In yesterday’s massive defamation award to actor Johnny Depp, his ex-wife Amber Heard was left holding a bill for $15,000,000. Even after a reduction for her own award and a statutory reduction of the punitive damage portion, Heard is still looking at $8,350,000 in damages. Many view that amount (which is $1.35 million more than her divorce settlement) to be justified in light of the damage caused to Depp’s reputation and career. However, the stain of this verdict should be shared with others, even if they avoided the sting of actual damages. That includes many in the media (including the Washington Post staff) who rushed to paint Heard as a victim and Depp as an abuser. Yet, the greatest condemnation should be reserved for the organization that not only pushed that narrative but actually helped draft the defamatory column: the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Continue reading “The Depp Trial and the Demise of the ACLU: How a Celebrity Trial Exposed the Collapse of a Once Celebrated Group”
The massive verdict in favor of actor Johnny Depp yesterday constitutes a rare victory of a public figure under the difficult New York Times v. Sullivan standard for defamation. The award of $15 million found that Amber Heard not only lied but did so with malice. Depp ran the table on all of his counts. While this case will likely be studied for years, the one verdict in favor of Heard is itself notable because it was based on defamation by counsel — a lesson for lawyers in defending their clients in public.
Continue reading “Depp-Heard Verdict Contains Relatively Rare Defamation-by-Counsel Liability”
The acquittal of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann has been the subject of furious debate among politicians and pundits. Some have argued that the case collapsed from lack of evidence while others have alleged that prosecutors faced as biased judge and jury. For his part, Sussmann claimed that the jury found that “I told the truth.” The truth is more complex and few would assume that the verdict was based on Sussmann’s veracity. However, a statement from a juror immediately after the verdict fueled speculation of the impact of juror bias. According to the Washington Times’ Jeff Mordock, the juror reportedly said “I don’t think it should have been prosecuted. There are bigger things that affect the nation than a possible lie to the FBI.” If that statement had been made during voir dire, it is likely that the juror would have been challenged.
Continue reading “Sussmann Juror: “There are Bigger Things … Than a Possible Lie to the FBI””
Texas gubernatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke has been ping-ponging on gun confiscation ever since his presidential candidacy in 2019 when he famously declared “Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15.” When he decided to run for Texas governor, he then dialed down that pledge. With the Uvalde massacre (and critics allege his poor polling numbers), O’Rourke seems to have moved back to the position on confiscation. He declared this week that, not only should they be banned, but AR-15 owners should not “be able to keep them.” Once again, however, O’Rourke omits any explanation of how constitutionally or practically he intends to carry out this confiscation plan.
Continue reading “Second Amendment Showdown: Beto O’Rourke Resumes Call for Gun Confiscation”
We previously discussed how President Biden continues to repeat the same false statements about bans on weapons when the Second Amendment was ratified. However, he also repeated another dubious claim this weekend. The comments have received considerable coverage after the President seemed to target 9mm guns for possible legislative bans, stating that “high-caliber weapons” like the 9mm handgun should not be needed and told the public that “a .22-caliber bullet will lodge in the lung, and we can probably get it out — may be able to get it and save the life. A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body.” Critics pushed back on that claim, but such statements can be written off as part of the hyperbolic rhetoric surrounding gun rights and gun control. Yet, he made a separate factual claim about the record of the earlier assault weapons ban that is more questionable. Continue reading “President Biden Repeats Dubious Claim About the Assault Weapons Ban”
The Supreme Court appears to be ratcheting up its investigation into the leaking of the draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. According to CNN, the Court is asking clerks to provide cell phone records and sign affidavits. Some of us have been surprised by Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision not to ask for assistance from the FBI, which is the world’s leading law enforcement agency on computer and forensic investigations. Yet, the affidavits may come with the most worrisome change for the leaker. Once signed, the leaker will reaffirm his or her potential criminal liability. Continue reading “Supreme Court Reportedly To Demand Cellphones and Affidavits From Clerks in Leak Investigation”
Below is a slightly expanded version of my column in the Hill on Sussmann trial and what it revealed about the role of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the combined Russian collusion investigations. It also looks down the road at whether Special Counsel John Durham will be allowed to write the same type of public report that concluded the Mueller investigation.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Friends with Benefits: Sussmann Trial Further Exposes the FBI and Washington Establishment”
We have previously discussed the murder of Florida State University Law Professor Dan Markel (left) and suspicions that the family of his wife (and fellow FSA faculty member) Wendi Adelson conspired in the murder. Now, Adelson has taken the stand in the murder trial of one of the alleged accomplices just two weeks after the arrest of her brother, Charlie Adelson, right, for the murder. Wendi previously seemed to implicate her brother in her initial interview with police while maintaining that she knew nothing about a murder plot of her estranged husband. The trial involved Katherine Magbanua who was found guilty of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder and solicitation of murder.
