There is an interesting possible criminal law and torts case out of Santa Clarita, California where a motorcyclist kicked a car on the 14 Freeway and triggered a series of accidents. The motorcyclist is seen speeding from the scene of the accident.
Continue reading “Road Rage Leads To California Pile Up As Police Searched For Motorcyclist”
The Supreme Court handed down a stinging defeat for the Trump Administration in a unanimous decision in Maslenjak v. United States, where the Administration sought to strip an immigrant of U.S. citizenship over a false statement made on an immigration form. In a decision by Justice Elena Kagan, the justices declared that the government could not strip citizenship from Divna Maslenjak because she falsely stated that her husband had not served in the Bosnian Serb army in the 1990s. Notably, the Obama Administration had taken the same hard position in the case and the Trump Administration continued that position on the appeal.
Continue reading “Supreme Court Rules 9-0 Against Trump Administration in Immigration Case”
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been denounced worldwide for this attack on the free speech, free speech, and democratic traditions in Turkey. He is viewed as a leader with a highly limited intellect who has used Islamic values to get Turks to give him unchecked power. Now he has fittingly rejected the concept of evolution after his government announced that the subject will no longer be taught to children because it is unproven and too controversial. Instead, Turkish children will be raised with the type of distorted, uninformed perspective of their President.
That did not take long. Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency Director Adm. Mike Rogers met with Special Counsel Robert Mueller to discuss the subjects that they declined to discuss with Congress. Congress then released the information. It now appears that congressional briefings from the Special Counsel are proxy press conferences in this increasingly strange process. As expected, Coats and Rogers admitted that Trump did in fact ask them to tell the public that there was no evidence of collusion between his campaign and the Russians. That was, again, an inappropriate and ill-considered request. However, the disclosure raises a far more worrisome questions with regard to the role of White House Counsel Donald F. “Don” McGahn II. The two intelligence chiefs said that they took anticipated the questions over their conversations and asked McGahn if there was an executive privilege assertion. McGahn simply never responded. That is a highly disturbing account. Executive privilege is not some tactical toy. It has been defended as a core protection of inherent presidential powers. No high ranking officials should be sent into a committee without a clear understanding of the status of information or conversations relevant to congressional inquiries. The non-response was either negligence by the White House Counsel or, more likely and more seriously, a conscious decision to avoid the politically risky decision of either allowing answers or publicly preventing answers.
Today I will the great honor of serving as the inaugural speaker at the W. Eugene Davis Lecture in Lafayette, Louisiana. This event holds a particular personal meaning for me because I clerked for Judge Davis on the Fifth Circuit in the late 1980s. Serving as his clerk was the single most transformative decision that I have made in my professional life. The clerkship started a lifelong friendship that I cherish to this day. Judge Davis is adored by everyone who has worked with him for his unflagging decency, civility, and integrity. When I think back to my time in his chambers, I realize how much the experience — and Judge Davis — shaped my views of legal ethics, professionalism, and civility. This lecture is a fitting tribute to a man who served justice for decades as a trial judge and later an appellate judge. He is the classic and genuine judicial article. He still relishes the simple task of judging — fairly and honestly. He has spent his lifetime eschewing ideology in favor of resolving cases in an unbiased and consistent manner. He is my ideal of what everyone judge should strive to be. He remains a humble and decent man who seeks to do justice. That is why this lecture series is such a fitting testament to the legacy of W. Eugene Davis.
Continue reading “Turley To Speak At Inaugural W. Eugene Davis Lecture In Lafayette, Louisiana”
An 18-page investigation memorandum has been obtained by NBC News that raises some disturbing questions about the Nixon White House and specifically the role of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. The memo details the campaign of political violence by Nixon aides. The memo references a plot to have Daniel Ellsberg beaten up by surrogates of the Nixon Administration. Kissinger has been cited as one of those pushing Nixon to deal with Ellsberg.
Continue reading “Did Henry Kissinger Push Nixon To Assault Daniel Ellsberg?”
In the coming weeks, I will be addressing a number of novel constitutional issues that are being raised in relation to the Russian investigation. The first such issue has been widely discussed: is there a constitutional barrier to any federal charge against President Donald Trump for obstruction of justice.
Here is my recent column in USA Today:
Continue reading “Is President Trump Immune From An Obstruction of Justice Charge?”
We recently discussed the controversy surrounding postings by June Chu, dean of the school’s Pierson College, on Yelp. She was called classist for such comments as “This establishment is definitely not authentic by any stretch of any imagination and perfect for those low class folks who believe this is a real night out.” Chu has now been fired by the university in a move that makes many academics feel uncomfortable over the monitoring of their statements outside of school in social media.
