Media Mentions

Even as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to decide the constitutionality of the revised travel ban proposed by President Trump, he went out of his way Monday to criticize the courts, and he seemed to suggest he would favor Christian refugees over Muslims. “The courts are slow and political!” Trump said in one of a series of early-morning Twitter postings about his executive order prohibiting U.S. entry of anyone from six nations whose populations are almost entirely Muslim. The order is under review by both the Supreme Court and the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco...But [Laurence] Tribe told The Chronicle that Trump’s preference for his earlier order could “properly increase judicial skepticism over his claim that individuals subject to the ban could rely on the discretionary waiver provision to reduce the risk of undue hardship.”

An op-ed by Josh Pemberton LL.M. `17. Improving the rule of law has been at the centre of State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi’s vision for democratic reforms in Myanmar. In last year’s New Year speech, she stated: “the administration of justice shall be fair and just and be in accord with the internationally accepted norms.” While establishing the rule of law is an ambitious goal that will take time to accomplish, the government could quickly take a major step towards ensuring accountability and transparency in the administration of justice by opening the doors of Myanmar’s courtrooms and welcoming the presence of the public.

Chimpanzees do not deserve the same rights as people, a New York state appeals court unanimously concluded on Thursday, as it refused to order the release of two of the animals to a primate sanctuary. The 5-0 decision by the Appellate Division in Manhattan is the latest defeat for the Nonhuman Rights Project and its lawyer Steven Wise in a long debate over whether caged chimpanzees are actually legal "persons" entitled like humans to bodily liberty...Tommy's and Kiko's cause drew support from Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe in a friend-of-the-court brief. Tribe suggested that nonhuman animals could face legal duties, citing a "long history, mainly from the medieval and early modern periods, of animals being tried for offenses such as attacking human beings and eating crops."

James Comey’s testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee lived up to its billing: In a blockbuster hearing, the former FBI director accused President Donald Trump of telling “lies” about the reason for his abrupt firing, and detailed what he viewed as the president’s attempts to shut down a federal investigation...It’s one man’s word against another, with nothing less than the presidency of the United States potentially at stake. To sift through the questions raised by Comey’s dramatic testimony, we asked a bipartisan group of legal experts to analyze his remarks and tell us what they mean for the president’s fortunes and the FBI’s ongoing investigation. Here’s what they said: [Laurence Tribe]: "Comey was totally convincing and completely fair both in what he said and in what he refused to say. I can’t imagine anyone doubting a word of what he said."

Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe joins Lawrence O'Donnell exclusively to explain why being accused of abuse of power could be just as bad for President Trump as being accused of obstruction of justice… both are impeachable offenses.

Questions over whether President Donald Trump attempted to obstruct the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Russia probe could hinge on testimony from the nation’s top intelligence chiefs. But this week, they refused to answer key questions from the Senate Intelligence Committee, even as they admitted they had no legal justification for that refusal...One form of executive is the deliberative process privilege, which involves advice given to the president, for example during deliberations or the decision-making process of executive officials. Another form of the privilege applies to confidential presidential communications, but doesn’t apply to conversations of a criminal nature, which the witnesses were being questioned about during the hearing, explained Laurence H. Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School.

President Donald Trump's legal team, in the wake of damning testimony from James Comey, plans to file a complaint against the former FBI director with the Justice Department Inspector General and the Senate judiciary committee early next week, two sources with knowledge of the situation told CNN...Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School, said that the "only impropriety, and perhaps illegality, in connection with the Comey release of his conversation with the President and of the memo recording was that of Trump, threatening the former FBI Director through Marc Kasowitz yesterday."

An op-ed by Alex Whiting. James Comey’s written and oral testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee raises many legal, ethical, and political questions that will have to be pondered in the coming days. But focusing just on the specific question of whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, what are the likely next steps in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation? The answer is that Mueller will first pursue all available investigative avenues to corroborate (or not) Comey’s account before deciding whether to seek an interview of President Trump himself.

With former FBI director James Comey’s hearing Thursday, we heard it straight from the horse’s mouth that Comey interpreted President Trump’s “hope” that the FBI drop its investigation into then-National Security Advisor Mike Flynn’s contacts with Russia as a directive. This immediately brought up the question of whether Trump was obstructing justice by essentially ordering Comey to drop the investigation. I asked Just Security's Alex Whiting, who was a federal prosecutor before his career as a Harvard Law professor, and Duke University law professor Samuel Buell for their two cents..."I think Comey’s testimony, both written and oral, strengthened the case that Trump’s February 14 request to drop the Flynn investigation constituted obstruction."

An interview with Alex Whiting. Did the president of the United States pressure the director of the FBI to put his personal reputation ahead of national security? Did Donald Trump know what he was saying when he exchanged with James Comey on February 14 about his national security advisor's ties to Russia? As Comey testifies before the Senate intelligence committee, we ask if this - as Barack Obama's head of national intelligence said this week – could be bigger than Watergate.