We recently discussed how President Joe Biden has not only repeated false statements about the history of the Second Amendment, but has failed to acknowledge the limits imposed by the Second Amendment in calling for a crackdown on “assault weapons.” He recently has not, however, called specifically for a ban, which would run into serious constitutional challenges. Now Vice President Kamala Harris has taken that step forward in demanding a ban on “assault weapons.” (Notably, this week, a Republican house member also came out in favor of a ban on “assault weapons.”)
Continue reading “Showdown on the Second Amendment: Harris Calls for Ban on “Assault Weapons””
University of Pennsylvania professor Anthea Butler is at the center of another controversy after going on Twitter to suggest that the delay in rescuing the children in the Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas was due to racism. She asked if the police “didn’t give a damn” about the children because they were “predominantly brown kids.” While she later deleted the Tweet, Professor Butler has a long history of offensive racial statements. While some have previously called for her termination, these comments (including this disgraceful tweet) should be protected under principles of free speech and academic freedom. However, this is another example of the double standard often applied at universities, which are quick to investigate, discipline, or fire conservative, libertarian, or dissenting faculty members in such controversies. Continue reading ““I Mean, Because it’s Texas”: Penn Professor Alleges Police May Have Delayed Rescue in Uvalde Due to Racism” 
We have been following the language guidelines and word bans that have become common in academia. The latest is out of California where the San Francisco Unified School District is reportedly dropping the use of the word “chief” in job titles to show respect for Native Americans. Critics have objected that the word has nothing to do with the reference to the head of a tribe. The District also notified people that “a replacement term has yet to be determined.”
Below is my column in The Hill on the call for bans and limits on guns like the AR-15 since the massacre in Texas. Both President Joe Biden and former President Barack Obama have blamed the gun lobby for the violence in calling for new major gun controls. However, the barrier to banning weapons like the AR-15 rests more with the Second Amendment than the gun lobby. Any effort to reach some “commonsense” solutions will depend on the willingness to end the sweeping rhetoric and deal with the realities of the constitutional limits on gun control.
Here is the column: Continue reading “It is the Second Amendment, Not the “Gun Lobby” That Must Be Satisfied on Gun Control”
There was an interesting contrast this week in the attitude toward free speech values at Boston University with two controversies involving figures at opposing ends of the political spectrum. In one case, a professor defended looting and other crimes as forms of racial justice. In the other case, a speaker was hosted to speak about conservative values deemed anti-LGBTQ. One of the speakers was the subject of a student government resolution declaring him to be a danger to students and rejecting free speech rights for him to be heard by others on campus. Can you guess which one? Continue reading “Banning “Incendiary Speech and Rhetoric”: Boston University Faces New Free Speech Controversies and Calls for Selective Censorship”
President Joe Biden on Wednesday repeated a claim about the Second Amendment that some of us have repeatedly challenged as untrue. In asserting that “the Second Amendment is not absolute,” President Biden repeated his claim that certain weapons were prohibited at the time that the Second Amendment was ratified. That is simply untrue. Continue reading “President Biden Repeats False Claim about the Second Amendment”
Below is my column in USA Today on the strikingly absolutist language being used by Democratic leaders in defining the right to abortion after the Supreme Court’s leaked draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Yet, when pressed, these same politicians have been declining to address the implications of leaving the decision entirely to the woman at all stages of a pregnancy. Addressing the scope of this right is key to defining and supporting this right in constitutional law. Many Americans are open to protecting the right to choose, particularly in the first trimester. However, many politicians are pushing an unlimited view of the right that raises both constitutional and political questions — an approach that far exceeds what the current Roe case law supports. Conversely, Republicans are dealing with their own extreme responses to the pending decision in both the Senate and the states.
Here is the column: