Orin Kerr Profile picture
8 Oct, 10 tweets, 6 min read
Some legal education history I didn't know -- a thread.

In 1950, a significant number of law schools refused to admit Black students. That year, the AALS considered a rule that to to be an AALS member school, you had to open your doors to students of all races.
This was during the period of "separate but equal," before Brown v. Board. Private law schools could be segregated. And public law schools could be segregated but only if they provided an "equal" alternative. See, e.g., Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950).
In December 1950, a group of faculty from @YaleLawSch proposed a non-discrimination rule: A school can't be allowed as an AALS member if it discriminates on the basis of race. Desegregate, or the school is booted out of @TheAALS.

www-jstor-org.libproxy.berkeley.edu/stable/2571990…
I learned of this because, when I was reading some old Boalt Hall (aka @BerkeleyLaw ) faculty meeting minutes that my friend Kyle Graham sent me, I came across this from Nov 30, 1950. The Berkeley faculty debated the proposal before it was formally proposed at the AALS meeting.
Berkeley Law had long admitted Black students. Walter Gordon had graduated in 1922. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_A.…
The first woman Black graduate, Annie Coker, had graduated in 1929. news.berkeley.edu/2020/07/20/leg…
Despite this, the faculty still didn't want to support the AALS proposal. Wow.
What happened with the proposal, you wonder? From what I can tell, the AALS formed a committee to consider it. (A committee!) A year later, it recommended a half-way measure: Don't boot out schools that won't desegregate, but make it an "objective." AALS adopted this in 1951.
By 1955, 15 of the 108 AALS schools still had not announced compliance with the "objective." This was the year AFTER Brown v. Board, and the AALS again debated making this a requirement of AALS membership. The proposal was again defeated.
Some schools continued to refuse to admit Black applicants into the 1960s. For example, this article indicates that as late as 1962, the University of Richmond was in violation of the AALS policy.
jstor.org/stable/42893244
It appears that Richmond didn't repeal its policy until 1964, and no Black law student was enrolled there until 1968.

scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewconten…
Anyway, I hadn't been aware of this history before, at least in any detail, and I found it illuminating and disturbing. It wasn't all that long ago. /end

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Orin Kerr

Orin Kerr Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @OrinKerr

8 Oct
Here's a thread with a few random thoughts about "court packing," that is, changing the size of the Supreme Court.

Bonus: My views are somewhere in the middle and are likely to annoy most people.
1) Court packing is a really bad idea. It's a major norm violation, & it destabilizes the third branch in a really dangerous way. The counterargument, of course, is that the other side has *already* violated norms; this is a counter to that norm violation. I disagree, because....
it seems to me that the real cause of the claimed "norm breaking" is the gradual devolution, in both parties, to purely partisan Supreme Court votes in the Senate. This wasn't a big problem when Presidential and Senate control were form the same party. Partisan = confirmed.
Read 17 tweets
1 Oct
Some interesting Supreme Court history I stumbled upon wasting time on Wikipedia:

On April 21, 1844, Justice Henry Baldwin died while in office. President Tyler had a little over ten months left in his Presidential term. Tyler tried to fill the seat, but was unsuccessful.
On June 5, 1844, President Tyler nominated Edward King to fill the seat. But Tyler had little support in Congress, and the Senate voted to table the King's nomination and not consider it on the merits. govtrack.us/congress/votes…
President Tyler withdrew the nomination, and then nominated John Read for the seat. The Senate ignored that nomination. President Tyler's Presidency ended with the seat still vacant in March 1845.
Read 5 tweets
30 Sep
A lot of law professors write about Supreme Court developments. I wonder what legal scholarship about the Supreme Court looks like in a world of a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court, with 5 Justices unambiguous conservatives. Does it try to meet the Court where it is? Reject it? /1
Of course, many different scholars write about SCOTUS in diff ways, on different topics. I realize I'm painting with a broad brush. But I suppose my main interest is in the internalists -- the ones who write about doctrine, implicitly or expicitly recommending different paths. /2
How many will try to speak the Court's language, such as by echoing or recognizing originalist methods? How many will just be in opposition, especially in light of the circumstances of how the Court came to have its conservative supermajority ? /3
Read 5 tweets
29 Sep
INTERESTING CASE: Police can detain a person on the scene when they execute a warrant. But can they call up a suspect and make up a fake story about needing him to be home to get him to be there so he can be detained? CA9 rules 2-1 that they cannot.
cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opin… #N Image
I'm not sure what I think of this. It's true that a ruse can expand what the government can search and seize, manipulating the rule. OTOH, don't Ky v. King and Navarette v. CA suggest that police steps that manipulate rules are okay as long as they don't themselves violate 4A?
The majority opinion is weirdly free form in some ways, in that it conducts a balancing test over the ruse: It concludes that the decision to do the ruse fails the balancing test. But the 4th Amendment balancing test is only for searches and seizures, and a ruse is neither.
Read 4 tweets
27 Sep
It might simultaneously be true that Republicans should wait to fill RBG’s seat because the election is near; that it is an act of stunning hypocrisy to fill it after refusing to act on Garland; and that, if the politics were reversed, Democrats would have done the same thing.
I should add, in response to comments, that by "Democrats would have done the same thing," I was referring to pushing forward now with a nominee with so little time before the election. /1
I don't have a strong sense of what Dems would have done with the 2016 equivalent of Garland -- would they have just voted him down, vs. not held a vote, for example. (But I also don't see a lot of difference between those two options.) /2
Read 6 tweets
26 Sep
A few random and unhelpful thoughts on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, a thread.
FWIW, I don't know Judge Barrett well, although we've met. She was a fellow at @gwlaw in 2001-02, during my first year on the faculty there. I spent at least some time with her back then, and I recall her as very impressive. I recall her as super smart and very personable.
Of course, I realize that a lot of readers couldn't care less whether she is smart or personable. On Twitter, some may be annoyed by even mentioning those things. I gather many want to know how she will vote: the right way (as they see it) or the wrong way (as they they see it).
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!