Media Mentions

An op-ed by Noah Feldman: In an important 9-0 opinion, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision saying that the NCAA is violating the antitrust laws by denying educational benefits to student athletes. The court didn’t say it’s unlawful for the NCAA to stop member schools from paying athletes outright — but only because that issue wasn’t before the court. The opinion hints that, in a future decision, the justices could hold that antitrust law requires the NCAA to let colleges pay salaries to athletes. And in a separate concurrence, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said exactly that.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman: The Supreme Court’s decision in the shareholders’ suit against Goldman Sachs over the bank’s transparency was extremely subtle, leaving enough room for both sides to say that they were happy with it. And it did very little, if anything, to make new law. So what were the justices doing, exactly? The answer is that, in a high-profile case, they were assuring themselves that they had a say in pushing the lower courts toward what they consider common sense.

In a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, the Supreme Court struck down a California law that gave union organizers access to farm sites. The decision means people seeking out farm workers for unionization purposes going forward will be violating the property rights of agricultural landowners and food processors, who can now legally keep them off their land. Critics lamented the result. Niko Bowie, a professor at Harvard Law, wrote that the regulation "was the product of a years-long campaign by César Chávez" and the United Farm Workers "to force agribusiness to respect the dignity and workplace rights of agricultural workers."

In the 1960s, the United Farm Workers began demanding better pay and working conditions for California’s agricultural workers, who were subject to egregious exploitation and abuse. Led by César Chávez and Dolores Huerta, the union’s campaign culminated in the passage of the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act. …To avoid answering this question, Roberts invented exceptions to Cedar Point’s new rule, including “a business generally open to the public.” As Harvard Law professor Niko Bowie wrote on Wednesday, however, the chief justice’s improvised exceptions won’t actually prevent businesses from refashioning typical regulations as a “taking.” Nondiscrimination laws “take” a club’s right to exclude women, religious minorities, and other disfavored groups.

Legal experts clashed on Wednesday over the wisdom of proposals to reduce the Supreme Court’s power to strike down democratically enacted laws, as President Biden’s commission on judicial branch overhauls held its first public hearing with witnesses. … Nikolas Bowie, a Harvard Law School professor, denounced the power of the Supreme Court to strike down laws enacted by Congress as an “antidemocratic superweapon” and said, “I encourage you to advocate for reforms that will abolish the practice.” … But Noah Feldman, another Harvard Law professor, warned against reducing the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review. While he agreed that the court had sometimes issued bad decisions, he argued that reducing judicial checks on the legislative and executive branches would pose greater risks.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump may have an unlikely ally to defend him against lawsuits alleging he incited the U.S. Capitol insurrection: President Joe Biden’s Justice Department. ... One prominent constitutional scholar characterized the department’s position in the Carroll case as a blunder that will be difficult to undo. “It would be very difficult for the Justice Department to change course now,” said Laurence Tribe, a Harvard University constitutional law professor and a frequent critic of Trump. “The Titanic is aimed at the iceberg.” Tribe and other critics of the department’s position say it fails to draw obvious distinctions between a president's official conduct and matters that clearly fall outside the duties of the office. When a president says or does something illegal, they say, it does not warrant a taxpayer-financed defense by government lawyers.

Harvard students are contributing time, effort, and expertise to solving local challenges and helping residents.

HLS Professor Adriaan Lanni is advocating for the ‘thoughtful and gradual’ adoption of the concept of restorative justice — not only as a way to help reduce incarceration, but also as a more effective and humane method for dealing with crime.

The pressure campaign started months ago. Outside the US Supreme Court in April, a billboard truck with a black-and-white image of 82-year-old Justice Stephen G. Breyer circled the grounds, neon green letters blaring, “Breyer, retire.” ...“His code words are common sense, decency, democracy,” said Charles Fried, a professor of law at Harvard who served as US solicitor general under Ronald Reagan and has known Breyer since he was a law student. “He is a very practical person. If you look at some of his writings, he is very interested in what the practical effect of what his decisions will be.” ... “He has never been the leader of what people would regard as the liberal flank,” said Laurence Tribe, a longtime Harvard law professor and close friend. Still, “he has been a consistent and rather predicable liberal on matters of racial equality.”

Yochai Benkler and Joan Donovan offer perspectives on the pervasive threat of disinformation.

A federal judge whose ruling last week to strike down California's three-decade-old assault weapons ban garnered swift backlash is drawing more criticism over his claims about Covid-19 vaccines, firearm injuries and other subjects....Constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe, a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School, said Benitez's assertions are "utterly without factual foundation.""They are irresponsible in the extreme, whether described as purported 'facts' or repackaged as opinions," Tribe said in an email. "His entire theory about which firearms are protected by the Second Amendment has no basis in the text, history, or judicial interpretation of the Amendment and swallows its own tail by making the circular assertion that the weapons in common use at any given time are those protected by the Amendment."

An op-ed by Noah Feldman: American Indian tribes have won a small victory at the Supreme Court. In the case, U.S. v. Cooley,  justices held that tribal police on a reservation can arrest and search people who are not Native American when there is probable cause to suspect them of a federal or state crime. The decision was unanimous, almost certainly for a quirky reason: The court’s liberals favor tribal sovereignty on reservations and the court’s conservatives favor expansive police power to stop and search. Conservatives also hate throwing out convictions on procedural grounds.

Premal Dharia, inaugural director of Harvard Law School’s Institute to End Mass Incarceration, recently moderated a discussion on felons and jury service.

