Podcast appearances and mentions of gabriel chin

On May 15, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case challenging the constitutionality of President Trump's executive order which seeks to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants. Legal scholars Gabriel Chin of the University of California, Davis School of Law; Amanda Frost of the University of Virginia School of Law; Kurt Lash of the University of Richmond School of Law; and Ilan Wurman of the University of Minnesota Law School join Jeffrey Rosen to debate the scope of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.   Resources Gabriel J. Chin and Paul Finkelman, “Birthright Citizenship, Slave Trade Legislation, and the Origins of Federal Immigration Regulation,” UC Davis Law Review (April 8, 2021)  Ilan Wurman, “Jurisdiction and Citizenship,” Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No.25-27 (April 14, 2025)  Amanda Frost, “The Coming Assault on Birthright Citizenship,” The Atlantic (Jan. 7 2025)  Kurt Lash, “Prima Facie Citizenship: Birth, Allegiance and the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause,” SSRN (Feb. 22, 2025)  Amanda Frost, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government, U.S. House of Representatives (Feb. 25, 2025)  Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate

Patricia Hurtado, Bloomberg legal reporter, discusses the New York Attorney General urging a judge to find Donald Trump liable of fraud before the trial set for October. Gabriel Chin, a professor at the UC Davis School of Law, discusses the Justice Department investigating the shooting of three people in Jacksonville, Florida, as a hate crime and an act of racially-motivated violent extremism. June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Patricia Hurtado, Bloomberg legal reporter, discusses the New York Attorney General urging a judge to find Donald Trump liable of fraud before the trial set for October. Gabriel Chin, a professor at the UC Davis School of Law, discusses the Justice Department investigating the shooting of three people in Jacksonville, Florida, as a hate crime and an act of racially-motivated violent extremism. June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Merriam-Webster's Word of the Day for February 23, 2021 is: habeas corpus • HAY-bee-us-KOR-pus • noun 1 : any of several common-law writs issued to bring a party before a court or judge; especially : a writ for inquiring into the lawfulness of the restraint of a person who is imprisoned or detained in another's custody 2 : the right of a citizen to obtain a writ of habeas corpus as a protection against illegal imprisonment Examples: "Embraced by America's founders, the Great Writ, as [habeas corpus is] colloquially known, is enshrined in the Constitution, statutory law, and case law, where it guarantees certain rights to the detained. Habeas corpus entitles detainees convicted in state courts to appeal to federal courts if they believe their rights were violated at trial or during sentencing." — Elizabeth Bruenig, The New York Times, 18 Jan. 2021 "[Assistant to the Solicitor General Vivek] Suri … underscored the availability of habeas corpus relief under Zadvydas v. Davis, a 2001 decision in which the Supreme Court recognized an opportunity for those detained under Section 1231 to seek judicial review once it appeared that there was no significant likelihood of removal." — Gabriel Chin, SCOTUSblog, 12 Jan. 2021 Did you know? The literal meaning of habeas corpus is "you should have the body"—that is, the judge or court should (and must) have any person who is being detained brought forward so that the legality of that person's detention can be assessed. In United States law, habeas corpus ad subjiciendum (the full name of what habeas corpus typically refers to) is also called "the Great Writ," and it is not about a person's guilt or innocence, but about whether custody of that person is lawful under the U.S. Constitution. Common grounds for relief under habeas corpus—"relief" in this case being a release from custody—include a conviction based on illegally obtained evidence; a denial of effective assistance of counsel; or a conviction by a jury that was improperly selected and impaneled.

