Media Mentions

An article by Noah Feldman: Following a presidential tweet, Donald Trump’s Department of Justice is poised to betray Robert Mueller’s independence — after the fact. Reportedly, Justice will retract the sentencing recommendation that was made yesterday to sentence Roger Stone for seven to nine years for lying to Congress and witness tampering. All four prosecutors quickly resigned from the case. The whole point of Mueller’s status as special prosecutor was to protect his investigation from improper White House influence. Now, Stone’s sentencing is being hijacked by direct presidential influence. None of this is normal. It’s not normal for the Justice Department to reverse a sentencing recommendation already submitted to court. It’s especially not normal when the decision follows the president tweeting that the sentence sought was too high. And it’s the trifecta of non-normalness when the person being sentenced was convicted of lying to protect the president in an investigation of whether the president colluded with a foreign power to get elected.

An article by Jonathan Zittrain: Twenty years ago at a Silicon Valley product launch, Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy dismissed concern about digital privacy as a red herring: “You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it.” “Zero privacy” was meant to placate us, suggesting that we have a fixed amount of stuff about ourselves that we’d like to keep private. Once we realized that stuff had already been exposed and, yet, the world still turned, we would see that it was no big deal. But what poses as unsentimental truth telling isn’t cynical enough about the parlous state of our privacy. That’s because the barrel of privacy invasion has no bottom. The rallying cry for privacy should begin with the strangely heartening fact that it can always get worse. Even now there’s something yet to lose, something often worth fiercely defending. For a recent example, consider Clearview AI: a tiny, secretive startup that became the subject of a recent investigation by Kashmir Hill in The New York Times.

An article by Jonathan Zittrain: Last week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously ripped up her copy of President Donald Trump's State of the Union address on camera after he finished delivering it. Later, the president retweeted a video based on it. The video the president retweeted (and pinned) had been edited to appear like the speaker had been ripping up pages throughout the speech, as if reacting contemptuously to each American credited by name, like Tuskeegee Airman Charles McGee. An official from the speaker's office has publicly sought to have Facebook and Twitter take down the video, since it's not depicting something real. So should Twitter and Facebook take it down? As a starting point for thinking about this, it helps to know that the video isn't legally actionable. It's political expression that could be said to be rearranging the video sequence in order to make a point that ripping up the speech at the end was, in effect, ripping up every topic that the speech had covered.

Companies that sell your cellphone location data to marketers are also selling that information to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the government body known for detaining children in cages. According to a new report by the Wall Street Journal, ICE and its affiliated organizations at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have been using location information for “millions” of cellphones bought from marketers to track down and arrest undocumented immigrants at the US-Mexico border...The data they’re using doesn’t include personally identifiable information like a user’s name, but rather an anonymized alphanumeric ID. Still, as a New York Times investigation into this type of data showed late last year, it’s pretty easy to figure out who someone is based solely on their location... “Even though they say it’s anonymous, when compiling different datasets together it gives you a very detailed picture of who you are, better than even you have,” Dragana Kaurin, a research fellow at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, told Recode. “This data can be used to discriminate against people by race, gender identity, ethnicity, sexual orientation or class,” she added, giving the example of how you could figure out someone is, say, Muslim based on their shopping at Halal markets or visiting mosques.

Facebook and Twitter have rejected a request by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to remove a video posted by President Trump that was edited to make it appear as though she were ripping a copy of his State of the Union address as he honored a Tuskegee airman and other guests. The decision highlighted the tension between critics who want social media platforms to crack down on the spread of misinformation and others who argue that political speech should be given wide latitude, even if it’s deceptive or false...The video isn’t legally actionable and shouldn’t be taken down, said Jonathan L. Zittrain, a Harvard Law School professor and a founder of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society. But, he said, Facebook and Twitter should probably label the video. “It’s important for social media sites that have massive reach to make and enforce policies concerning manipulated content, rather than abdicating all responsibility,” Professor Zittrain said. Labeling is helpful, he added, because “even something that to most people clearly appears to be satire can be taken seriously by others.”

2040. Sure, it sounds like a long way off, but in a quick two decades today's law students and fresh-faced associates will be the ones presiding over a legal industry that could be almost unrecognizable from the one we see today. Just consider the massive amount of change that has happened since the turn of the century. The iPhone has put lawyers on a shorter tether to clients and given associates and judges alike a legal library in the palm of their hands. The recession and globalization have given in-house counsel a higher standing in the legal hierarchy and driven BigLaw firms into a race to get bigger and cover more international ground, all while upending the traditional partnership track. “My own sense is that the change we have seen over the last 20 years is likely to look very small compared to the changes coming over the next 20 years,” said David Wilkins, director of Harvard University’s Center on the Legal Profession.