Theresa May, the leader of the UK’s Conservative Party and its embattled prime minister, is only the second woman to hold either roles...Theresa May, the leader of the UK’s Conservative Party and its embattled prime minister, is only the second woman to hold either roles..."There are two aspects to any serious critique of male dominance: that women have been excluded from male forms of power, and that power has been defined on male terms," Catherine MacKinnon, a professor of law at the University of Michigan and long-term visitor at Harvard Law School who authored several books on feminism, tells Quartz.

Former FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee Thursday that he believed President Trump was telling him he should drop the FBI’s criminal investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn during several private conversations between the two men. Comey testified that the president said he “hoped” Comey would “let this go,” asked him for his personal “loyalty,” and urged him to clear Trump’s name publicly from a broader probe into Russian election hacking...Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge in Massachusetts who is now a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School, spoke with the Gazette about the legal issues swirling around the matter.

Nancy Gertner, former U.S. federal judge, talks with Rachel Maddow about whether the pressure Donald Trump exerted to end the FBI investigation into Mike Flynn was merely awkward or actually illegal.

(An op-ed by Martha Minow) -- The 100th anniversary of the birth of President John F. Kennedy is a perfect occasion to revisit his inspiring challenges to Americans and, indeed, to the world, and to remember how he matched his high expectations with sacrifice, service, and contagious belief.

An op-ed by Mark Roe. One of the major reforms to avoid the recurrence of the severity of the financial crisis was a set of mechanisms by which the regulators could wind down failed banks or restructure them if they were still viable. The House of Representatives is set to vote to repeal this measure and replace it with a bankruptcy that only the bankers themselves could decide to enter. These are dangerous actions that can risk turning a tumultuous bank failure into a deep and full financial crisis, like that of the 2008-9 financial panic. Bankruptcy alone cannot handle a financial crisis emanating from collapsed banks. Adding a robust bankruptcy channel makes much sense. But repealing the regulatory-led system and replacing it with bankruptcy is unwise. Replacing it with the narrow, limited bankruptcy structure moving forward in the House is exceedingly unwise.

President Donald Trump won’t seek to invoke executive privilege to block former FBI director James Comey from testifying before Congress later this week...Any decision on whether to investigate the president or administration officials for possible obstruction likely will fall to Robert Mueller. The former FBI director was appointed by the Justice Department as a special counsel to oversee the FBI’s investigation after Mr. Comey’s dismissal. Legal experts differ on the extent of Mr. Mueller’s authority in the probe. “If Mueller’s investigation confirms what has been publicly reported, then he would be well within the zone of prosecutorial discretion to seek a criminal indictment for obstruction of justice,” said Andrew Crespo, a Harvard Law School criminal-law professor.

When the next financial crisis hits — an event that may be years or decades away — we will learn whether this Congress and the president drew the right lessons from the 2008-09 financial crisis. Congress is arguing over whether government can avoid “bailouts” of large financial institutions and still prevent a full-blown crisis. With all of President Trump’s trials and tribulations, hardly anyone is paying attention... A letter from 122 law professors and economists, led by Jeffrey N. Gordon of Columbia Law School and Mark J. Roe of Harvard Law School, argued that the House proposal is unworkable and could trigger the panic that the legislation aimed to avoid.

An op-ed by Charles Fried. In its opinion of May 25 enjoining enforcement of the revised Trump administration travel a majority of the judges of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals latched on to two key words of a phrase in U.S. Supreme Court decisions from 1972 and 2015: In judging denials of entry of aliens into the United States the Supreme Court said judges may not “look behind ... the facially legitimate and bona fide” exercise of executive discretion. The Fourth Circuit judges mined a rich trove of explicit statements by Donald Trump as candidate and later as president-elect, and found that the travel ban was not issued in “good faith” because, while “speak[ing] vague[ly] of national security ... in context his [words] drip with religious intolerance.”

John Manning will be the next dean of Harvard Law School. University leaders announced Thursday that Manning, a conservative scholar who has been on the faculty of the Cambridge, Massachusetts, law school since 2004 and served as deputy dean since 2013, will replace outgoing dean Martha Minow on July 1...Manning said in an interview Thursday that he wanted the dean job in order to help shepherd the law school into its third century. (Harvard Law is celebrating its bicentennial this year.) “I care very much about Harvard Law School,” Manning said. “It’s a great place. It produces leaders, generation after generation, year in and year out, who want to go out and make the world better. It’s an exciting, vibrant place to work.”

A former UMass graduate student will be sentenced Wednesday in the heroin overdose death of another student. Jesse Carrillo was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and distribution after Eric Sinacori died from heroin supplied by Carrillo. Harvard Law Professor Ronald Sullivan said that going after drug dealers for manslaughter has become more common across the country, but he questions the legal approach. "For a manslaughter case, the government has to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the seller acted so recklessly that death was foreseeable," he said.

John F. Manning, a public law scholar on Harvard Law faculty since 2004 will take over as dean on July 1, the school announced on Thursday. Manning, 56, has been the deputy dean of Harvard Law School since 2013 and also is the Bruce Bromley Professor of Law, with an expertise in statutory interpretation and constitutional law. “I love this institution and it has done a lot of good in the world to train excellent lawyers and leaders,” said Manning, in an interview. “And it’s a vibrant intellectual community. I am grateful to be working with a great group of students, staff, alumni and professors.”