NEWS: Stanford President and Law-School Dean Apologize to Judge Duncan nationalreview.com/bench-memos/st… Read apology letter here and Judge Duncan's acceptance and commentary. 1/
Apology by Stanford president and law school dean faults DEI dean Tirein Steinbach: “staff members who should have enforced university policies failed to do so, and instead intervened in inappropriate ways that are not aligned with the university’s commitment to free speech.” 2/
Interesting to see that apology's characterization of Steinbach's conduct differs markedly from Dean Martinez's statement yesterday ("well-intentioned" effort at "managing the room ... went awry"). Perhaps explains why Stanford *president* co-signed letter. 3/
You'd ordinarily think that university president would leave a matter like this to law school dean. Sure seems that President Tessier-Lavigne might have been upset at Martinez's excuse-mongering for Steinbach. 4/
Apology is tepid in assertion that Stanford is “taking steps to ensure that something like this does not happen again.”
Firing Steinbach would be good first step. Publicly censuring students who engaged in flagrant misconduct would be another. 5/
The strong and clear stance that Stanford president Tessier-Lavigne has articulated on precisely this situation makes it all the more plausible that he was appalled by Dean Martinez's coddling of DEI dean Steinbach.
Since Steinbach can't in good faith embrace Stanford's policy on free speech, she should have the integrity to resign forthwith.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Trump v. Cook oral argument on president's power to remove Federal Reserve Board governor.
SG John Sauer for Trump, former SG Paul Clement for Cook.
(Not sure why it hasn't already started.)
Coming in late (technical glitch). Long question by SS on why Trump should get interim relief enabling him to remove Cook.
SG: There is no jurisdiction to restore public officer to office.
ACB on public interest factor on stay: Economists warn of recession.
SG: Market went up when she was removed.
ACB: I can't quantify risk, but doesn't that counsel caution? Do we weigh seriousness of alleged misconduct in stay posture?
SG: Appearance that Cook played fast and loose. Look at merits and stay factors. Traditional irreparable harms.
First Supreme Court ruling today: Berk v. Choy. Holding: Delaware’s affidavit law does not apply in federal court.
ACB majority for 8. KBJ concurs in judgment.
Second ruling: Ellingburg v. U.S.
Holding: Restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act is plainly criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Unanimous opinion by Kavanaugh.
Oral arguments in transgender sports cases begin at 10 ET. I will live-tweet comments on the arguments in this thread. Let's start with the lineup.
Montana case (Little v. Hecox) is up first. Idaho solicitor general Alan Hurst for 20 minutes, principal deputy U.S. solicitor general Hashim Mooppan for 10 minutes in support, Kathleen Hartnett for Hecox for 30. Case presents only Equal Protection issue.
Then West Virginia case (W.V. v. BJP). WV SG Michael Williams for 20 minutes, Mooppan again for U.S. in support for 10 minutes, Joshua Block for B.J.P. for 30. Case presents Title IX and EP issue.
These days the Court routinely exceeds the allotted time for advocates. I'll guess total argument time in the two cases will be 2-1/2 to 3 hours. (If it extends beyond 1:30 ET, I will have to duck out.)
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a pair of cases—West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox—that present the question whether state laws that preserve girls’ and women’s sports teams for girls and women violate federal law. 1/
I’ve had little to say recently about these cases for the simple reason that there is little that needs to be said. The challenged laws define who may play in girls’ and women’s sports on the basis of sex, not on the basis of gender identity. Rather than discriminate on the basis of gender identity, they disregard gender identity. Boys can’t play on girls’ teams, and that’s true both for boys who identify as male and those who identify as female.
Once you grasp this elementary point—a point that escaped the Fourth Circuit and Ninth Circuit—the claims dissolve into nothingness. 2/
It makes no sense to think that the Court’s 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County might extend to this realm. The Court ruled in Bostock that Title VII’s ban on discrimination “because of … sex” prohibits discrimination on the basis of transgender status (or sexual orientation). In expanding the grounds on which employers may not discriminate, that ruling (which I believe to be deeply mistaken) did not impose conflicting obligations on employers: An employer who does not discriminate on the basis of (biological) sex is also capable of not discriminating on the basis of transgender status.
The plaintiffs here accept that it is lawful for schools to have separate teams for girls and women. But once you accept that classifications on the basis of sex are permissible, it is logically impossible to insist that girls’ teams must also classify on the basis of gender identity. The latter destroys the former. 3/
Thread on #SupremeCourt oral argument this morning (10 a.m.) in Trump v. Slaughter on president's authority to remove executive-branch officers. I'll start with things I'll be looking for in oral argument, and during argument will (time allowing) livetweet some comments.
Court's grant of emergency relief to Trump in September is very strong indicator that Trump will win. The three liberal justices dissented, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all six conservative justices are on board. It's possible that one has doubts. It's also possible that the majority is divided on the theory on which Trump wins. Note that Court granted review on two questions. Might there be a division on which ground Trump wins on?
If Court majority is ready to overrule Humphrey's Executor, what will be scope of president's removal authority? Taft's opinion in Myers v. US (1926), admired by champions of executive power, indicated that civil-service protections would still apply. Does line on removal authority run between officers and employees? Or can Congress protect (some or all) inferior officers by classifying them in the civil service?
Oral argument in Supreme Court at 10 AM ET in Louisiana v. Callais. Case presents question whether redistricting of congressional seats was unconstitutional racial gerrymander. 1/
@JCNSeverino Callais was first argued last year, but Court scheduled for reargument, asked for briefing on this question: "Whether the State’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution."