hunter of justice

Will Supreme Court grant cert in Christian Legal Society case?

A cert petition that has been lingering before the Supreme Court since last summer raises the question of whether a Christian student group's constitutional rights were violated when a public law school refused to grant it official status because the group excluded gay and non-Christian students in violation of the school's non-discrimination policy. Clearly, someone on the Court is interested in granting cert: the case has been on the Court's conference calendar five times (counting today), but still no decision on cert has been announced. This week, the clerk of the Court sent a letter to the Ninth Circuit clerk's office requesting that the complete record in the case be transferred to the Supreme Court, a step that is normally taken only after cert is granted.

If the Court does add Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (No. 08-1371) to its docket, the debate over the conflict between religious liberty and anti-discrimination law will jump to the top of the list of important constitutional law issues related to sexual orientation. The decision could set the terms for what is increasingly the central philosophical question in lgbt rights law: the extent to which religious entities (or even individuals) should be exempt from civil rights protections for sexual orientation. (Additional background here)

If any decision is reached today on granting cert, it will be announced on Monday. Given that there is little chance that the Justices have fully reviewed the lower court documents yet, however, the case may well be rescheduled for its sixth time on the conference calendar.  The Court's next conference is November 24.

Excerpts from the lower court opinion after the jump -->

Memo to the appointments committee: how to interview minority candidates

The hiring conference for entry-level law professors, known universally and grimly as the meat market, starts today. Having survived my one year as a candidate and many years on the hiring side of the table, I herewith pass on the following advice from a non-lawyer, but similarly experienced, historian, my friend Claire Potter, aka the Tenured Radical:

...[I]n lieu of giving bad advice to candidates, I thought I would give advice to those people who were doing the interviewing instead. And it's a particular kind of advice: how not to look like a fool when interviewing what we now call a "diversity candidate." Now for the sake of brevity, let's say the candidate is either a man or a woman (technically all women are diversity candidates), but may also be either of color or queer (technically queer people are never diversity candidates. Unless they are -- for some other reason.) Because these categories are too internally various, and because in fact there is surprising overlap in some of the ways you could possibly offend the people who occupy them, let's call them: Martians. And we'll assume for the sake of clarity in what follows that "you" are not a Martian, and that "I" am. Are you ready? Let's begin.

1. Do not tell irrelevant stories about your friends who are Martians, or that your daughter decided to come out as a Martian last year and how great you feel about it. I understand that you are doing this to make us Martians feel as though we are among friends, and to demonstrate your absolute lack of Martianophobia or your committed anti-Martianism. I appreciate that. Really, I do. But you know what? It suggests just the opposite. It suggests that the Martian in your presence, who is me, is making you uncomfortable, and that you are bravely overcoming it. We Martians are used to being in the minority, but it makes us impatient to have other people remind us of it all the time -- in the name of pro-Martianism, no less. So we will all do better during the interview if you stick to scholarship, teaching and what the actual requirements of the job are.

2. Do not take me to a Martian restaurant for dinner. First of all, a Martian restaurant that is not on Mars, or in a place with a significant Martian population, is likely not to be any good. It will serve Martian food cooked to the taste of the non-Martians who populate your planet. So I will find this depressing. But furthermore, it suggests that I, as a Martian, am in danger of feeling alienated on your planet because I may not be able to access my "culture." Though a Martian, as a scholar and an intellectual, I probably feel I am a little more cosmopolitan than that.

3. While we are at dinner, stay away from topics that betray how invisible the other Martians on campus or on your planet are to you. Telling me that I may wish to live on the planet one light year away because it has a larger Martian population is one way of conveying this, as is: explaining that retaining single Martians is so difficult because it is so difficult to meet and other, marriageable, Martians on your planet; or announcing that, incredibly, there is a Martian Episcopalian church that serves the entire planet right in your canyon! So even though there aren't many Martians on campus, there will be a terrific community for me. On Sundays. (Did I say I was religious? Are you sure?)

4. Admit it if your college does a crappy job of recruiting and serving the needs of Martians. Most colleges and universities that are not on Mars do -- it's not up to you to apologize for it. As in (1), don't tell me about the one Martian who graduated Summa and won the department prize twelve years ago. And although there may be serious Martian politics on campus, don't assume that I share your view of what it means to be progressive on these issues, even -- or especially -- if you are a fellow Martian.