By Chris Nichols If Your Time Is Short As California’s attorney general, Kamala Harris was labeled “cautious” and “deliberate” on some criminal justice reform issues.  Some legal experts say Harris, in her role as AG, was legally and ethically constrained and could not set the state’s policy priorities. Others say Harris had the power to make more change but chose not to. California Sen. Kamala Harris is known for taking bold stands on criminal justice reform in Congress and has vowed to do the same as Joe Biden’s running mate.  But that was not always the case. As the California attorney general and San Francisco district attorney before that, Harris was often labeled in news articles and op-eds as “deliberate” and even “cautious to a fault” on reform issues. During her time as AG, Harris refused to take public positions on state ballot measures to decriminalize marijuana, reduce criminal sentences and abolish the death penalty, which Harris has long said she personally opposes. She also stayed silent on Assembly Bill 86, which would have required the attorney general’s office to appoint a special prosecutor to examine fatal shootings by the police. Harris explained in an MSNBC interview last year that her resistance stemmed from her own fight as San Francisco’s top prosecutor to exercise discretion over an investigation into the shooting death of a police officer. In what’s believed to be the first time she’s publicly acknowledged her shift in position, she said in the same May 2019 interview that police shootings should undergo independent investigations rather than having local district attorneys handle them. During her three years in the U.S. Senate, Harris has shifted on other positions, too. She now favors legalizing marijuana nationwide, ending cash bail and placing a moratorium on the federal death penalty. Critics say Harris should have taken these positions long ago and is only doing so now because it’s “trendy,” as one criminal justice advocate wrote in a widely-shared New York Times op-ed last year. And some legal experts say there was nothing that blocked her from speaking out as an elected prosecutor.  However, other experts say it is more complicated. They say Harris chipped away at inequities in the criminal justice system but was constrained in how much she could do or say. Mary-Beth Moylan, associate dean at McGeorge Law School in Sacramento, said the overly cautious label is not entirely fair. In her role as AG, Harris was not in charge of setting California’s priorities.  “To me, a number of the positions that I think she’s been able to take as U.S. Senator were ones that I don’t think she could have or should have taken as attorney general,” Moylan said, citing legal and ethical barriers.  As AG, Harris represented the state and was bound to defend existing laws and policy, Moylan added. One example is the state’s death penalty law, which Harris defended in court. “So, there’s an attorney-client relationship there,” she said. “And there’s also a clear distinction in the California constitution that the governor sets the state policy. So the attorney general needs to be subordinate in terms of making policy statements to the governor. And then also needs to be the lawyer for the governor and the other constitutional officers and so can’t get kind of out ahead of or sideways to their policies.”  Harris’ supporters point to several achievements as a prosecutor as evidence she worked to improve the criminal justice system. They include: The Back On Track program in 2005, which was designed to help nonviolent, first-time drug offenders transition back to their communities and prevent recidivism. Her 2015 launch of Open Justice, a criminal-justice open-data initiative that provides information on deaths in police custody, including those that occur during arrests, as well as arrest rates by race and ethnicity. It also provides data on officers who are killed or assaulted on the job. Her creation of the first statewide implicit bias training for law enforcement personnel in 2015. It called for a focus on six areas of policing that "emphasize respect, listening, neutrality and trust, while recognizing and addressing implicit biases that can be barriers to these approaches," according to a news release at the time from the AG’s office. Still, other legal experts say Harris had the power to make more change as AG, but failed to use it.   Irene Joe, a UC Davis law professor who has tracked Harris’ career, says she could have refused to defend the death penalty law and voiced stronger opinions. “As the attorney general, as a prosecutor, you are permitted to take whatever steps,” are necessary, Joe said. “We rely on their discretion. So, she certainly could have taken a step to not support that.”  Harris had promised voters she would uphold California’s death penalty law during her run for AG. Gabriel Chin, also a UC Davis law professor, added in an email that “DAs and AGs routinely state their opinions and lobby on policy proposals pending before legislatures and the voters. As experts in the criminal justice system, it would make no sense for them not to propose legislation and comment on it.” Lateefah Simon is a civil rights activist who worked for Harris when she was San Francisco’s DA. Simon said Harris could not overturn all the wrongs of the criminal justice system at once.  “She was trying to undo slowly a system that had been burdening communities of color for generations,” Simon said on CapRadio’s Insight program this week.  Experts also acknowledged that law enforcement’s conservative culture may have contributed to Harris’ reticence.   “It is very common for prosecutors to do everything they can to maintain good relations with law enforcement agencies, because they depend on working closely with them to investigate cases and make arrests,” Chin wrote.  Related:  Kamala Harris: Criminal justice reformer, or defender of the status quo? The record is mixed Kamala Harris Is Biden's VP Pick. Here's A Closer Look At Her Record In California. Harris did not call Biden a racist during her busing attack Did Kamala Harris flip-flop on independent probes of police shootings? Source List Mary-Beth Moylan, associate dean, McGeorge Law School, video interview Aug. 12, 2020 Irene Joe, UC Davis law professor, video interview Aug. 12, 2020 Lateefah Simon, civil rights activist, CapRadio Insight interview Aug. 12, 2020 Gabriel Chin, UC Davis law professor, email interview Aug. 12, 2020 PolitiFact California, Kamala Harris: Criminal justice reformer, or defender of the status quo? The record is mixed, Jan. 29, 2020 CapRadio, Kamala Harris Is Biden's VP Pick. Here's A Closer Look At Her Record In California., Aug. 11, 2020 PolitiFact California, Did Kamala Harris flip-flop on independent probes of police shootings?, May 23, 2020 Sacramento Bee, Kamala Harris picks her fights as criminal justice crusader, May 1, 2016 Lara Bazelon, op-ed in The New York Times, "Kamala Harris Was Not a ‘Progressive Prosecutor.’" Jan. 17, 2019 Courthouse News Service, Harris Vows to End Death Penalty, Money Bail as President, Sept. 9, 2019

