There is an interesting case heading to Ottawa before the Supreme Court of Canada. Bela Kosoian was arrested for failing to hold onto to an escalator handrail at a subway station in Montreal. The officer maintained that sign encouraging the practice was a binding law and issued a citation after she declined to hold on to the handrail. In the earlier Court of Appeal decision, Justice Julie Dutil concluded that, even though the officer was mistaken on the law, he still had grounds to arrest her after she dismissed his instructions and failed to give her name. That highly problematic ruling will now be reviewed. Continue reading “Canadian Supreme Court To Review Case Of Woman Arrested For Not Holding Handrail”
Category: Courts
In a victory for the media, Judge Timothy J. Kelly has ruled that CNN’s Jim Acosta must be given back his access to the White House. However, it is not an entire victory. As we discussed earlier, the court recognized some basic procedural protections and required the White House to state clearly the grounds for revoking the clearance. The court expressly said that he has not found a violation of the First Amendment and has not determined that Acosta cannot be eventually barred from the White House. He wants further information from the White House if it intends to continue to bar Acosta. Continue reading “FEDERAL COURT ISSUES ORDER FOR CNN’S JIM ACOSTA TO BE GIVEN ACCESS TO THE WHITE HOUSE BUT . . .”
A couple of days ago, we discussed the prospect of CNN suing the Trump Administration over the suspension of CNN’s Jim Acosta’s press credentials after a flair up in a former press conference with President Donald Trump and the refusal of Acosta to surrender the microphone. CNN has now filed its lawsuit and it is basically the claims that we anticipated with one addition: a claim that the move violated the Administrative Procedure Act. As I have said from the outset, I strongly oppose the move by the White House, even though I feel that Acosta went too far in the press conference. However, I still remain a bit more cautious than many commentators on what is being described as a slam dunk of a case. Continue reading “CNN Files Challenge To Suspension Of Acosta’s Press Access”
I have the pleasure of speaking at the National Press Club on Thursday about the use of the 25th Amendment to remove an American President. In light of my debate on Monday in Dallas on the standard of impeachment with CNN’s Jeff Toobin, there certainly does seem a theme, or at least a focus, in these events after the midterm elections. Organized as a a National Press Club Headliners event featured an impressive array of panelists. The event is entitled “Presidential Jeopardy: Impeachment, Indictment and the 25th Amendment” and will be held on Thursday, November 15, 2018, 10:00-11:00 a.m. at the Bloomberg Room of The National Press Club, 529 14th Street, NW, 13th Floor Continue reading “Turley To Speak On Thursday At National Press Club On Presidential Removal Under The 25th Amendment”
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on a novel way that President Donald Trump could use the Whitaker appointment to achieve what he has long sought: freezing or even ending the Mueller investigation. As strange as it may seem, it could actually work if played correctly by the White House. The White House could theoretically get a court to enjoin the Mueller investigation and keep Mueller frozen in amber until Trump’s final year when impeachment would practically impossible.
Here is the column: Continue reading “The Prestige: How Trump Could Pull Off The Ultimate Trick in Shutting Down The Mueller Investigation”
There was an important victory for the environment this week after Chief Judge Terrence W. Boyle excoriated the Interior Department for its management of the the last red wolf population in the wild. His decision could well have kept the red wolves from extinction — against the best efforts of the Interior Department to allow landowners to wipe out the only remaining members of this incredible breed of wolves. The orders of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were a disgrace and utterly disregarded their duty in protecting the environment. The case is Red Wolf Coalition v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. Lexis 188522. Continue reading “Federal Court Moves To Protect The Red Wolf Population Against The Federal Government”
As with so many constitutional and political disputes, the renewed controversy over the 14th Amendment has both sides claiming degrees of clarity and certainty that belied by a long and convoluted historical record. I have written and spoken this week about the arguments on both sides of this issue — a debate that has raged for 150 years. Frankly, I believe a court ruling would be welcomed to bring clarity and closure to the issue. The plain meaning of the 14th Amendment supports unlimited birthright citizenship and that is likely where the courts would come out on the issue. Nevertheless, from the time of ratification, there has been a debate over that interpretation with many Democratic and Republican members arguing for decades that the matter is left to Congress. For decades, many have held to the belief that either the14th Amendment leaves the matter to Congress or limits the right to birthright citizenship. Continue reading “Interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment: The Long and Convoluted Record on Birthright Citizenship”
The National Constitution Center and the Old Parkland Debate Series has announced that a debate will be held on November 12th between George Washington Professor Jonathan Turley and CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin on impeachment. The debate will occur a week after the 2018 midterm elections and many have called for the impeachment of both President Donald Trump and Judge Brett Kavanaugh following a Democratic takeover of the United States House of Representatives. The debate question is: Resolved, the framers designed impeachment as a political, rather than a legal process. Toobin will argue that the Framers intended impeachment to be a political judgment while Turley will argue that the Framers intended more of a legal judgment. Turley was the last lead counsel in an impeachment trial in the Senate and Toobin previously worked for Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh.
