to thwart his political aspirations, emphasizing the unique vulnerability of the state court case in Georgia to his potential presidential powers, unlike the federal cases.Judge in Trump Georgia criminal case to hear arguments over bid to disqualify prosecutor | ReutersIn Colorado, a significant sentencing is forthcoming for Peter Cichuniec, a paramedic found guilty in the 2019 death of Elijah McClain. McClain, a young Black man, tragically lost his life after a police encounter involving a chokehold, followed by medics administering a potent sedative. Cichuniec, convicted of criminally negligent homicide, potentially faces up to 16 years in prison, marking a rare instance where paramedics have been held accountable in court for their actions during an emergency response. His colleague, Jeremy Cooper, also guilty of the same charge, awaits sentencing later in April.This case, the last in a series of trials stemming from McClain's death, underlines the legal and societal repercussions following the incident, which initially led to no charges against the involved parties. It was not until the global outcry after George Floyd's murder in 2020 that Colorado's Governor Jared Polis initiated a re-examination of the case, culminating in the 2021 indictment of the officers and paramedics by a state grand jury.McClain's encounter with the police on a warm August night in 2019, flagged for wearing a ski mask and appearing suspicious, quickly escalated to a fatal confrontation. The updated autopsy report in 2021 attributed his death to complications from the administered ketamine, contrary to the initial "undetermined" cause. This legal and moral saga underscores the renewed scrutiny on law enforcement and medical response practices, especially in interactions with Black individuals, reflecting a broader call for justice and accountability in the wake of national protests against racial injustice.Colorado judge to sentence paramedic for Elijah McClain killing | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Frédéric Chopin.Today marks the birthday of Chopin, the Polish composer and pianist who remains one of the most celebrated figures in classical music, renowned for his emotional depth, technical precision, and revolutionary approach to the piano. Born on March 1, 1810, Chopin has left an indelible mark on the world of music with his romantic compositions that blend technical mastery with lyrical beauty. His works, primarily composed for solo piano, have captivated audiences and performers alike with their expressive intensity and innovative use of the instrument's capabilities.Chopin was not only a composer but also an extraordinary pianist, known for his unique ability to convey emotion through music. His compositions, characterized by their nuanced dynamics and intricate melodies, continue to challenge and inspire pianists worldwide. Despite battling health issues throughout his life, Chopin's output was prolific, contributing vastly to the piano repertoire with nocturnes, polonaises, mazurkas, and ballades that explore the full range of human emotion.As we celebrate Chopin's birthday, it's fitting to highlight one of his most beloved pieces, the "Fantaisie-Impromptu" in C-sharp minor, Op. 66. Composed in 1834 but published posthumously in 1855, this piece exemplifies Chopin's ability to fuse technical brilliance with deep emotional expression. The "Fantaisie-Impromptu" is a whirlwind of passion and virtuosity, its outer sections marked by rapid fingerwork and ardent melodies, surrounding a serene, lyrical middle section that provides a moment of reflective calm.This piece, with its contrasting moods and technical demands, encapsulates the essence of Chopin's musical genius. As we close out the week, let the "Fantaisie-Impromptu" serve as a reminder of Chopin's enduring legacy, a celebration of his life and contributions to the world of music on his birthday. It's a piece that continues to inspire and move listeners, embodying the spirit of one of the greatest composers to have ever graced the art of music.Without further ado, Frédéric Chopin's “Fantaisie-Impromptu” in C-sharp Minor, Op. 66.  Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Gilded Age interpretation and the Plessy decision. In the United States, 1877 marked the end of Reconstruction and the start of the Gilded Age. The first truly landmark equal protection decision by the Supreme Court was Strauder v West Virginia (1880). A black man convicted of murder by an all-white jury challenged a West Virginia statute excluding blacks from serving on juries. Exclusion of blacks from juries, the Court concluded, was a denial of equal protection to black defendants, since the jury had been "drawn from a panel from which the State has expressly excluded every man of race." At the same time, the Court explicitly allowed sexism and other types of discrimination, saying that states "may confine the selection to males, to freeholders, to citizens, to persons within certain ages, or to persons having educational qualifications. We do not believe the Fourteenth Amendment was ever intended to prohibit this. ... Its aim was against discrimination because of race or color." The next important postwar case was the Civil Rights Cases (1883), in which the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was at issue. The Act provided that all persons should have "full and equal enjoyment of ... inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement." In its opinion, the Court explicated what has since become known as the "state action doctrine", according to which the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause apply only to acts done or otherwise "sanctioned in some way" by the state. Prohibiting blacks from attending plays or staying in inns was "simply a private wrong". Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented alone, saying, "I cannot resist the conclusion that the substance and spirit of the recent amendments of the Constitution have been sacrificed by a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism." Harlan went on to argue that because (1) "public conveyances on land and water" use the public highways, and (2) innkeepers engage in what is "a quasi-public employment", and (3) "places of public amusement" are licensed under the laws of the states, excluding blacks from using these services was an act sanctioned by the state.

