Media Mentions

In the run up to the US presidential election on November 3, digital platforms are releasing a number of new or updated policies related to disinformation, election advertising and content moderation. We asked five experts if big tech should be setting the terms of political speech. And if it does, how might this ad hoc and disjointed approach to platform governance impact democracy? ... Evelyn Douek, the Berkman Klein Center: “We are now firmly in a world of second or third or fourth bests. No one’s ideal plan is the current patchwork of hurriedly drafted policies written and enforced by unaccountable private actors with very little transparency or oversight. Nevertheless, here we are. So platforms should be as clear and open as possible about what they will do in the coming weeks and tie themselves to a mast. Comprehensive and detailed policies should not only be the basis for platform action but a shield for it, when inevitable charges of bias arise. Platforms have been talking tough on the need to remove misinformation about election integrity, and rightly so — it’s an area where relying on democratic accountability for false claims is especially inadequate, because the misinformation itself interferes with those accountability mechanisms. You can’t vote someone out if you’re scared or misled out of voting at all.” ... Dipayan Ghosh, the Berkman Klein Center: “The political discourse is increasingly moving online, and particularly to dominant digital platforms like Facebook and YouTube — we know that. Internet companies have variously enforced new policies — such as Facebook’s new restrictions against certain hateful ads, and Google’s limitations on the micro-targeting of political ads. These are half-measures: they are not enough. Dominant digital platforms should be liable for facilitating the dissemination of political advertising at segmented voting audiences. In the absence of such a policy, we will never diminish the disinformation problem — let alone the slate of related negative externalities that have been generated by the business models at the core of the consumer internet.”

An article by Cass Sunstein:  Now that President Donald Trump has tested positive for Covid-19, the Department of Justice is almost certainly focusing on the 25th Amendment, which provides for the transfer of presidential authority to the vice president. No one who works for a sitting president wants to think about that amendment. But in any administration, worst-case scenarios get attention, and if the president is sick, the lawyers and the vice president have to be clear on what the 25th Amendment says and requires. The good news is that for most imaginable health outcomes associated with the virus, it is entirely clear. The less good news is that for some imaginable health outcomes, especially those associated with Covid-19, the 25th Amendment is ambiguous. It offers two different routes by which the transfer of power can occur. Section 3 says this: ‘Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.’ Section 4 says this: ‘Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.’ Under section 3, the president voluntarily transfers power to the vice president. Under section 4, the decision is made by the president’s own team – by majority vote.

An article by Noah Feldman:  A federal judge in California has struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order barring many types of visa entrants into the U.S. As a reminder, Trump issued this order in June because of the supposed threat foreign workers pose to native-born employment during the Covid-19 pandemic. The decision flatly contradicts a different ruling last month by a different federal district court judge in Washington, D.C. Both cases will now go to the respective courts of appeals. If those courts also disagree, and if Trump is re-elected and doesn’t retract the executive order, the issue could eventually make its way to the Supreme Court. Which judge is right? The answer depends on how you read the 2018 Trump v. Hawaii case in which the Supreme Court upheld the 3.0 version of Trump’s Muslim travel ban. The California federal court read the travel ban case narrowly and struck down the Covid-era order as beyond the president’s power and as insufficiently reasoned. The D.C. federal court read the travel ban case broadly and upheld the Covid-era order on the theory that federal law basically lets the president do whatever he wants with regard to immigration. My best guess is that if the case eventually gets to the Supreme Court, the justices would adopt the narrower reading of Trump v. Hawaii. The Covid immigration ban would thus ultimately be blocked. The alternative would be to give the president nearly carte blanche over immigration matters. That result would not sit well either with the court’s liberals or with all of its conservatives.

Barely a week after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, before the late justice had even been buried, President Donald Trump hosted a Rose Garden ceremony to formally announce his nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to fill the open seat on the Supreme Court. A week later, it appears that the inauspicious ceremony may have been at the center of the coronavirus outbreak now plaguing the White House and the Senate. Yet even with the president hospitalized and three Republican senators infected with the virus, the Republican Party is barreling ahead with its effort to install Barrett mere weeks before Election Day. The reckless rush to vote is an indication of the desperate and corrosive power grab at play, one that places the future of the Court at risk. If Republicans succeed, and Democrats win the Senate and the White House in November, Democrats must add seats for additional justices—not as a means of political one-upmanship, but, paradoxically, to save the Court...However, if Biden wins the election, then the Senate should decline to vote on Trump’s nominee and Biden should fill the seat. It is not too late to take this path, which is right for the country and the Court. This is not to say that a Republican-controlled Senate doesn’t have the constitutional power to confirm a nominee right now—it clearly does. But in exercising this power, Republicans would be committing themselves to an extreme form of “constitutional hardball”—a term coined by the legal scholar Mark V. Tushnet to describe the exercise of raw political might that, while legally permissible, violates the “assumptions that underpin working systems of constitutional government.” If Democrats gain the Senate and the White House in 2021, they will be faced with the choice of either engaging in reciprocal hardball—by wielding the raw political power to expand the Court, for example—or doing nothing and acquiescing to the breach.