Continue reading “Turley and Toobin To Debate Impeachment In Dallas After Midterm Election”
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the aftermath of the Kavanaugh confirmation. It is not that there is no winner and loser as much as both Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh are both winners and losers.
It will take time to decide which party will benefit, but there is clearly Brett bump for Republicans going into the midterms. Yet, the confirmation will also continue to resonate Democratic voters.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) filed for an injunction in federal court to stop a final vote on Brett Kavanaugh. The filing claims that the Republican majority is obstructing his constitutional duty to give advise and consent on nominees. The filing is entirely and utterly meritless. It will be dismissed and is unlikely to receive a hearing on the claim.
For a week, a scandal has grown over an anonymous accusation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. I previously wrote about the unfairness of this last minute accusation from an unnamed law professor who declined to be named. Moreover, the underlying letter has been in the possession of Democrats since July. Now, the mystery is over: Palo Alto University professor Christine Blasey Ford has come forward to say that she is indeed the accuser of Kavanaugh. It appears that the earlier leaks and media reports that this was a Stanford law professor were untrue. She is shown here from her high school yearbook picture. Notably, her lawyer has said that she passed a polygraph examination that found her account was truthful.
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the rising pressure on Sen. Susan Collins over her vote on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. There is considerable anger over Collins maintaining that she would never vote for a nominee hostile to Roe v. Wade but refusing to acknowledge the widespread view of Kavanaugh as not only hostile to the reasoning of Roe but appointed by a president who promised only to nominate an anti-Roe justice. As with Neil Gorsuch, Collins appears inclined to vote for Kavanaugh despite her oft-repeated pledge. She insists that she is comfortable after Kavanaugh told her that Roe is “settled” law. However, many have put Collins’ position as falling somewhere between hopeful thinking and willful blindness. As discussed below, the unsettling thing about settled law is that only five votes make anything truly settled on the Court.
Adding to the political dimension are polls showing that the hearings did not produce a bump for confirmation. The latest polling shows 38 percent in favor of Kavanaugh and 39 percent opposed.
Here is the column: Continue reading “A Bill Comes Due: Susan Collins Faces Rising Demands To Fulfill Her Promise To Vote Against A Presumed Anti-Roe Nominee”
I will have the pleasure of participating in the annual Supreme Court review today previewing the upcoming October term. The other panelists will be former Solicitor General Gregory Garre, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund President and Director-Counsel Sherrilyn Ifill. Associate Dean (and Supreme Court litigator) Alan Morrison will moderate the panel.
“Previewing the Supreme Court’s October Term 2018” will be held in the Jacob Burns Moot Court Room, 2000 H St NW, Washington, D.C. at 9:00.m. Continue reading “GW To Host Annual Supreme Court Review”
Yesterday, we discussed the prosecution of accused Russian agent Maria Butina and how prosecutors put out clearly false allegations that she traded sex for favors. Butina’s defense counsel Robert Driscoll called out the government for the clearly baseless allegations spread throughout the media. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has now responded by gagging counsel, an order that has become all too common in federal cases. Continue reading “Defense Counsel Calls Out DOJ For Falsely Accusing His Client Of Trading Sex For Access . . . Court Imposes Gag Order On Counsel”
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing and the opening statement of Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse attacking the conservatives on the Supreme Court as a virtual ideological cabal. I have always found Whitehouse an articulate and insightful member of the Congress. He was not alone in these attacks. However, I found the attack on the current justices to be unwarranted and distorted. There is a tendency when you disagree with a decision like Hobby Lobby to conclude that the motivations of the justices must therefore be raw politics. The possibility that the justices, including Justice Kennedy, are following a coherent jurisprudential view is dismissed in favor of partisanship.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Democratic Attacks On The Supreme Court Confuse Patterns of Principle with Politics”