In this episode, the hosts discuss a series of cases from 1883 about the 13th and 14th Amendments, which ultimately ushered in the Jim Crow era. And what's really fun (fun?), is that these holdings use some of the very same shitty justifications of racial discrimination that you'll find on Fox News to this very day. Time is a flat circle!The full version of this premium episode is available exclusively to our Patreon supporters. To join, visit www.patreon.com/fivefourpod. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

State actor doctrine Before United States v Cruikshank, (1876) was decided by the United States Supreme Court, the case was decided as a circuit case (Federal Cases No. 14897). Presiding of this circuit case was judge Joseph P Bradley who wrote at page 710 of Federal Cases No. 14897 regarding the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: It is a guarantee of protection against the acts of the state government itself. It is a guarantee against the exertion of arbitrary and tyrannical power on the part of the government and legislature of the state, not a guarantee against the commission of individual offenses, and the power of Congress, whether express or implied, to legislate for the enforcement of such a guarantee does not extend to the passage of laws for the suppression of crime within the states. The enforcement of the guarantee does not require or authorize Congress to perform 'the duty that the guarantee itself supposes it to be the duty of the state to perform, and which it requires the state to perform'. The above quote was quoted by United Supreme Court in United States v Harris, (1883) and supplemented by a quote from the majority opinion in United States v Cruikshank, (1876) as written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite: The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, but it adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another. It simply furnishes an additional guarantee against any encroachment by the States upon the fundamental rights which belong to every citizen as a member of society. The duty of protecting all its citizens in the enjoyment of an equality of rights was originally assumed by the States, and it still remains there. The only obligation resting upon the United States is to see that the States do not deny the right. This the Amendment guarantees, but no more. The power of the National Government is limited to the enforcement of this guarantee. Individual liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution, other than the Thirteenth Amendment's ban on slavery, protect not against actions by private persons or entities, but only against actions by government officials. Regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled in Shelley v Kraemer (1948): "The action inhibited by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment is only such action as may fairly be said to be that of the States. That Amendment erects no shield against merely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful." The court added in Civil Rights Cases (1883): "It is State action of a particular character that is prohibited. Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject matter of the amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all State legislation, and State action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws."

The Great Dissenter: The Story of John Marshall Harlan, America's Judicial Hero is a new book exploring the life and legacy of a towering but sometimes forgotten jurist. Harlan, who served over 30 years on America's highest court, earned a reputation for being a champion of civil liberties -- notably, he was the lone dissenter in the Civil Rights Cases and Plessy v. Ferguson. Author Peter Canellos joins us to discuss his new book and Justice Harlan's legacy. Featuring: -- Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston-- Peter S. Canellos, Managing Editor, Politico-- Moderator: Hon. Victor Wolski, Senior Judge, U.S. Court of Federal Claims

In 1883, a Supreme Court ruling signaled the end of federal efforts to protect newly freed slaves and ushered in the era of Jim Crow laws. One justice, later called the Great Dissenter, stood alone in dissent. Join us as we explore the once-forgotten dissent of John Marshall Harlan in the Civil Rights Cases and how it saw a rebirth nearly a century later. Thanks to our guests Peter Canellos, Christopher Green, and Melvin Urofsky. Special thanks to Judge Benjamin Beaton for embodying the substance & spirit of Justice Harlan. Follow us on Twitter @ehslattery @anastasia_esq @pacificlegal #DissedPod See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In 1883, a Supreme Court ruling signaled the end of federal efforts to protect newly freed slaves and ushered in the era of Jim Crow laws. One justice, later called the Great Dissenter, stood alone in dissent. Join us as we explore the once-forgotten dissent of John Marshall Harlan in the Civil Rights Cases and […]

"AAVI presented a Review of Rent Blindness-related Civil Rights Cases. Presented by DRA attorneys Torie Atkinson and Rose Lee Bishell. Recorded during the 2021 ACB National Convention on July 19"

Mark York hosts a dynamic conversation with Keith Givens, managing partner of the Cochran Law Firm and a prominent attorney in various practice areas. Givens discusses not only the Cochran Law Firm but also the Ruth Bader Ginsburg portrait that is going to be auctioned this year to raise money for the Trial Lawyers Hall of Fame.  The Cochran firm works on everything from truck accident suits to civil rights cases. Givens touches on how they have navigated to this point as a firm and the value diversity holds.  Roughly one thousand citizens are killed by law enforcement every year. And in recent years, police footage has expanded, be it by police body cameras or citizens' cell phones. Givens and York talk through the impact this has today and will have in the future. Throughout the conversation, Givens touches on the Johnson & Johnson Supreme Court decision, civil justice, and shifts within society that look to drive positive change. Key Topics: -Upcoming tort actions and civil rights trials. -We're two or three votes away at any particular time from swinging the pendulum toward police accountability.  -Impact of cell phone usage by citizens with police officers. -Overlap between criminal justice and civil justice. -Accountability and negligence associated with police officer activity. -The Supreme Court's decision on Johnson & Johnson's talc appeal. Quotes: “The portrait is going to be granted to the auction format at MTMP in October in Las Vegas.” (1:08, Mark) “The different offices that we have are involved across the spectrum of individual events. We have a lot of larger truck litigation across the country.” (4:40, Keith) “We were the National Law Journal's civil rights trial firm of the year before COVID. We tried nine civil rights cases that year. Of course, incidentally, this year's truck accident law firm of the year. So it gives you an idea of the diversity of our practices across our offices.” (6:08, Keith) “There is a tremendous overlap between civil justice and criminal justice. And there is also an overwhelming disparity of the mistreatment or the injustice occurring to citizens of color.” (8:20, Keith) “The biggest resort for justice appears to be in the criminal courts and it's inadequate. It requires an extremely high burden. It does not change the core. That's like occasionally taking a drug dealer off the streets, so to speak. It does nothing for the manufacturer of illegal drugs or distribution of those drugs.” (9:11, Keith)

Join moderator Ryan Kunhart and Thomas Dupree, a Supreme Court practitioner and DRI Governmental Liability Seminar speaker, as he proves an update and analysis on Taylor v. Riojas, Torres v. Madrid, and other issues affecting the Supreme Court such as court packing proposals and Justice Breyer’s possible retirement. Recorded May 17, 2021

In this episode I look at The Civil Rights Cases (1883). Similar to Brown v. Board of Education, this case is a consolidation of five cases where the Plaintiffs filed discrimination suits against the defendants based upon the Civil Rights Act of 1875, America's second civil rights law. The Court was asked to decide if the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment. The court's holding and reasoning, I argue, highlight a critical problem that has had a lingering effect on how we currently address the issue of race. Books Mentioned: 1. Black Trials by Mark Weiner 2. Inherently Unequal: The Betrayal of Equal Rights by the Supreme Court by Lawrence Goldstone: Article: http://www.palookesworld.com/reconstruction-and-the-history-of-homegrown-terrorism/ Twitter: @plaookesworld Instagram: @palookesworld www.palookesworld.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvWkh1FxD-EbUQRAxmou37Q

On November 15, 2019, the Federalist Society's Civil Rights Practice Group hosted a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel covered "Stare Decisis in Civil Rights Cases".Stare decisis is generally regarded as a stronger force when applied to statutes than it is in constitutional law. The standard rationale is that it is much easier for the legislature to overrule statutory precedents than it is for the people to overrule constitutional precedents. But stare decisis has never been an absolute rule in either context. Has the Supreme Court been excessively reluctant to reconsider high-profile precedents that clearly misinterpreted the original meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and similar statutes?*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.Featuring:Mr. Michael A. Carvin, Partner, Jones DayMr. William S. Consovoy, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC and Adjunct Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. William N. Eskridge, Jr., John A. Garver Professor of Jurisprudence, Yale Law SchoolProf. Neil Kinkopf, Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law Prof. Nelson Lund, University Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityModerator: Hon. Diane S. Sykes, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