5. Refrain from hinting to me coyly that there is someone I "really need to meet" but not telling me why. This is the most frequent way that people have of dropping a few hairpins that I am a Martian (duh), and this other person is a Martian, but being a person who doesn't really "see" or believe in interplanetary differences, you aren't going to say the word "Martian" (wink, wink.) Most Martians find this tiresome. We aren't at a job interview to meet other Martians: we're there to get a job. And if meeting another Martian on campus is important to me, I'll tell you so.

6. Try to police your references to Martian stereotypes, whether social or intellectual. Don't ask me, for example, why I ended up a historian and not a flight engineer; don't tell me that the special barber I need to cut the hair around my antennae is in the next town over (we don't all have antennae, ok?); and don't, for heaven's sake, if I am interviewing for a Renaissance Literature position, reassure me that the Martian Studies program is very welcoming. Don't put the chair of Martian Studies on my schedule without asking me, if I am not interviewing in Martian Studies, or set up lunch with the one other out Martian to talk about how I might like to work up a Martian survey course once I get a firm grip on the courses I am actually being hired to teach.

And last of all -- if you make any of the above errors, please forget about it and move on -- don't embarrass all of us by dwelling on your faux pas and trying to repair the damage. Martians are used to being in the minority, and we can take care of ourselves, thank you very much.

Homophobia at U VA law school, circa 1985 - UPDATED

10/6/09 UPDATE - Since the following post was published, multiple blogs have picked up the story; current Virginia Law Dean Mahoney issued a denial that discrimination was a factor in Bill's tenure denial; Bill replied that Mahoney was mistaken; and a U VA student blog republished an article from the student newspaper in January 1986 quoting many students as "shocked" that Bill did not receive tenure and voicing suspicion that something fishy was going on (the main belief being that Bill's criticism of law and economics scholarship was behind the decision).  In other words, the end point of this story seems to be a he-said-he-said dispute, with a conclusive adjudication of exactly what happened and why probably impossible. Bill is a friend and co-author; I believe his testimony. The bigger point is that he has opened a window into what the world was like for gay men and lesbians in law teaching in the 1980's - it wasn't pretty.

++++++++

As part of his testimony at last week's House hearing on ENDA, Bill Eskridge retold a story that many people find it difficult to believe: that he was denied tenure at the University of Virginia Law School in substantial part because he is gay. What follows is an excerpt from the full testimony (pp.83-93):

    …Although I was gay and was dating men in Washington, DC during my tenure at Virginia, I was never publicly “out,” largely because I thought that such a status would be lethal for tenure purposes; from time to time, I heard snide anti-homosexual comments from senior faculty. But because I was closeted, I was vaguely optimistic about tenure when my case came up in the Fall Term, 1985. … [A faculty subcommittee reviewed Eskridge’s work and enthusiastically recommended tenure. The full appointments committee, in a virtually unprecedented move, rejected the recommendation.]

My understanding was that the subcommittee’s report was supposed to serve as the factual record for the Appointments Committee to consider in making its tenure recommendation to the faculty.   Before my case, the Appointments Committee had generally included at least one faculty member who was also on the subcommittee, and the report was always accepted as the primary basis for the final recommendation.   In my case, however, there was no overlap of personnel, and the Appointments Committee wrote its own report, apparently the first time that happened under this bifurcated system. … According to faculty colleagues, the committee’s meeting was an emotional one, filled with tension and anxiety.

…The morning after the committee’s negative meeting, I remained unaware of the committee’s recommendations and of its substantive objections.   Apparently, other senior faculty members became aware of the committee’s negative leanings and the fact that the committee had kept me in completely in the dark and was not following the procedures that had been duly established by the faculty.   While I sat in my office preparing for class that morning, stormy conversations were apparently occurring at various parts of the law school’s building.  Late in the morning, as I was finishing up my class preparation, the chair of the committee stormed into my office and screamed at me for 10 minutes or so.  With clenched fists and a beet-red face, the chair of the committee threw a tantrum that included a string of accusations, such as “stabbing me in the back” and behaving in the treacherous manner that he and his colleagues ought to have expected of a “faggot.”   Apparently, the chair thought I had complained to the dean that he had been derelict in following the established law school procedures and that I was sneaking behind his back to discredit him.  In fact, I remained utterly clueless as to what those procedures were and was reduced to tears as the chair of the committee spat on me and called me dirty names.   During this tirade, the chair of the committee never shared with me his committee’s reasons, their recommendation, or the news that I had a right to appear before the committee.  Nor did he share this information with me thereafter.  (Nor did he apologize for unfairly screaming at me, spitting on me, or calling me a “faggot.”)…

            After the committee’s report was ratified by the faculty, blood was in the water.  For the remainder of my tenure at the University of Virginia School of Law, I was harassed on a regular basis by faculty colleagues and parts of the law school’s administration.   Several faculty friends and at least one member of the committee explicitly urged me to get out of Charlottesville as quickly as possible, partly because there was so much hatred toward me on the faculty and partly just for my own mental sanity and physical safety (during the tirade by the chair of the committee, I believed that he was going to assault me).   So I visited at the Georgetown University Law Center in academic year 1987-88 and accepted a permanent position there in 1988. …

           

 

Lawbama profs - fall update (updated 10/21/09)

All together, 46 law professors are working or will soon be working in the Obama administration. In addition, four profs have been named to advisory or oversight boards.

Here's the updated list:

ADELL AMOS (Oregon) has been appointed Deputy Solicitor for land and water resources at Department of the Interior.

SAM BAGENSTOS (Michigan) is Deputy Assistant AG in the Civil Rights Division at Justice.

JONATHAN BAKER (American) is Chief Economist at the FCC.

MICHAEL BARR (Michigan) is Assistant Secretary of Treasury for Financial Institutions.

DAVID BARRON (Harvard) is Principal Deputy Assistant AG at OLC.

NORMAN BAY (New Mexico) has been named to head the Office of Enforcement for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ROSA BROOKS (Georgetown) is a senior adviser to the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy.

MARCILYNN BURKE (University of Houston Law Center) is deputy director of policy and programs for the Bureau of Land Management

BILL BURKE-WHITE (Penn) is joining the State Department’s Policy and Planning office.

ALTA CHARO (Wisconsin) is a senior adviser in the Office of the Commissioner at the FDA.

SARAH CLEVELAND (Columbia) is Counselor on International Law with the Office of the Legal Adviser of the U. S. State Department.

TINO CUELLAR (Stanford) is Special Assistant to the President for Justice and Regulatory Policy, in the White House Domestic Policy Council.

SUSAN CRAWFORD (Michigan) is Special Assistant to the President for Science, Technology and Innovation Policy.

NESTOR DAVIDSON (Colorado) is Principal Deputy General Counsel at HUD.

LARRY ECHOHAWK (BYU) is the new head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

CHAI FELDBLUM (Georgetown) has been nominated to become a commissioner on the EEOC.

JODY FREEMAN (Harvard) is a counselor in the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change.

SETH HARRIS (New York Law School) is Deputy Secretary of Labor.

LISA HEINZERLING (Georgetown) wins the prize for first promotion: initially a senior advisor to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, she has been named Associate Administrator for the Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation (OPEI).

Spring semester round-up of professors moving to Administration - updated May 25

Wingnuts continue their efforts to block confirmation of Dawn Johnsen and Harold Koh, who have become victims of a delusional and insane smear campaign. Enough already! Where the hell is Al Franken?

Meanwhile, the spring semester has ended with this latest round of professorial appointments:

ROSA BROOKS (Georgetown), an expert in international human rights, will become senior adviser to the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy.

TINO CUELLAR (Stanford) is serving as Special Assistant to the President for Justice and Regulatory Policy, in the White House Domestic Policy Council; his primary fields are criminal justice, civil rights, and regulatory policy.

NESTOR DAVIDSON (Colorado) is taking the post of Principal Deputy General Counsel at HUD.

LARRY ECHOHAWK (BYU) will be the new head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

(NEW) CHRIS SCHROEDER (Duke) will become the Assistant AG in charge of the Office of Legal Policy at Justice.

DAVID VLADECK (Georgetown) will direct the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission.

PHIL WEISER (Colorado) will be Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division.

Previously announced new jobs for law professors after the jump. I'll do the next round-up at the end of the summer.

Predicting how Obama will choose a Supreme Court Justice

In light of Justice Souter's resignation, speculation is intense about the kind of justice that President Obama will appoint.  Most of this is just pointless noise; it's a good bet that the list was short before Souter's announcement, and that the POTUS is deciding now among a very small group. I think the best rule of thumb for a prediction is that Obama will appoint a person who he thinks will be the kind of justice he would be. (And Justice of the Supreme Court would be, imho, an excellent position for the big O after the end of his presidency.)

Last summer the NY Times published eight of the exams (scroll to bottom of link) that Obama gave while he was teaching at the University of Chicago Law School, together with two sample answers.  Almost every exam includes a question that involves sexual orientation or reproductive rights or a combination.  

To me, the most important aspect of this window into his thinking lies not in his answers, but in which questions he found intriguing and rich enough to build an exam around. Consider the 1996 con law exam (Part I), in which students had to analyze a "Preserving Family Values Act," that prohibited furnishing infertility services to homosexuals.  This was seven years prior to Lawrence v. Texas, although even today the Equal Protection Clause analysis would still be centered on Romer v. Evans, then only a year old. Read Professor Obama's analysis of that aspect of the hypothetical statute (pp 5-6).   it's cool, critical and analytical. 

This President knows and cares a great deal about the law. Among the names being endlessly recylced by the press as potential nominees, consider which would be most likely to write the questions and model answers as Obama did.  That's the short list.

Obama law prof update: Conservatives attack progressive feminist

Since my last post a month ago, the White House got around to formally announcing Harold Koh's designation as chief lawyer at the State Department, and Jonathan Cannon withdrew his name as nominee for Deputy Administrator at EPA. By far the most important developments center on Dawn Johnsen, the President's nominee to head the Office of Legal Counsel at Justice.

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted Dawn's nomination out of committee late last week, but it was a party-line vote with all Republicans except Specter, who abstained, voting against her. Dawn should be proud of these enemies. Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas called her a "hardened partisan."  Cornyn was a major defender of Alberto Gonzalez, so his cred on this point is in the sub-basement. Plus, he's working hard to torpedo judicial nominees as well. Because of these hypocritical antics, Dawn's nomination may have to endure a battle in the Senate. Kudos to the NY Times, which ran an editorial yesterday calling for her confirmation:

Ms. Johnsen is superbly qualified and has fought for just the sort of change the office needs. The Senate should confirm her without further delay. ... There is no corner of the executive branch in greater need of a new direction than the Office of Legal Counsel. The impressive Ms. Johnsen is an excellent choice to provide it.

The attacks stem from her reproductive rights work and her scholarship addressing DoJ issues such as executive branch abuse of power. She'll be a terrific head of OLC.

UPDATE: Two law prof nominees for the Treasury Department were announced Saturday: Michael Barr (Michigan) as Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions and Beth Garrett (Southern Cal) as Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy.

Ninth Circuit shoots down CLS appeal in Hastings case

In a one-paragraph, unpublished order issued just a week after oral arguments, the Ninth Circuit has ruled that the UC Hastings College of Law cannot be required to recognize and fund a religious student group that discriminates in the selection of members and officers. Christian Legal Society v Kane, 2009 WL 693391. At issue was Hastings' open membership rule prohibiting discrimination based on religion or sexual orientation of members.

The order states in its entirety:

The parties stipulate that Hastings imposes an open membership rule on all student groups-all groups must accept all comers as voting members even if those individuals disagree with the mission of the group. The conditions on recognition are therefore viewpoint neutral and reasonable. Truth v. Kent Sch. Dist., 542 F.3d 634, 649-50 (9th Cir.2008). 

AFFIRMED.

The Alliance Defense Fund has filed a cert petition in the Truth case. (See summary of oral argument and link to cert petition.) CLS, which has chapters in 165 (out of roughly 200) law schools, is also expected to seek Supreme Court review.

From National Law Journal:

Hastings' attorney, Ethan Schulman of Folger Levin & Kahn in San Francisco, said the issue has arisen repeatedly in test cases at various university campuses across the country. The most recent was Feb. 6 in San Diego. In that case, U.S. District Judge Larry Burns granted summary judgment for San Diego State University against a challenge by Christian student groups.

The CLS case is one of a half-dozen test cases the group has filed in recent years against law schools around the country over similar nondiscrimination pledge requirements. The 9th Circuit decision to side with Hastings may put it in direct conflict with the 7th Circuit.