Here's a fun fact: there are more Chinese restaurants in the United States than there are McDonald's, KFC's and Burger Kings combined. No doubt this is partly a result of the dedicated entrepreneurship of Chinese immigrants and the American appetite for sweet and sour pork, but there is also a story of economic discrimination behind the flourishing of dim sum dens, chop suey canteens, and Szechuan saloons. Because of the prejudicial hiring environment at the turn of the 20th century, restaurants and launderettes were among the only sectors in which Chinese immigrants to the United States could get a foothold. Even as self-employed restaurateurs, Chinese Americans faced fierce resistance from unionized competition, who hid behind a smokescreen of moral panic and virulently racist propaganda. Gabriel “Jack” Chin is a legal scholar and Law Professor at UC Davis, where he teaches Immigration Law, Criminal Procedure, and Race and Law. Chin recently co-authored an eye-opening article titled “The War on Chinese Restaurants” for Cato's quarterly journal Regulation. He documents this sorry episode in American history, in which states and local governments persistently discriminated against Chinese immigrants – including bans on white women entering their restaurants – even after the courts declared such policies unconstitutional. The market demand for Chinese food eventually won out, but only after two pieces of federal legislation excluding Chinese immigrants. Listen in and call in with your questions for Bob and Jack at any time during the show: (424) BOB-SHOW.

What’s your favorite case? It’s a difficult question, but in this episode Christian answers it: the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson that upheld racial apartheid under the “separate but equal” principle. Joe accuses him of cheating a bit, because Christian’s “favorite” is actually Justice Harlan’s celebrated solo dissent. Its greatness, though, does not lie in any sort of perfection. Severely flawed and yet great, at the same time. This show’s links: Plessy v. Ferguson, which you should scan through as bit, as recommended during the show Some background here and here on Homer Plessy and his act of civil disobedience Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Plessy v. Ferguson: Who Was Plessy? Justice Souter’s discussion of Plessy and the role of history in judging (watch from minute one until about minute fourteen) and his Harvard Commencement speech on Plessy United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which Harlan joined a dissent arguing that those children of Chinese citizens who are born in the United States should not receive citizenship; see here for a summary Gabriel Chin, The Plessy Myth: Justice Harlan and the Chinese Cases

Two recent Supreme Court decisions seem to send conflicting messages about state and local laws regulating noncitizens. In one case, the justices upheld Arizona’s law imposing sanctions on employers who hire undocumented workers. But another ruling struck down a law that allowed for racial profiling of suspected illegal immigrants. UC Davis Law Professor Gabriel Chin sorts through the legal contradictions to find the right balance between state and federal governments. Chin is the featured speaker of the 2013 DeWitt Higgs Memorial Lecture, sponsored by Cal Western School of Law and UC San Diego. Series: "DeWitt Higgs Memorial Lecture" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 24665]

Two recent Supreme Court decisions seem to send conflicting messages about state and local laws regulating noncitizens. In one case, the justices upheld Arizona’s law imposing sanctions on employers who hire undocumented workers. But another ruling struck down a law that allowed for racial profiling of suspected illegal immigrants. UC Davis Law Professor Gabriel Chin sorts through the legal contradictions to find the right balance between state and federal governments. Chin is the featured speaker of the 2013 DeWitt Higgs Memorial Lecture, sponsored by Cal Western School of Law and UC San Diego. Series: "DeWitt Higgs Memorial Lecture" [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 24665]