On November 15, 2019, the Federalist Society's Civil Rights Practice Group hosted a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel covered "Stare Decisis in Civil Rights Cases".Stare decisis is generally regarded as a stronger force when applied to statutes than it is in constitutional law. The standard rationale is that it is much easier for the legislature to overrule statutory precedents than it is for the people to overrule constitutional precedents. But stare decisis has never been an absolute rule in either context. Has the Supreme Court been excessively reluctant to reconsider high-profile precedents that clearly misinterpreted the original meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and similar statutes?*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.Featuring:Mr. Michael A. Carvin, Partner, Jones DayMr. William S. Consovoy, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC and Adjunct Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. William N. Eskridge, Jr., John A. Garver Professor of Jurisprudence, Yale Law SchoolProf. Neil Kinkopf, Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law Prof. Nelson Lund, University Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityModerator: Hon. Diane S. Sykes, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Hugh Hewitt and Kristen Waggoner, senior vice president of U.S. legal division and communications with Alliance Defending Freedom, discuss several court cases that will address whether discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity violates Title VII, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These cases include Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia and R.G. & G.R. HARRIS FUNERAL HOMES V EEOC & AIMEE STEPHENS Waggoner also provides an update on the Jack Phillips and Barronelle Stutzman cases.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In 1962, Professor Fred Rodell of Yale Law School, the "bad boy of American legal academia," asked his students to write scripts describing important Supreme Court cases for the "Second Series" of his "Supreme Court Cases" recordings. The scripts were directed by S.P. Puner, performed by John Randolph, Jack Curtis, and Martin Wolfson, and released on LP by Educational Audio Visual, Inc. in January 1963.According to the record sleeve:The arguments of the lawyers in each of these cases are paraphrased from the language used in the original briefs of the contending parties. However, in all cases when the Court speaks, we have quoted the exact language of the judge delivering the opinion, taken from the official report of the case. The opinion, of course, has been condensed and necessary connective words or phrases have been added. The script for each cases was prepared by Yale Law School students in Professor Fred Rodell's Course in Law and Public Opinion.The script for Civil Rights Cases (1883) was written by Earl Shapiro, who later became a successful business executive in Chicago, and a donor to the University of Chicago and Art Institute of Chicago. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Landmark Cases takes a look at the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, in which the Supreme Court struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875, a federal law that had granted all people access to public accommodations like trains and theaters, regardless of race. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In episode 45, we welcome back guest host Damon Parrish (@LawyerParrish) and Joy Thomas (The Dawson Thomas Law Group) to discuss this week’s legal issues. We breakdown the Department of Justice decision to pull back on civil rights cases. Also, Kentucky has had another unarmed police shooting/killing. Plus, Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement are using detainees as slave labor. This and more on #InJustice.

In episode 45, we welcome back guest host Damon Parrish (@LawyerParrish) and Joy Thomas (The Dawson Thomas Law Group) to discuss this week’s legal issues. We breakdown the Department of Justice decision to pull back on civil rights cases. Also, Kentucky has had another unarmed police shooting/killing. Plus, Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement are using detainees as slave labor. This and more on #InJustice.

May 3, 2013: Law Day Panel: Societal Impacts of Civil Rights Cases before the Roberts Court 3:30-4:30 pm Room 002, Rockefeller Center Participants: Bruce Duthu '80 Samson Occom Professor of Native American Studies (NAS), Chair of the NAS Program Professor N. Bruce Duthu is an internationally recognized scholar of Native American law and policy. He joined the regular faculty at Dartmouth in 2008 as professor of Native American Studies. Professor Duthu earned his BA degree in religion and Native American studies from Dartmouth College and his JD degree from Loyola University School of Law in New Orleans. Prior to joining the Dartmouth faculty, Professor Duthu was on the law faculty at Vermont Law School. He served as the law school's Vice Dean for Academic Affairs and as director of the VLS-Sun Yat-sen University (Guangzhou, China) Partnership in Environmental Law. He also served as visiting professor of law at Harvard Law School, the universities of Wollongong and Sydney in New South Wales, Australia, and the University of Trento in northern Italy. He is the author of American Indians and the Law (2008) and was a contributing author of Felix S. Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law (2005), the leading treatise in the field of federal Indian law. He also contributed chapters for two other books, Intercultural Dispute Resolution in Aboriginal Contexts: Canadian and International (2004) and First Person, First Peoples: Native American College Graduates Tell Their Life Stories (1997). Julie Kalish '91 Lecturer in Writing, Institute for Writing & Rhetoric Julie Kalish not only has students reading and writing about constitutional law in the courses she teaches for the Institute for Writing and Rhetoric -- Writing 5 and Writing 41: Writing and Speaking Public Policy -- she is also at the forefront of defending constitutional rights via her work for the Vermont ACLU. Most recently for the ACLU, Professor Kalish and her colleague Attorney Bernie Lambek represented Franklin, Vermont resident Marilyn Hackett in Hackett v. the Town of Franklin. For years, Ms. Hackett had complained that the recital of a sectarian prayer at the opening of her town's annual meeting was unconstitutional. Attorneys Kalish and Lambek argued their case based on Vermont Constitution's Article 3, which ensures freedom of conscience while prohibiting state endorsement of any religion through compelled attendance at worship—an argument that prevailed in the Vermont Superior Court. Professor Kalish and her colleague were awarded the Jonathan B Chase Cooperating Attorney Award for their achievement.