CLS attorney Timothy J. Tracey, of the Springfield, Va.-based Center for Law and Religious Freedom, argued that the school's denial of official recognition deprives it of some funding, access to recruit students at official events and access to the school Web site and other publications. The school does provide meeting space.

Ninth Circuit hears argument in Christian Legal Society suit against Hastings Law School

On Tuesday the Ninth Circuit heard argument in an important case pitting religious liberty against lgbt civil rights.  In Christian Legal Society v Kane, CLS sued the UC-Hastings Law School alleging that it had a right to discriminate against lesbians and gay men in its criteria for voting membership in the organization. Judges Kozinski, Hug and Bea comprised the panel.

UPDATE: In the case referenced below - Truth v Kent School Dist - the Alliance Defense Fund has just filed a cert petition on behalf of Truth, arguing that the Ninth Circuit erred and that the case is covered by Boy Scouts v. Dale.

Hastings Professor Calvin Massey attended the oral argument and blogged about it at Faculty Lounge. Here is the bulk of his report:

As is true of many universities and law schools, Hastings subsidizes officially recognized student groups by providing access to school faclities, e-mail lists, mail folders, and money.  To obtain official recognition and receipt of those subsidies a student group must be open to all Hastings students, regardless of (among other things) their religion or sexual orientation.  The Hastings chapter of CLS allows any Hastings student to attend meetings but limits voting rights and leadership roles to students who profess their belief in Jesus Christ as savior and who affirm that they are not practicing homosexuals.  (CLS believes that homosexual conduct is incompatible with their conception of Christianity, a belief that is not held by many Christian denominations, but which is generally held by fundamentalist Christian sects.)  Accordingly, CLS was denied official recognition.  A federal district court granted summary judgment to Hastings (the Lexis report of the opinion is here).  While the CLS appeal was pending a Ninth Circuit panel decided Truth v. Kent School District, 542 F. 3d 634 (2008) (opinion here), in which a public high school denied recognition and funding to a Christian religious group called Truth.  The court said that the school had created a limited public forum but concluded that application of a state non-discrimination policy constituted a viewpoint-neutral restriction of the forum that was reasonable in light of the forum's purposes. 

      [At] [t]oday's argument, [Judge]  Kozinski wanted to know why the CLS case was different from Truth. Timothy Tracey, arguing for CLS, stressed that the Hastings rule was a substantially greater interference with CLS's right of expressive association than the denial of recognition to Truth.  Kozinski observed that CLS could freely exercise its speech and associational rights; it just wasn't getting a subsidy.  Ethan Schulman, arguing for Hastings, stressed that the non-discrimination policy was even-handed -- it applied to all student groups -- and was thus viewpoint-neutral.  Judge Bea agreed that this was so, and expressed some skepticism about the wisdom of a policy that required student Democrats to accept Republican members, and vice versa.   Judge Kozinski observed that while the impact of the Hastings rule had no impact on the expressive association of, say, the Chess Club, it bites deeply into the expressive association of religious groups.  Kozinski inquired of counsel whether it might be prudent of the panel to delay submission of the cause until the Supreme Court disposes of a pending cert. petition in Truth.  Tracey thought this might be wise; Schulman objected. 

There's also a story in The Recorder.

You can listen to the oral argument here.

IMHO, this case has a very good chance of getting to the Supreme Court.

Congrats to pathbreaking judges and law school deans

New York Governor David Paterson has named the first openly gay lawyers to serve on the state's intermediate appellate court. Judge Roz Richter, now on the supreme court (what the trial level court is called in New York), will join the bench for the 1st Appellate Department, which includes Manhattan.  Roz has been a trial court or administrative judge for more than 20 years. In the early 1980s, she was the first executive director of Lambda Legal.

Governor Paterson's other openly gay appointment is Elizabeth Garry, a supreme court judge upstate. She will serve on the court for the 3d Appellate Department, which includes Albany.

On the law school deaning front, Bill Adams will become (insofar as I know) the only (and the first?) openly gay male law school dean in the U.S. when he takes the helm at Western State University Law School. He will join openly lesbian deans Joan Howarth (Michigan State), Toni Massaro (Arizona) and Kellye Testy (Seattle). (In our neighbor to the north, former University of Houston professor Mary Ann Bobinski is now dean of the law school at the University of British Columbia.)