There's no disputing that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi caused quite a stir when she tore up her copy of President Donald Trump's State of the Union speech at the end of his address. Pelosi said she decided to shred what she saw as a “compilation of falsehoods” to make a statement ”that clearly indicates to the American people that this is not the truth." Trump and his Republican allies, for their part, saw Pelosi's action as an act of disrespect — and an illegal one at that. Legal experts disagreed, saying the speech was Pelosi's to do with what she wanted...Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard University, said Pelosi did not violate 18 U.S. Code Section 2071, the federal law defining the deliberate destruction of an official record that has been filed with a court or other government agency — a felony punishable by a prison term and by forfeiture of office.

An article by Cass Sunstein: How do you debunk a conspiracy theory? Suppose people think that Israel carried out the 9/11 attacks or that the moon landing was faked. Or that Koch money or Hillary Clinton or Pete Buttigieg was behind the Iowa caucus fiasco, or that the coronavirus comes from a fiendish plot by multinational corporations. Conspiracy theorists tend to be emotionally invested in their beliefs, meaning that if you contradict them, you might make them angry. And if you offer them evidence that they’re wrong, you might make them angrier still – and so strengthen their commitment to their belief. Social scientists have found that, in some contexts, corrections actually backfire. If, for example, people still think that the Affordable Care Act contains death panels, a correction can make those people even more certain that the law contains death panels. One reason is that when people are told they’re wrong, they are immediately put on the defensive, and they work hard to defend their beliefs. Another reason is pure suspicion: Why would anyone bother to deny it, if it isn’t true?

On Jan. 29, attorneys from the Harvard Law School’s Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program (HIRC) submitted a complaint to the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on behalf of their client, Reihana Emami Arandi, an Iranian student who was denied entry to the United States despite having a valid visa to attend the Harvard Divinity School. The complaint details extensive discriminatory behavior and regulatory violations by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that began upon Ms. Emami Arandi’s arrival at Logan Airport on September 18, 2019...“Ms. Emami Arandi suffered, and continues to suffer, lasting trauma due to CBP’s egregious violations of its own regulations and procedures,” said Sabi Ardalan ’02, clinic director. “CBP’s abuse of discretion in repeatedly denying entry and revoking valid visas of students from the Middle East based on unfounded allegations of immigrant intent requires investigation.”

Two college students from Iran have filed civil rights complaints with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, saying they were mistreated and illegally denied entry into the country by federal officials at Boston’s Logan International Airport. Shahab Dehghani, who attends Northeastern University, and Reihana Emami Arandi, who had been set to start classes at Harvard University, recently filed separate complaints with the agency’s civil rights office, requesting the agency investigate the conduct of Customs and Border Protection officials...Arandi [who is represented by the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program], is a 35-year-old incoming graduate student at Harvard’s Divinity School, said in her complaint filed Jan. 30 that she was detained at Logan Airport on Sept. 18 and questioned for nearly eight hours about her work, family, travel and opinions about recent events in the Middle East.

With headlines declaring 2019 the year that the world woke up to climate change, Aminta Ossom ’09 sees hope in approaching the issue from a specific angle: human rights. “Human rights has a lot to offer the climate change movement because it’s a way to humanize the issue. It becomes less scientific or technical and more accessible,” she said. “The human rights approach also says that everyone has a buy-in and should have a say. Everyone is a potential victim of the effects of climate change,” she added. After years working at Amnesty International and the United Nations, Ossom returned to Harvard Law School this fall to teach in the International Human Rights Clinic (IHRC), where one of her projects focuses on how human rights organizations are advising governments on climate change. The new clinical instructor, who self-identifies as a “regional human rights systems nerd,” had not originally planned on a career in law.

A federal appeals court on Friday dismissed Democratic lawmakers' lawsuit against President Donald Trump alleging he has violated the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution on technical grounds. ...Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor and constitutional expert, tweeted after the ruling, “Individual members of the House and Senate lack standing to sue Trump to stop his Foreign Emoluments Clause violations — but the House could sue for institutional injury. It should now do so.”

Since 1851, many remarkable black men and women did not receive obituaries in The New York Times. This month, with Overlooked, we’re adding their stories to our archives. When Homer Plessy boarded the East Louisiana Railway’s No. 8 train in New Orleans on June 7, 1892, he knew his journey to Covington, La., would be brief. He also knew it could have historic implications. ...“This case is infamous for several reasons,” Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School, said in a telephone interview. “First, separate is almost never really equal. Second, separate is symbolically and psychologically unequal when it is recognized to have the social meaning that whites are too good to mix with blacks, or that one race is essentially superior to the other.”

