Skip to content

Archive

Media Mentions

  • USDA removed animal welfare reports from its site. A showhorse lawsuit may be why.

    February 10, 2017

    ...Their litigation is now being hailed by some Tennessee walking horse activists as the impetus for an abrupt USDA decision last week to pull from its public website all enforcement records related to horse soring and to animal welfare at dog breeding operations and other facilities...Under the Trump administration, the USDA, which does not yet have a secretary, took less than three weeks to approve the removal of records that had been available for at least seven years. “I think it was probably easier to make this wholesale shutdown under the new administration,” said Delcianna Winders, a fellow at Harvard University’s Animal Law & Policy Program who is deeply familiar with the database.

  • The Fiduciary Rule is a Friend of Capitalism

    February 10, 2017

    An op-ed by Charles Fried. Back when Elizabeth Warren was inveighing against sleazy mortgage brokers who were selling mortgages with low rates to unqualified home buyers — mortgages that would balloon to the unaffordable long after the brokers had collected their commissions — she was called out by one miscreant, who asked her if she believed in capitalism. Representatives of big banks and brokerages — not to mention members of Congress — are repeating this line of questioning in defending capitalism against the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule, which they would like to repeal. The standard Marxist line on capitalism is that it is a sordid scene where the powerful, shrewd, and ruthless enrich themselves by systematically exploiting and immiserating their fellows. And that explanation does come close to describing the crony capitalist kleptocracies that blight many potentially prosperous but miserable nations. But that is not the true face of capitalism.

  • Inside the Clinic Leading Harvard’s Response to Trump

    February 10, 2017

    Since Donald Trump won the presidential election in November 2016, everything’s been busier at the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program...The clinic has also hired a new staff attorney, Jason Corral, to work full-time to support undocumented students on campus, and hired clinical instructor Cindy Zapata to oversee the clinic’s expanded programs. Staffers at the clinic also helped pen an additional amicus brief opposing Trump's order. In short, it’s been a hectic month. Maggie J. Morgan ’04, a clinical and advocacy fellow overseeing students at the clinic, said that although it is still unclear how the executive orders will play out, there is already much to do to support clients...As part of its approach to immigration and refugee rights issues, the clinic, in conjunction with the Harvard Immigration Project—a student practice organization at the Law School—has launched the Immigration Response Initiative, an umbrella project with nine sub-projects. Among its other initiatives, members of the project have created a sanctuary campus toolkit and FAQ for students about the immigration executive order, according to Amy E. Volz '18, a Law School student and the co-president of HIP...The clinic also released a report Wednesday called “The Impact of President Trump’s Executive Orders on Asylum Seekers,” written by staff and students affiliated with the clinic...The report has already gained significant traction in Canada, where legislators are considering suspending the refugee agreement, clinic director and Law School professor Deborah E. Anker said.

  • Ottawa should suspend Safe Third Country Agreement: Editorial

    February 10, 2017

    In 2004, the Canadian and U.S. governments signed a treaty to streamline their refugee systems. The Safe Third Party Agreement dictates that most refugees who first land in the United States cannot then claim asylum in Canada, and vice versa...The case for suspension is put forward obliquely but with particular force in a new report out of the Harvard University Law School. The authors chronicle the grave potential consequences of Trump’s three executive orders on immigration: the large-scale detention of asylum seekers, the removal of refugees without due process, the empowering of local officials to detain individuals on “mere suspicion” of immigration violations, the discrimination based on asylum seekers’ religion and nationality, among other inhuman and arguably unconstitutional outcomes. “We are not going to tell the Canadian government what to do,” the authors write, “but the finding that the U.S. is safe is wrong and unfounded, and should be blown out of the water.”

  • Court’s Message to Trump: We Won’t Back Down

    February 10, 2017

    An op-ed by Noah Feldman. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upholding a nationwide freeze on Donald Trump’s immigration executive order is a powerful rebuff to the administration -- and to the president personally. The court went out of its way in its opinion released Thursday to emphasize the right and the duty of the judiciary to rule on the constitutionality of executive action, even when national security is on the line. The unanimous panel was unwilling to bow to the personal pressure that Trump aimed at it. And, tellingly, the most important recent precedents the court cited were written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote will be crucial if and when the case goes to the U.S. Supreme Court.

  • Kellyanne Conway’s Ethics Breach Is a Mild Outrage

    February 10, 2017

    An op-ed by Noah Feldman. White House counselor Kellyanne Conway broke federal ethics rules Thursday by endorsing Ivanka Trump’s clothing line -- that much is open and shut. If Conway worked for a regular government agency, she’d be temporarily suspended for a first offense, and fired for a second. But because her punishment depends on President Donald Trump, she has been “counseled,” not sanctioned. There’s a lesson here about difference between law and morals. It may seem worrisome that ethics rules can be so easily ignored by an administration that chooses to do so. But the truth is that, ultimately, ethics rules are only as good as the administration that applies them. If we don’t like the administration’s morality, we have only one real option: vote it out of office.

  • Trump Lawyers Get Ready: You’ll Be in Court a Lot

    February 10, 2017

    An op-ed by Noah Feldman. No matter how the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit rules, the legal challenges to President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration from seven majority Muslim countries won’t be over. Not even close. That’s because, in addition to the case that currently has the policy on hold, a number of challenges to different aspects of the order by different kinds of plaintiffs are pending in courts across the country. This may seem perverse, given the need for a single immigration policy. But it’s the way challenges to federal action proceed almost all of the time, and it follows the same convoluted path as the arguments against the Affordable Care Act during Barack Obama’s presidency. Ultimately only the U.S. Supreme Court can impose uniformity throughout the federal judicial system. This system isn’t perfect, but it has stood the test of time.