Bravo to all!

More Lawbama profs move to Lawbama Land as semester ends

Wingnuts continue their attacks on Dawn Johnsen and Harold Koh, a process that seems to be motivated by truly the basest of motives: shielding those who engaged in torture. Both Dawn and Harold have become victims of the latest right-wing smear campaign.

On a happier note, recent nominations include:

ROSA BROOKS (Georgetown), an expert in international human rights, will become senior adviser to the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy.

LARRY ECHOHAWK (BYU) will be the new head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

DAVID VLADECK (Georgetown) is taking the job of director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission.

Previously announced new jobs for law professors after the jump.

Note to 1Ls: first semester grades really DON'T end your life

This is the moment, early in the second semester, when I always tell first-year law students that they are in the roughest time in law school. Many first year law students are coping with the disappointment of their first semester grades, which have probably all been posted by now. To exacerbate the harshness of having worked extremely hard (in most cases) only to have fallen short of the top stratum of grades, students often hear that their entire law school career - indeed, their entire professional career - is determined by their first semester grades.

It's not true. Yes, high first semester grades are great, but they are not definitive. You can bring up mediocre grades. If you need any further encouragement, consider this story of a law student who went from a B- in torts to the deanship at Harvard Law and soon to be Solicitor General (from BLT) ---

In a folder in Box 571 of the Thurgood Marshall papers at the Library of Congress, one can find Elena Kagan's 1986 application to be Marshall's law clerk, along with recommendations from five Harvard Law professors, as well as her resume and even her law school transcript. That transcript indicates, interestingly, that Kagan got something of a slow start at the law school, with no A's in her first semester 1L courses. 

Kagan's Feb. 19, 1986 application letter to Marshall was straightforward and brief, ending with the sentence, "I would be honored to serve as your clerk."

In a letter of recommendation, professor Charles Nesson, who worked with Kagan as she edited an article of his for the Harvard Law Review in 1985 (she was a supervising editor,) said of her, "She understood my arguments very well, pointed out weaknesses with precision and tact, suggested specific ways to remedy them, pushed me to say what I wanted to express, and helped me express it... Indeed, I thought she was fabulous in every aspect of writing right down to spelling. I cannot give her a higher recommendation."

Abram Chayes, who taught Kagain civil procedure and then supervised her as a teaching assistant, was similarly enthusiastic. "I have no hesitation in saying she is one of the very finest students I have ever had -- not in her class alone, but among the handful of outstanding people in a decade." Confidently he added, "I believe she will number among your finest law clerks."

Kagan was also a research assistant to professor Richard Fallon, who wrote to Marshall, "Her work has been superb. She has a tough-minded lawyer's sense for the extraneous and the relevant; her critical faculties are good; and she writes clearly and well."

Randall Kennedy, himself a former Marshall clerk, reported to the justice that in his class on race and constitutional law, he had given her an A+. "Her examination paper was among the finest in a large class of highly motivated students.... I recommend her unreservedly."

Not all of Kagan's grades were A's, and one of her recommenders dealt with that fact. According to Kagan's transcript, in her first semester at the law school in 1984 she got a B- in torts and a B in criminal law. Her mark in Legal Methods is listed as "Cr." and there's a dash in the column that lists how many credits she received. She recovered in the spring semester, getting all A's except for one A-.

Frank Michelman, her property prof, said in his letter, "I am looking at her transcript as I write, and there's just no doubt that her first-year spring-term grades... not the fall-term ones, are the true reflection of her capacity and her learning. Whatever was in her way on those fall term exams, it wasn't affecting her class performance even during the fall, and evidently was gone by exam time in May."

Michelman also wrote, "From the very first exchange through the rest of that first year, Elena struck me as a student of outstanding calibre... She has about her the qualities both of seriousness and warmth, genuine and evident though not ebullient or obtrusive."

