“Reasonably Necessary”: Ayestas v. Davis and Capital Defense Funding for Federal Habeas Proceedings

“Reasonably Necessary”: Ayestas v. Davis and Capital Defense Funding for Federal Habeas Proceedings

On October 30, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument about the availability of funding for capital defense investigations in Ayestas v. Davis. The specific issue before the Court was whether 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f) allows courts to order funding for federal habeas counsel to investigate and develop ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims not raised by state habeas counsel. The Court’s answer will affect the ability of death-row inmates to use federal habeas petitions to challenge the effectiveness of their trial counsel. In 1997, Carlos…

Read More Read More

Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against President Trump’s Transgender Military Ban

Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against President Trump’s Transgender Military Ban

On July 26, 2017, President Trump announced a directive on Twitter that would ban transgender individuals from serving in the military. This decision reversed a policy approved under the Obama Administration that would allow transgender military personnel to openly serve. President Trump cited the “tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail” as his rationale for this ban. The RAND Corporation estimates that there are between 1,320 and 6,630 transgender personnel serving in active duty, and between…

Read More Read More

Leveraging Social Science Evidence in the Courts Today

Leveraging Social Science Evidence in the Courts Today

United States District Judges Edmond E. Chang, Sara L. Ellis, and Virginia M. Kendall comprised the fourth and final panel of the Northwestern University Law Review’s October 20, 2017 symposium, “‘A Fear of Too Much Justice’?: Equal Protection and the Social Sciences 30 Years after McCleskey v. Kemp,“ engaging questions of evidence, epistemology, and expertise on the contemporary bench. Professor Destiny Peery (Northwestern Law) facilitated the panel. In McCleskey v. Kemp (1987), the Supreme Court was presented with an extensive and rigorous…

Read More Read More

An Analysis of Catalonia’s Independence Movement

An Analysis of Catalonia’s Independence Movement

Catalonia is one of Spain’s wealthiest and most important regions, accounting for 16% and 19% of Spain’s population and economy, respectively. However, Catalonia has its own language and distinct culture, which is one of the many reasons the region has pushed for independence. Although it’s a popular topic in recent news, the independence movement is nothing new. During Francisco Franco’s dictatorship (1939–75), Catalan culture and autonomy was violently suppressed. It was not until democracy returned with the adoption of the Spanish Constitution…

Read More Read More

BIPA and Its Federal Problems

BIPA and Its Federal Problems

It’s not fun to have your credit card or identity stolen. It takes time, money, and mental energy to right yourself. Now, instead of just using cards as the gatekeepers, many companies are using customers’ biometric information, such as fingerprints and facial geometry scans, to control access to private information. But unlike credit cards, you can’t just order a new one to secure your data. All victims of such thefts would need reconstructive surgery to protect themselves from future risk. Recognizing this concern,…

Read More Read More

Equal Protection and the Social Sciences Beyond Criminal Justice

Equal Protection and the Social Sciences Beyond Criminal Justice

Following a discussion about the use of social science evidence in the criminal justice system at the Northwestern University Law Review Symposium, Professor Laura Beth Nielsen (Northwestern, Sociology) moderated a panel that explored the varying degrees of success social science has had and the challenges faced by advocates in civil rights litigation. Professors Russell K. Robinson (Berkeley) and David M. Frost (Columbia) examined the use of social science research in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), where the American Psychological Association presented two types of social…

Read More Read More

The U.S. Supreme Court Considers Class Action Waivers in Employment Arbitration Agreements

The U.S. Supreme Court Considers Class Action Waivers in Employment Arbitration Agreements

On Monday, October 2, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court heard consolidated oral argument in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, No. 16-285, Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, No. 16-300, and Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. NLRB, No. 16-307, considering the validity of class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements. This issue concerns the interaction of two federal statutes—the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The FAA provides that an agreement to submit any dispute to…

Read More Read More

From McClesky to Whitford: the Supreme Court’s Ambivalent Attitude Towards Social Science

From McClesky to Whitford: the Supreme Court’s Ambivalent Attitude Towards Social Science

McCleskey v. Kemp was decided on April 22, 1987, and yet the 30 years that have elapsed since Justice Powell circulated his majority opinion have done little to soften McCleskey’s sharp edges. The case concerned a challenge from a death-row inmate to the administration of capital punishment in Georgia, where he had been sentenced for the killing of a white police officer. McCleskey argued that his capital sentence was driven in large part by his race, in combination with the…

Read More Read More

Panel Discussion: Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Panel Discussion: Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

On October 12, 2017, OUTLaw, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law’s LGBT affinity group, hosted a panel discussing Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, an upcoming Supreme Court case. The case centers on whether businesses can refuse service to LGBTQ customers based on their First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. The petitioner in Masterpiece Cakeshop refused to make a rainbow cake for a same-sex marriage ceremony. Professor Andrew Koppelman, a Northwestern constitutional law professor and scholar,…

Read More Read More

A Fear of Too Much (Criminal) Justice: Social Science Evidence and the Tension Between Reform and Transformation in the Criminal Justice System

A Fear of Too Much (Criminal) Justice: Social Science Evidence and the Tension Between Reform and Transformation in the Criminal Justice System

McCleskey v. Kemp (1987) was an example of “good-enough-for-black-people kind of justice.” At least, that was how Professor Paul Butler (Georgetown) characterized the seminal death penalty case under discussion at the recent Northwestern University Law Review Symposium, A Fear of Too Much Justice?: Equal Protection and the Social Sciences 30 Years after McCleskey v. Kemp. Professors Aya Gruber (Colorado) and Angela Onwuachi-Willig (Berkeley) joined Butler on a symposium panel, moderated by Professor Deborah Tuerkheimer (Northwestern), discussing the impact of McCleskey specifically…

Read More Read More