An appellate court in Wisconsin has ruled that Chrystul Kizer, a child sex-trafficking victim charged with killing her alleged abuser, may be able to use a state law intended to help trafficking victims accused of crimes. The law, known as the affirmative defense, will give Kizer, now 20, a chance to present evidence to a Kenosha judge, and possibly a jury, that her actions were a “direct result” of the trafficking she experienced. If successful, she could be acquitted of some or all of the charges against her, rather than face a mandatory life sentence — and could break legal ground for trafficking victims accused of crimes. ... “We could not have gotten a better decision‚” said Diane Rosenfeld, director of Harvard Law School’s gender violence program, which was involved in writing a brief in the case. “If the state had taken more seriously what Volar was doing, not only to Chrystul but to all these other girls, arguably Chrystul wouldn’t have been in this position."

COVID-related costs along with the Biden Administration’s plans to invest heavily in slowing Climate Change and in building infrastructure leave little money for other mega-budget initiatives. But four long-time partners who are fighting for food waste and loss prevention policy believe this is actually an opportune time to call on the federal government to support their agenda. The partners are the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic, ReFED, and the National Resource Defense Council. They recently finished their U.S. Food Loss & Waste Policy Action Plan that asks Congress and President Biden to take action to halve food waste by 2030, in line with the target set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). ... Emily Broad Leib, director of the Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic, illustrates by expounding on two Action Plan areas: food donation and date labeling. Her office has tried to advance policy around both for years.

An op-ed by Dana Montalto, clinical instructor at Harvard Law School’s Veterans Legal Clinic: A veteran with a fever and hacking cough that suggest a possible coronavirus infection tries to make a doctor’s appointment, only to be turned away by a receptionist who personally decides the would-be patient can’t see a physician. A former service member and sexual assault survivor at risk of suicide is denied access to mental health services by a bureaucratic gatekeeper stationed at the therapist’s front desk. These are two of thousands of examples of veterans seeking the Veterans Affairs healthcare they’re legally entitled to — and being wrongly refused it. This is due to a pervasive misunderstanding, and misapplication, of the rules regarding other-than-honorable discharges.

Dentons Chair Joseph Andrew says there’s a “fear factor” in competitors’ reaction to news that his law firm is launching a private equity-backed global consulting business. Competitors view Dentons Global Advisors as a sign of what may be to come if U.S. law firms are able to receive outside investment, Andrew said in an interview. The firm’s ability to tap private equity capital will serve as “jet fuel” for the firm’s continued acquisitions, he said. ... “What law firms have been worried about for 30 years is accounting firms doing legal work, but they now realize that turnaround is fair play,” said Robert Couture, a senior research fellow at Harvard Law School’s Center on the Legal Profession and a former executive director of McGuireWoods. “The law firms can bring on billable professionals and a heck of a lot of expertise that doesn’t necessarily require a JD.”

In the past few years universities across the country have made efforts to acknowledge and address evidence of their historical links to slavery. But many of their students are not satisfied with the pace of progress. The Associated Press recently wrote about how students and activists are pushing institutions to examine their pasts more seriously. These efforts are taking place at Brown—where “undergraduate students voted overwhelmingly for the university to identify the descendants of slaves who worked on campus and begin paying them reparations”—and at Georgetown, the University of Georgia, Trinity College, and the University of Virginia, among others. ... Later that year, the Harvard Corporation decided to abandon the Harvard Law School shield, which paid homage to slave owner and benefactor Isaac Royall Jr. Rosenberg’s article featured insights from Bell professor of history Sven Beckert, who led the student-inspired Harvard and Slavery Project that began in 2007.

Should convicted felons be allowed to serve on juries, sitting in judgment on their fellow citizens? On June 2, Premal Dharia, inaugural director of Harvard Law School’s Institute to End Mass Incarceration, moderated a discussion of this question, at an event co-sponsored by the Radcliffe Institute between two invited speakers: Brendon D. Woods, the chief public defender in California’s Alameda County, and James M. Binnall, an associate professor of law, criminology, and criminal justice at California State University, Long Beach.

This year’s wave of new voting restrictions across the South may seem a response to the 2020 election, but its origins stem in no small part from the Supreme Court, which over the last decade has reshaped election law to elevate the power of state lawmakers over the rights of their voters. ... Harvard Law Professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos, who teaches election law, said he wouldn’t speculate about the intent of the justices. “But across the right to vote, redistricting, the Voting Rights Act and campaign finance, the court’s decisions have benefited Republicans,” he said. “And partisan advantage explains these decisions better than rival hypotheses like originalism, precedent, or judicial nonintervention.”

Because the device’s ability to measure speed had never been formally tested, a judge should not have admitted evidence from a GPS ankle monitor that showed a defendant’s movements matched those of a suspected shooter, the Supreme Judicial Court has found. Prosecutors built their case in Commonwealth v. Davis on a somewhat wobbly three-legged stool...Applying “serious scrutiny” to technology is critical in cases like Davis, where the other evidence is circumstantial, raising the risk of a wrongful conviction, said Katharine Naples-Mitchell, staff attorney at the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice at Harvard Law School, which filed a joint amicus brief in Davis with the New England Innocence Project...Pointing to the court system’s evolving understanding of the limitations of cross-racial identifications and systemic racism more broadly, Naples-Mitchell noted that the SJC was more precise than prosecutors had been in distinguishing between braids and dreadlocks, which is the type of sweeping generalization that all too often inures to the detriment of Black and Latinx defendants.