Law professors in the Obama transition: 35 and counting

Transition teams for the new administration are lawyering up. Following is a list of Lawbama profs:

Alex Aleinikoff - Georgetown Law - Immigration policy working group co-leader

Mark Alexander - Seton Hall Law - FEC review team

Robert Anderson - University of Washington Law - Dept of Interior review team

David Barron - Harvard Law - Dept of Justice review team

Phyllis Borzi - GW Dept of Health Policy - Dept of Labor review team

Jonathan Cannon - University of Virginia Law - EPA review team

Alta Charo - University of Wisconsin Law - HHS agency review team

Susan Crawford - University of Michigan Law - FCC transition team co-leader

Tino Cuellar - Stanford Law - Immigration policy working group co-leader

Chris Edley - UC-Berkeley Law - Transition Project Advisory Board member; economic transition team

Cindy Estlund - NYU Law - NLRB and National Mediation Board review teams

Dan Esty - Yale Law - EPA review team

Aderson Bellegarde Francois - Howard Law - Commission on Civil Rights team co-leader

Seth Harris - New York Law School - education and labor team co-leader; transportation team co-leader

Dawn Johnsen - Indiana University-Bloomington Law - justice and civil rights review team co-leader

Marty Lederman - Georgetown Law - Dept of Justice review team

Robin Lenhardt - Fordham Law - Dept of Justice review team

John Leshy - UC-Hastings Law - energy and natural resources review team co-leader

Goodwin Liu - UC-Berkeley Law - Dept of Education review team

David Martin - University of Virginia Law - Dept of Homeland Security review team

Paul Steven Miller - University of Washington Law - Dept of Labor review team; EEOC review team

Helen Norton - University of Colorado Law - EEOC review team

Beth Noveck - New York Law School - Technology, innovation, and govt reform policy group advisor

Spencer Overton - GW Law - Election Assistance Commission review team leader

Samantha Power - Harvard/Kennedy School - State Dept review team

Arti Rai - Duke Law - Dept of Commerce review team

Cruz Reynoso - UC-Davis Law, emeritus - Commission on Civil Rights team co-leader

Chris Schroeder - Duke Law - Dept of Justice review team

Peter Shane - Ohio State Law - economics and international trade team

Ted Shaw - Columbia Law - justice and civil rights review team co-leader

Emily Spieler - Northeastern Law - Dept of Labor review team

Peter Swire - Ohio State Law - FTC review team

Dan Tarullo - Georgetown Law - Economic policy working group leader

Philip Weiser - University of Colorado Law - economy and international trade team

Kevin Werbach - Legal Studies Department, Wharton School - FCC transition team co-leader

++++

Unfortunately, funding for a project to promote women appointees in the new administration has failed to materialize.

Readers - please e/mail me if you know of additions or corrections.

Law professors ask CA Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8 vote

In a letter brief filed yesterday, a group of professors at California law schools urged the CA Supreme Court to rule that Prop 8 was a revision, rather than an amendment, to the state constitution and thus should not be allowed to stand.  The professors argued that the judicial role of protecting social minorities from majoritarian discrimination was a critical government function, that requires a full-scale revision process to change.  Professor Donna Ryu of UC-Hastings drafted the argument. It was signed by herself and Pat Cain (Santa Clara), Eric Christiansen (Golden Gate), Mary Dudziak (Southern Cal), Chris Edley (UC-Berkeley), Miye Goishi (UC-Hastings), Joseph Grodin (UC-Hastings), Beth Hillman (UC-Hastings), Joan Hollinger (UC-Berkeley), Kevin Johnson (UC-Davis), Pam Karlan (Stanford), Herma Hill Kay (UC-Berkeley), Gerry Lopez (UCLA), Jean Love (Santa Clara), Larry Marshall (Stanford), Margaret Russell (Santa Clara), and Marci Seville (Golden Gate). Impressive group.

Full day AALS program on integrating sexuality issues into law school curriculum

Most law professors are probably just now getting around to reading the program for the upcoming AALS conference and making their travel plans. Please note that there is a full day program on Wednesday January 7 on integrating sexuality-related issues into standard law school courses such as torts, contracts, evidence, international law, and a range of others.  Speakers will include Pat Cain, David Cruz, Martha Ertman, Bill Eskridge, Liz Glazer, Suzanne Goldberg, Julie Greenberg, Art Leonard, Larry Levine, Jean Love, Kellye Testy, Jenny Wriggins and yours truly. Mark Wojcik, head of the Sexual Orientation/Gender Identity section, led the effort to organize the session. Please mark it on your calendars and come to San Diego in time to attend.