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
So here (courtesy of @DavidLat) is Stanford law dean Jenny Martinez's statement to Stanford law students about yesterday's event in which Judge Kyle Duncan was shouted down. Let's count what's missing. 1/
@DavidLat 1. It's clear from Dean Martinez's statement of policy that the students who disrupted Duncan's speech violated that policy. But she doesn't actually say so, much less deliver any sort of scolding or promise of punishment. 2/
@DavidLat 2. No, Dean Martinez, "attempts at managing the room" did not go "awry." There were no such attempts, much less "well-intentioned" ones. Rather, your DEI dean was intent on chastising Judge Duncan. Have you actually watched the video? vimeo.com/806801455/16c7… 3/
With the acquiescence of @StanfordLaw administrators, Stanford law students yesterday shouted down Fifth Circuit judge Stuart Kyle Duncan at a scheduled event on topic of “The Fifth Circuit in Conversation with the Supreme Court: Covid, Guns, and Twitter." 1/
@StanfordLaw In email before event, Stanford DEI dean Tirien Steinbach stated support of right of students to protest event, "in keeping with University policies ... against disrupting speakers."
All good. Except she and 4 other administrators at event allowed gross disruption. 2/
@StanfordLaw Steinbach in fact fanned the flames, both in her email and at the event. Her email quoted with evident approval an absurd summary of Duncan's record. And in remarks at event, she said Duncan "literally denies the humanity of people" and told him "your work has caused harm." 3/
I'm sure that I will have a lot more to object to in yesterday's South Carolina supreme court ruling (3-2) against heartbeat law, but I'll start by complaining that court doesn't put page numbers on its 147 pages. sccourts.org/opinions/HTMLF…
Also very strange to have footnotes numbered serially across the five separate opinions. So, for example, first footnote in Kittredge dissent is numbered 68. (But maybe this helps navigate through unnumbered pages.)
Interesting to see South Carolina chief justice Beatty begin his opinion by embracing one of the stupidest Supreme Court statements ever (from Eisenstadt). Ah, yes, "privacy" has no possible meaning if it doesn't include abortion.
Article correctly notes that OLC opinion can't preclude prosecution under state laws. But even "assurances against federal prosecution" are more limited than article suggests. 1/
It's not clear that OLC opinion properly states the intent element under 18 USC 1461. But on assumption that it does, federal prosecutors, in this or later administration, are free to form own judgment on what evidence satisfies it. 2/
Statute of limitations for violation of 18 USC 1461 is five years (extending into next presidential term). Plus, there is massive RICO liability. nationalreview.com/bench-memos/ri… So shippers of abortion drugs proceed at great risk. 3/
En banc Eleventh Circuit, in opinion by Judge Barbara Lagoa, soundly rules that separating school bathrooms based on sex does NOT violate the Equal Protection Clause or Title IX. media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/f…
11th Circuit: Equal Protection claim fails because policy does not discriminate against transgender students. Title IX claim fails because Title IX allows schools to separate bathrooms by sex.
On Equal Protection claim: School's bathroom policy advances important objective of protecting students' privacy. Cites Ginsburg opinion in VMI as well as lots of other rulings.
Majority rejects dissent's position that Adams, a girl who IDs as a boy, somehow really is a boy.
Gotta say it's embarrassing that Harvard Law Review would publish a piece with this text and footnote concerning Kennedy v. Bremerton. Text claims Court held something that footnote says it didn't. And claim in footnote about facts is wildly wrong. nationalreview.com/bench-memos/le…
The substantive errors in Mark Lemley's piece are much more troublesome, but it's strikingly sloppy that he and his editors couldn't even keep proper track of the parts of his essay, confusing Part II with Part I-F and Part III with Part II.
On West Virginia v. EPA and "major questions," here's another instance in which Lemley misstates a holding in text and adds a footnote that contradicts his misstatement. A competent treatment would address this coherently in text.