Janet Wu joins the conversation as Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe talks about the impeachment and acquittal of the President, and its implications for the future (22:12)

One could hardly be surprised that self-identified pro-choice Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine — who talked herself into supporting the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh on the grounds that the conservative jurist, picked off a list approved by right-to-lifers, would uphold Roe v. Wade (!) — would concoct some rationalization for voting to acquit President Trump in his impeachment trial. In spinning out an embarrassingly weak argument for her decision to side with her party, she confirmed Tuesday on the Senate floor that the notion of an independent-minded New England Republican is as dead as Vermonter Calvin Coolidge. ...“Many GOP Senators announcing their reasons for acquittal on the Senate floor today are relying on alleged process failures or on doubts that Trump did what the House alleges he did,” constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe tells me. “That’s misguided and in many instances seems dishonest. But it’s not nearly as dangerous as relying on the wholly unfounded and genuinely crackpot theory that the offenses charged are just not impeachable — either because ‘abuse of power’ as such is an improperly framed ‘high crime and misdemeanor,’ or because the specific conduct alleged does not constitute the kind of abuse that is impeachable.”

The US House of Representatives will vote on a bill on Thursday to protect US workers’ right to form and join unions that supporters are calling the “most ambitious pro-labor legislation” in decades and one Republican congressman has dismissed as “the worst bill in congress”. ... “There is a crisis in our country regarding income inequality and workers’ ability to exercise their countervailing power,” said Sharon Block, the co-director of Clean Slate for Worker Power, an initiative of Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. “I think the Pro Act is the most ambitious pro-labor legislation we’ve seen in years, decades maybe. There is an urgency to start to fix the problem the Pro Act addresses, but it can’t be the end of the conversation of what we need to do for workers to rebuild or build countervailing power, as we see this incredible increase of corporate power, the influence of corporations, and the wealthy’s influence on our political system.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. stood stiff and tight-lipped, no hint of a smile, as President Trump stopped to shake hands Tuesday evening in the House chamber, just prior to his State of the Union address. ... Harvard law professor Richard Lazarus, a Democrat and a friend of Roberts’ since law school, who sometimes teaches a class with him during the court’s summer break, said, “Perhaps not surprisingly, I think he did an excellent job under perilous conditions.” “Would I personally prefer to see Donald Trump convicted by the Senate? Yes,” Lazarus said. “But that was not the chief’s job. That was the Senate’s job. And the chief did his job well. The Senate did not.”

An op-ed by Noah Feldman; Today, the Senate is expected to vote against removing Donald Trump from office. But what will be the verdict of history?In the glass half-empty scenario, Trump’s claims to have been completely exonerated will be embraced by future Americans and their presidents. High crimes and misdemeanors will be defined down to a bare minimum, and maybe out of existence altogether. The impeachment provisions of the Constitution will become more or less a dead letter — except, perhaps, in the extremely unusual circumstance where a president’s party holds less than a third of the seats in the Senate. Future presidents will embrace dirty tricks to win re-election, safe in the knowledge that the Trump precedent makes their removal vanishingly unlikely. The Democratic House’s party-line impeachment will be seen as a partisan act, not a genuine manifestation of constitutional outrage.  

The House is set to vote Thursday on a sweeping plan to overhaul U.S. workplace law in a way that could grow union membership and rejuvenate an ailing labor movement With Democrats holding the chamber’s majority, the legislation ― called the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or PRO Act ― will likely pass but then face certain death in the GOP-controlled Senate. ...The legislation shares a lot in common with a new labor reform plan being passed around progressive circles called Clean Slate for Worker Power, spearheaded by Harvard University law professors Sharon Block and Benjamin Sachs. While their plan goes much further than the PRO Act ― for instance, Clean Slate calls for worker representation on corporate boards  ― Block and Sachs told HuffPost they see the Democratic legislation as an important first step in fixing a collective bargaining system that dates to the Great Depression and that unions say is broken. “Folks are thinking in a bigger, bolder, more progressive way,” said Block, a former member of the National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency that referees labor disputes. “It enables workers to see that their lives could really be different… rather than the smaller-bore fixes like we’ve tried in the past that didn’t work.”

Following the impeachment and acquittal of President Donald Trump after a bitter partisan battle, Americans now face a new reality that involves serious questions about the ability of the federal government to respect longheld balances of power. ... Now that the president has been acquitted, lawmakers may face a future in which their own decision amounts "to a license for any president to defy congressional oversight on a wholesale basis without any particularities, let alone legally plausible" explanation, long-time constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe told Cheddar. "I don't think this is the end of American democracy or separation of powers. I don't think the rule of law is dead or democracy is permanently doomed," said Tribe, who teaches alongside defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz at Harvard Law School. "On the one hand, I have a deep faith that in the long run we will get past this, just as we got past the Civil War and WWII. On the other hand, I can't give you a path between here and the long run that could overcome the pessimism that says we have huge obstacles in the way."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) produced a great .gif of performative outrage for the #Resistance by ripping up a copy of President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address on Tuesday evening after he rejected her “handshake of friendship.” ...Anti-Trump Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe put a bow on the pro-Trump misinformation campaign against Pelosi’s alleged kayfabe: "What a dumb idea! Not even Bill Barr would fall for that ludicrous misapplication of the federal law criminalizing mutilation of government records. The copy was the Speaker’s own, it wasn’t a government record to begin with, and her action was purely symbolic expression well within the protection of both the speech and debate clause and the first amendment."