Continue reading “Yale Sacks Dean Over “Classist” and “Insensitive” Yelp Reviews”
We have previously discussed the erosion of free speech rights in high schools as well as the expansion of discipline for students for discussions and postings outside of school. That conflict was vividly shown in Pennsylvania where Peter Butera was speaking to the graduating class of his high school when he criticized the lack of power in student government. The response from Principal Jon Pollard was swift. Butera’s mike was cut off and he was escorted stage.
The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a major victory for free speech on Monday in striking down a provision of the Lanham Act that barred registration for “disparaging” trademarks. The decision came in Matal v. Tam, a case that we have been following. I have previously written about my disagreement with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decision to rescind federal trademark protections for the Redskins as a racially disparaging name. As predicted, the ruling answered the question raised in the prior column in controversies like the denying of trademark protection to the Washington Redskins. The decision is good news for Washington’s NFL team, which lost its trademark because its name is disparaging to Native Americans.
The Iranians have given the world another absurd application of its brand of Islamic faith. The government has declared that Zumba exercises classes are effectively banned in Iran because the dance “contravenes Islamic ideology.” The “rhythmic movements” of Zumba appear to be anti-Islamic. There is no room for rhythmic dance in the Islamic Republic.
Italy’s highest court handed down a victory for animal rights activists last week that mandates that restaurants can no longer keep lobsters on ice because it causes them unjustifiable suffering. It is a decision applauded by many who viewed the crustaceans as being subjected to unnecessary discomfort. As much as a applaud such decisions in favor of animals, it does still leave the rather obvious conflict with the fact that the lobsters are then boiled alive.
Continue reading “Italian Court: Lobsters Cannot Be Kept On Ice At Restaurants”
I have the honor of participating this year in the special program benefiting the widely respected Shakespeare Theatre Company in Washington, D.C. Since 1994, the Mock Trial Series has been held to bring Supreme Court justices and members of the bar to join in a fun night in which Shakespeare figures are tried by leading members of the bar. This year, the three Weird Sisters from Macbeth will be in the dock. The bench will consist of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Judge David S. Tatel, Judge Sri Srinivasan, and Judge Patricia A. Millett, United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The court marshal will be Pamela Talkin, of the Supreme Court of the United States. As the jurists deliberate the fate of the three sisters, I will take the stage with attorney Abbe Lowell to discuss the recent conviction of Michele Parker for encouraging the suicide of Conrad Roy III.
For many weeks, I questioned the need for a Special Counsel in the Russian investigation because it seems like a coverup in search of a crime. I still do not see the evidence of a crime and simply saying “collusion” does not supply an actual crime. However, when President Donald Trump fired James Comey, I supported the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate obstruction of justice, even though I remained skeptical of the basis for an actual obstruction charge. I still fail to see the compelling basis for an obstruction case without stretching the criminal code to the breaking point. Nevertheless, I continue to support the need for an independent investigation.
The investigation of a sitting American president however must itself be beyond question as to any bias or influence. For that reason, I have been questioning the propriety of Rod Rosenstein to continue in his current position vis-a-vis the Russian investigation. From the outset, Rosenstein seemed to me to be an inevitable and important witness. Ironically, the recent leak magnified this problem. The leak seemed calculated to protect Mueller from being terminated by publicly identifying Trump as a possible target. However, whatever benefit the leak brought Mueller, it undermined Rosenstein. If Mueller is investigation Trump for obstruction, Rosenstein should immediately recuse himself.
It is not clear if Mueller has an equal conflict of interest. There is reason to be concerned. If Mueller discussed the Comey’s termination with Trump as a candidate for the next FBI Director, he might also be considered a witness in any obstruction investigation. It would seem highly material to the investigation to learn of how Trump described his decision and what he said (if anything) to Mueller about the ongoing Russian investigation. At a minimum, the Special Counsel should address what is a reasonable question about his own knowledge of (and participation in) any meetings with Trump on the Comey termination and the Russian investigation. I do not agree with the campaign to discredit Mueller and strongly object to attacks on his character. I believe Mueller to be a person of integrity and I hope that he recognizes that such a meeting raises some legitimate questions that should be addressed.
Here is the column:
Continue reading “Do Rosenstein and Mueller Have Conflicts of Interest in the Trump Investigation?”
Another day, another leak. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that it has seen a memo written by Rick Ledgett, the former deputy director of the NSA, detailing a phone call in which U.S. President Donald Trump NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers to state publicly that there is no evidence of collusion between his campaign and Russia. It is the latest high-level official reporting a concerted effort by Trump to dispel allegations of collusion. While the Special Counsel is reportedly seeking to interview Ledgett, I still remain skeptical of the current facts being used as the basis for an obstruction case. As I previously discussed, Robert Mueller has hired at least one senior lawyer known for his unsuccessful effort to expand the scope of obstruction. However, this memo does not necessarily change the narrative on both sides of the controversy. There remains an obvious defense to a conventional obstruction claim – assuming the definition of the crime is not stretched beyond recognition to change the meaning of “corruptly influence.”