President Trump might not win the November election, but he could still strip his opponent, Joe Biden, of a dominant tool to limit greenhouse gases. The Supreme Court and its reshaping by Trump, who is verging on his third appointment of an anti-regulatory justice, would be a warning to Biden to rely less on the Clean Air Act to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases. Expansive readings of the landmark environmental law — like the one EPA used to regulate the power sector under President Obama — are unlikely to pass muster with the court's likely 6-3 conservative majority. That would be a problem for former Vice President Biden, who has offered the most ambitious climate change platform in the history of U.S. presidential elections...Joseph Goffman, executive director of Harvard University Law School's Environmental and Energy Law Program and a former EPA official under Obama, said Biden's environment agency would be forced to write legally conservative rules that nonetheless aim for aggressive emissions reductions. "If eventually it is challenged in court, the challenge won't be about whether the agency had too expansive an interpretation of the law," he said. "But would focus on technology issues where I think even a conservative judiciary would be likely to defer to the agency." Goffman, who helped oversee the development of the Clean Power Plan, said it was too early to guess what ambitious inside-the-fence-line regulations would look like. "But it's a little easier to speculate that the agency would look there first rather than to something that would be perceived by the court as an overly creative reading of the statutory language," he said.

A short-handed Supreme Court — driven from its courtroom by the pandemic, grieving over the loss of a colleague and awaiting the outcome of a divisive confirmation battle — will return to the virtual bench on Monday to start a term that will present Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. with a daunting test. “The chief’s leadership of the court, which just a few weeks ago appeared to be at its zenith, is now in peril,” said Richard J. Lazarus, a law professor at Harvard who has taught courses on the Supreme Court with Chief Justice Roberts. “An addition of yet another very conservative justice could quickly eliminate the chief’s ability to steer the court toward moderation.” The court will again hear arguments by telephone, starting with a timely case on the role of partisanship in judging, a subject that will also figure in Senate hearings on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, which are scheduled to start a week from Monday. President Trump and Senate Republicans have been working hard to speed her path to the seat left vacant by the death last month of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg...Professor Lazarus said the court’s last term had reassured the public that “there was some truth to the chief justice’s admonition that the justices, while on balance very conservative, were not political partisans.” “All that hard-earned good will may soon be in tatters because of how President Trump has responded to Justice Ginsburg’s passing,” he added. “No matter how hard the chief and his colleagues try to stay above the political fray, it is a battle they cannot win when the president treats his nominees to the court as political loyalists.”

To secure elections, paper ballots and risk-limiting audits are needed and systems have to be established to contain the spread of misinformation, a recent Indiana University Bloomington study has found...Election security is discussed in two interconnected yet separate areas of research: the security of the system itself, like voting machines and tabulation systems, and digital repression, which includes misinformation on social media platforms...Beginning to follow other countries, the U.S. did create an information sharing and analysis center for election officials to share cyber threat information and best practices, Shackelford said. Abbey Stemler, an author of the study and a faculty associate at Harvard University’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, said academics, computer scientists and hacktivists – hackers who use their skills to bring about political and social change – should be apart of discussions on how to secure elections “to detect vulnerabilities.” “We need to figure out a way to solve that problem together, because when you have each jurisdiction trying to do the best they can we’re not enjoying the efficiencies of collective action and collective focus on the problem,” Stemler said. “We need computer scientists, hackers and other academics to be heard because they often feel ignored.”

President Trump’s positive coronavirus test has raised the possibility, however remote, that he could become incapacitated or potentially die in office if his symptoms worsen. While that outcome remains highly unlikely, and few in Washington were willing to discuss it on Friday, when Mr. Trump was taken to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center for treatment, the Constitution and Congress long ago put in place a plan of succession to ensure that the nation is protected from adversaries and internal conflict when the elected president cannot serve. The Constitution makes clear that the vice president is first in line to succeed the president should he or she die in office, and can step in to temporarily take on the duties of the presidency should the commander in chief become incapacitated. Vice President Mike Pence, 61, tested negative for the coronavirus on Friday...Some constitutional scholars have raised doubts about whether the speaker of the House and the president pro tempore of the Senate are eligible to step in for the president, arguing that the framers intended for only executive branch officials — an “officer” is the term in the Constitution — to qualify. Jack L. Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor, warned this year that the seemingly arcane dispute could cause a clash. It is possible, for instance, that Ms. Pelosi and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the next executive branch official in line, could make competing claims to the presidency. “These are all nightmare scenarios because these points of constitutional law have really never been tested,” Mr. Goldsmith said... “You think about ambiguity in the chains of command when we have adversaries around the world,” he said. “We could end up with some real issues and a government in effect adrift with some competing power players.”

We bring you live coverage of the developing news regarding President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump testing positive for the coronavirus, and take your calls with our panel of experts. Guests: Shira Doron, infectious disease physician and hospital epidemiologist at Tufts Medical Center. Anthony Brooks, WBUR senior political reporter. Michael Curry, Deputy CEO & General Counsel of the Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers, former head of the Boston NAACP, and a member of the national NAACP Board of Directors. Nancy Gertner, WBUR legal analyst, retired federal judge, and senior lecturer at Harvard Law School. David Gergen, advisor to presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, and founding director of the Center for Public Leadership at the Harvard Kennedy School.

A podcast by Rob Malley and Naz Modirzadeh: This week on Hold Your Fire!, Rob reminisces about his recent trip to Azerbaijan, where he saw warning signs of a “frozen conflict” ready to thaw. Naz explains why the U.S. might regret trying to designate the Huthis as a terrorist organization if it cares about  helping Yemen make peace. They are joined by Aaron Miller, a veteran U.S. diplomat and Carnegie senior fellow, who examines the successes and shortcomings of President Trump’s unconventional diplomacy, and explains how the phrase “nobody ever washes a rental car” applies to conflict prevention.

What are the police for? Producer B.A. Parker started wondering this back in June, as Black Lives Matter protests and calls to “defund the police” ramped up. The question led her to a wild story of a stabbing on a New York City subway train, and the realization that, according to the law, the police don’t always have to protect us. Producer Sarah Qari joins Parker to dig into the legal background, which takes her all the way up to the Supreme Court... and then all the way back down to on-duty officers themselves. Featuring Harvard Law professor John Goldberg.

For Frances Smylie Brown, the upcoming presidential election will mark the fifth time she has worked the polls as an election judge in Denver. But with the novel coronavirus still lurking, she knows that this experience will be like no other. Preparations include a raft of increased safety protocols at polling sites, such as separating voters and judges with plexiglass separators, spacing outlines and disinfecting surfaces...Like Brown, election officials around the country are gearing up for the unique challenges of opening polling places during a global pandemic. Out of the 12 states ABC News did not receive information from, seven have a state-wide mask mandate in place. And 33 -- plus Washington, D.C. -- of the 39 states reached out to by ABC News confirmed that they plan to require or strongly recommend voters to wear face coverings. For them, one of the thorniest challenges has been figuring out what to do with voters who refuse...Some don't agree that election officials are out of line when asking voters to mask up. Nicholas Stephanopoulos, an expert on election law and constitutional law and a professor at Harvard Law School, told ABC News he did not think it would be unconstitutional to turn away a voter who refused. "For challenges like these, the law asks how heavy is the policy's burden on voting?" he said. "Here, the burden on voting is trivial; it's perfectly easy to cast a ballot while wearing a mask."

Many liberals are worried about the conservative direction the Supreme Court could take if Judge Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed by the Senate. Harvard Law Professor and constitutional scholar Noah Feldman says he shares their concerns, but he's written an op-ed in Bloomberg vouching for Barrett, whom he once clerked with on the Supreme Court. Feldman spoke with GBH All Things Considered host Arun Rath.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission does have the legal authority to implement a carbon price, legal experts agreed during a Wednesday technical conference on carbon pricing. Under sections 206 and 205 of the Federal Power Act, FERC has the authority to actualize such a policy through the regional transmission operators (RTO) and independent system operators (ISO), six panelists spanning academia and industry law told commissioners. But a slightly murkier question is whether the commission has the power to implement such a tariff unilaterally — an issue Commissioner James Danly was particularly interested in. If FERC were to establish a record, there is no "inherent jurisdictional bar" to prevent the commission from issuing a carbon price without a direct request from grid operators, Ari Peskoe, director of Harvard's Electricity Law Initiative, said. Others said it was possible, but tricky without a legislative mandate. FERC's highly-anticipated carbon pricing conference raised a number of questions about the technical feasibility of implementing a carbon price. For Danly, FERC's newest commissioner, only one question was relevant: Does FERC have legal authority to do this? ... Danly pressed this point further in his line of questioning. "I'm assuming ... from what I've heard that there's nobody on the panel who believes that FERC has the mandate or authority to simply unilaterally impose the universal carbon pricing system," he said. Peskoe countered that he thought the commission did, in fact, have that authority.

An article by Ashley Nunes: Joe Biden is betting big on climate change. Should he win in November, the presidential hopeful vows to pursue a “clean energy revolution”; one that will help American workers and the environment. His proposal, impressively titled “The Biden Plan To Secure Environmental Justice and Equitable Economic Opportunity in a Clean Energy Future”, (say that three times quickly) promises to create “stable, well-paying jobs that drive clean energy here at home and abroad”. It won’t come cheap, of course. What is the estimated sticker price for going green? $2tn. And details on funding the plan remain murky. Publicly, the campaign says the rich will have to pony up more cash (how creative). Privately, officials concede deficit spending is likely (how unsurprising). Biden’s reluctance — for now at least — to stiff taxpayers with a hefty climate tab is to be expected. After all, climate change matters less to the electorate than what they tell polling companies, and they are often unwilling to pay for tackling it, as I have written here before. But don’t just take my word for it. Former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger expressed similar sentiments in 2017. “We figured out that no one cares about global climate change, because this is something that’s going to happen 20 years from now. If people were worried about 20 years from now, why would they have $20,000 debt on their credit card?” Schwarzenegger noted. “People care about what happens today.” And what’s happening today is that Americans are worried. They’re worried about getting stuck in jobs that offer nothing more than low pay and long hours, with few benefits. Saving the polar bears isn’t a priority. So how do you address economic and environmental concerns simultaneously? Why, by creating green jobs. And contrary to the popular adage, you can — with Joe Biden in charge — have your cake and eat it too, apparently.

Cariol Holloman-Horne's legal team made the first step Wednesday toward a new lawsuit over her firing 12 years ago from the Buffalo Police Department. Her attorneys filed in State Supreme Court in Buffalo paperwork seeking an index number assigned to her old case. It is a procedural motion, but it signals the start of a new legal fight to have her firing overturned and to get a full police pension. Horne was fired in 2008 following an arbitration hearing. She was accused of attacking a fellow officer as he was trying to arrest a man during a domestic dispute on Nov. 1, 2006. Horne said then and has maintained over the years that she was trying to stop the officer from choking the man. At the time, she had 19 years on the job, which meant she was one year shy of the 20 years required to receive a full police pension upon retirement. That meant she would have to wait until she was 55 to retire and receive a partial pension from the state. This is not Horne's first attempt to have her case overturned. Several months after she was fired, she sued to be reinstated,  but then-State Supreme Court Justice Joseph Makowski ruled against her on several procedural matters. Horne's case took on renewed interest after the officer she had fought, Greg Kwiatkowski, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge in an unrelated federal police brutality case. Kwiatkowski, who testified against two other officers who were acquitted in that case, waws sentenced to four months in prison. The uproar earlier this year over the video-recorded death of George Floyd, who suffocated under the knee of a Minneapolis police officer while three others officers stood nearby, also drew new attention to Horne's firing. Horne is represented by a legal team led by Ronald Sullivan and Intisar Rabb of Harvard Law School. Sullivan and his team represented the family of Michael Brown, a Black teenager whose shooting death by a white police officer in Ferguson, Mo., sparked protests there in 2014. The attorneys were not available for comment Wednesday.

It has been called a dead letter, an inkblot, the most important amendment in the Constitution. Although the Ninth Amendment was ratified in 1791, its history and purpose are contested to this day. It reads: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” But what does this mean? How have the courts interpreted it? What does it say about the role of government in protecting our rights? Three distinguished law professors, Laurence H. Tribe, Randy E. Barnett, and Michael W. McConnell, take on these questions and more in Retained by the People.

Carbon pricing in regional wholesale power markets is a good if not necessary step to combat climate change and ensure reasonable rates for electricity customers. That was the consensus yesterday among 30 energy sector panelists who discussed the pricing mechanism before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. In an all-day, long-anticipated virtual conference, an array of academics, grid operators and utility executives discussed FERC's legal authority, various designs for adding a carbon price in regional markets — and potential pitfalls... That could send a signal to states that they can develop carbon pricing programs without fear that FERC would reject those proposals, Dennis said...Experts on the first panel yesterday focused on FERC's legal authority to implement carbon pricing in wholesale markets. Kate Konschnik, the director of climate and energy programs at Duke University, and Ari Peskoe, the director of the Harvard Electricity Law Initiative, agreed that such a policy is within the agency's purview. "The Federal Power Act poses no fundamental obstacle to markets incorporating state carbon pricing," Konschnik said. Peskoe said pricing carbon is not merely an environmental issue, noting financial regulators have warned about potential costs from failing to put a price on emissions. "No serious conversation about the future direction of the power industry ignores carbon emissions," he said. "The commission has a duty to encourage the industry's orderly development. It should not dismiss carbon pricing as someone else's job."

More than seven months after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, large segments of the economy are reopening. That includes businesses, offices and restaurants, as well as entertainment and cultural institutions like museums and cinemas. But what are the rights of the people who will be working there? Can they decide not to work if they feel unsafe? And what protections are employers required to provide? Sharon Block is executive director of the Labor and Worklife Program at Harvard Law School and co-author of the Clean Slate report which provides pandemic recommendations for employers and employees. She joins host Robin Young to discuss the issue.

Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination likely will bring renewed attention to the issue of Title IX litigation filed by students accused of sexual misconduct on campus. As a judge on the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Ms. Barrett wrote a 2019 decision that revolutionized how courts consider Title IX claims from accused students. Lawsuits in this area have multiplied since 2011 guidance from the Obama administration, which pressed universities to adopt biased procedures to favor accusers, hoping that doing so would increase reporting of campus allegations. Several other courts of appeals embraced Judge Barrett’s standard, which now applies to claims in 22 states. Beyond its importance to Title IX law, the opinion speaks to Judge Barrett’s quality as a jurist. The case involved a relationship between two Purdue University students...The Purdue case provided an almost perfect fact pattern for a judge eager to impose a cross-examination requirement. Yet Judge Barrett’s opinion held that because Purdue’s conduct might have violated the student’s rights on more clearly defined questions—insufficient notice of the evidence against him, and possibly a “sham” hearing—the court didn’t need to address the cross-examination issue. Judge Barrett exercised judicial restraint. As Nancy Gertner, a Harvard law professor and a former federal judge, recently observed, “Judges of all stripes around the country have been concerned with fairness in these proceedings.” It’s unlikely that Judge Barrett’s nomination will rise or fall on her decision to join scores of her colleagues in issuing a ruling favorable to a student accused of sexual misconduct. But to the extent that concerns such as intellectual quality or judicial temperament still play a role in the confirmation process, Judge Barrett’s Purdue opinion should serve her well.

The disastrous debate that unfolded in Ohio should prompt us to take the possibility that President Trump will try to steal the election far more seriously — even as it also renders that outcome much less likely to succeed. Trump exhorted his far-right army to mobilize for a sustained conflict over the election results. He refused to say whether he’d accept a legitimate loss. And he confirmed he’s expecting the Supreme Court to help invalidate countless legally cast ballots...The short version is this. At Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing, Democrats can press a line of questioning that might illuminate whether Trump can pull off one of his most-discussed means for rigging the election: getting a GOP state legislature to appoint substitute pro-Trump electors to the electoral college, regardless of the popular vote in that state...Could this work? To be clear, it shouldn’t. The Constitution does assign to each state the authority to “appoint” its electors, in a “manner” that the legislature “may direct.” But in a terrific piece, three legal scholars — Grace Brosofsky, Michael Dorf and Laurence Tribe — explain that precedent shows this means the legislature must “direct” how the state appoints its electors by making laws that create and define the process for doing so. Virtually all states have made laws that provide for electors to be appointed in accordance with the popular vote outcome in them. (Maine and Nebraska do this by congressional district.) Thus, those scholars argue, legislatures can’t appoint pro-Trump electors without making a new law providing for appointment of electors based on legislators’ own will, not that of the voters.