Is Ted Cruz A “Natural Born Citizen?”

Not if one interprets the U.S. Constitution the way Cruz thinks it should be interpreted.  See this interesting post over at the Volokh Conspiracy.

Handicapping The Outcome of State v. Peeler (Part Two)

In my preceding post I presented my thoughts on how the justices of the Supreme Court would cast their votes in State v. Peeler. In this post I discuss the various possible outcomes (“PO”). As I explain, there are a number of permutations beyond simply reaffirming or overruling State v. Santiago (Santiago II).

Read the rest of this entry »

Handicapping The Outcome Of State v. Peeler (Part One)

Yesterday, the Connecticut Supreme Court heard oral argument in State v. Peeler, a case that presents the Supreme Court with the opportunity to reaffirm or overrule its decision last August in State v. Santiago (Santiago II), which abolished the death penalty. (I use the term Santiago II to distinguish it from an earlier decision in the same case, which the Court and parties refer to as Santiago I.)

I’ve written about the Santiago and Peeler cases at some length, and this post presumes the reader’s familiarity with my earlier posts. The purpose of Part One of this two-part post is to handicap the outcome of yesterday’s argument. In Part Two, coming soon, I will outline the various possible permutations of the Court’s eventual decision, which I do not expect for many months.

Read the rest of this entry »

Where We Live: How “Perfect” Is The U.S. Constitution?

This morning’s program on WNPR’s “Where We Live,” hosted by John Dankosky, was a very interesting discussion about the U.S. Constitution.  Guests Akhil  Reed Amar (Yale Law School) and Adrienne Fulco (Trinity College) discussed a wide range of issues, including how the constitution should be interpreted; whether it is in need of amendment; current Second Amendment issues and more.  Click here to listen to the program!

Floyd Abrams: Great Threats To Free Speech Come From Inside Academia

The nation’s preeminent First Amendment lawyer, Floyd Abrams (of The Pentagon Papers, et al. fame), gave a wonderful speech last March at Temple University on the greatest threats to free speech presently facing our country.  Mr. Abrams recently gave the blog “Concurring Opinions” the right to republish the speech in its entirety.

Notably, Mr. Abrams identifies the deplorable status of free speech on college campuses as one of the greatest threats.  He writes:

Read the rest of this entry »

The Top Legal Stories Of 2015

The year 2015 anno Domini (or of the Common Era for new atheists out there) was chock full of big legal stories in Connecticut. I enjoyed covering them. According to my stats package, the following five stories are the ones readers found most interesting:

Read the rest of this entry »

Harvard On Posner

Readers of this blog know that I am a fan of Seventh Circuit judge Richard Posner.  I don’t always agree with his decisions, but his legal reasoning always compels me to think more deeply about an issue, and very few judges have his rhetorical gifts.

Judge Posner is a Harvard Law School alum. The January-February 2016 edition of Harvard Magazine has a terrific profile of the prolific scholar/jurist, written by Lincoln Caplan. It makes for a good read.

The What And Why Of “Due Process”

Since Governor Dannel Malloy announced his intention to issue an executive order barring people who appear on the federal government’s “no-fly” list from buying guns, a debate has ensued about whether such an order would violate a person’s right to “due process.” The purpose of this post is not to join that debate, but instead to help non-lawyer readers understand what the “due process” debate is really about.

Read the rest of this entry »

New Threat To Public Sector Labor Unions, Ctd

Last June I wrote a post about a case that the U.S. Supreme Court had agreed to hear, which poses a serious threat to the viability of public sector labor unions. The case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, concerns whether public employees can be forced to pay fees for the non-political activities of a labor union. I wrote:

By agreeing to review that case, the Supreme Court has accepted the petitioners’ invitation to consider overruling the court’s 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Education Association, which answered that question in the affirmative.

More specifically, Abood held that a public employee has a First Amendment right to refuse to support a union’s political activities, but still must pay an “agency fee,” which covers the union’s non-political activities, such as collective bargaining.  This distinction prevents unionized employees from “free riding,” i.e., from enjoying the benefits of the collective bargaining process without contributing to the costs thereof.

The petitioners in Friederichs argue, however, that all public sector labor union activity is inherently political and that a public employee has a First Amendment right not be compelled to support that activity if they object to it.  The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the Friederichs case suggests that at least four justices are receptive to that argument, which could be devastating to public labor unions.

The case has been scheduled for oral argument before the Supreme Court on January 11, 2016. The Obama administration has filed an amicus brief in support of the unions, asking the Supreme Court to reaffirm Abood. [I share the administration’s view that Abood should be reaffirmed.]

This is a VERY important case, but it has been flying under the media’s radar screen. Click here to read more about the case over at SCOTUSblog. And click here for an insightful discussion about the threat an adverse decision poses to our democracy in general.