  • Akin Gump Responds to Partner’s Arrest

    February 9, 2017

    News emerged Wednesday morning from Bloomberg News of an Akin Gump partner who was arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on charges of trying to sell a copy of a secret lawsuit to the company under investigation...Neil Eggleston, former President Barack Obama’s White House Counsel who is now a lecturer at Harvard Law School, said that the news isn’t good publicity for Akin Gump, but that it wouldn’t “have much impact” on the firm. “No partner at Akin Gump is happy reading this morning about one of their partners alleged to be involved in some serious criminal conduct,” said Eggleston. “It’s quite unfortunate. But this will not have a lasting impact on Akin Gump.”

  • The (Sensible) Fine Print on Trump’s Regulation Order

    February 9, 2017

    An op-ed by Cass Sunstein. The first weeks of the Trump administration have not exactly been characterized by an excess of regular order. So there’s special reason to applaud a document it released last week that helps to make sense of one of the president's controversial actions -- an unprecedented executive order limiting regulation. The order itself, requiring agencies to eliminate two regulations whenever they issue a new one, produced applause, confusion and alarm when it was announced on Jan. 30. The good news is that the highly professional "interim guidance document" that quietly followed the order three days later answers numerous open questions about it, and does so quite sensibly and in just a few pages.

  • In Net neutrality fight, broadband’s the fix

    February 9, 2017

    Less than a month after being sworn in, Donald Trump has begun to destroy the Internet. Well, at least that seems to be the opinion of multiple Internet activists and politicians...Harvard law professor and Net neutrality advocate Susan Crawford likes the idea of Internet rate regulation.“The federal government should be requiring wholesale fiber networks to be available at reasonable prices throughout the country,” she told me. Crawford added that even if the agency didn’t actually set rates, the mere threat would keep Internet providers in line.

  • Is there any legal reason Melania Trump can’t profit from being first lady?

    February 9, 2017

    Let’s say Kanye West actually ran for president in 2020, as he has halfheartedly hinted he may on Twitter — and that he won The first lady of the United States would then be Kim Kardashian, a celebrity who rose to that status through sheer force of will, who has built a self-reinforcing business empire predicated on her celebrity and business empire...Laurence Tribe, professor of constitutional law at Harvard University, answered that question by email. “If official White House functions are used to make money, whether through photographs at official events or through using the White House logo or image for advertising or in some other commercial way,” he said, “that risks violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause of Article I and the Domestic Emoluments Clause of Article II.”

  • 5 Questions After Hearing The Oral Arguments Over Trump’s Travel Ban

    February 9, 2017

    Two lawyers, three judges, thousands of ordinary Americans: On Tuesday night, oral arguments in Washington v. Trump attracted an unusually large audience for audio-only legal proceedings...Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School, says there is case law that backs up Purcell's argument. "There is no precedent for the ridiculous suggestion that discrimination against members of a religious group becomes constitutionally acceptable whenever only a small percentage of that religious group is victimized," Tribe tells NPR. "The entire course of jurisprudence under the Religion Clauses is incompatible with any such arithmetic approach to the issue."

  • Trump lashes out at judges – again (video)

    February 9, 2017

    The president says comments in court over his travel ban are 'disgraceful,' and says the ban would only be blocked due to politics. Laurence Tribe discusses with Chris Hayes.

  • Ottawa should suspend refugee pact with U.S., Harvard report says

    February 9, 2017

    A growing chorus of legal experts on both sides of the border is calling on Ottawa to suspend a bilateral pact that bans asylum seekers from crossing border for protection, warning the U.S. is unsafe for refugees. A Harvard University Law School review is the latest to warn about the negative impact of President Donald Trump’s executive orders on refugees, and is urging Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to reconsider the Safe Third Country Agreement. The report, released Wednesday by Harvard’s immigration and refugee clinical program, comes on the heels of the arrival of 22 asylum seekers from North Dakota, including a child and a baby, caught walking in thick snow across an unguarded border into Manitoba last weekend...“The new policies allow any state and local enforcement official, not just trained federal agents, to pick people up on mere suspicion, detain them in any remote location, subject them to an expedited removal process, where many if not most will be unable to express their fear of return and be screened,” said Deborah Anker, head of the Harvard program. “We are not going to tell the Canadian government what to do, but the finding that the U.S. is safe is wrong and unfounded, and should be blown out of the water.”

  • Former Classmates Reflect on Gorsuch’s Law School Days

    February 9, 2017

    As President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Neil M. Gorsuch seems like an unlikely friend for many at Harvard Law School. ...As a judge, Gorsuch has similarly not explicitly shared controversial views. Law School professor Michael J. Klarman wrote in an email that Gorsuch’s views on a number of contentious legal topics remain unclear. “We don't know, based on his judicial opinions, what are Gorsuch's views on lots of issues, but he has given speeches suggesting courts have played too large a role on issues such as abortion and gay marriage, and he has rendered decisions suggesting broad support for religious exemptions with regard to statutes that impose unwanted burdens on religious practices,” Klarman wrote. Klarman wrote that while he would have preferred Merrick B. Garland ’74, former President Barack Obama’s nomination to the Supreme Court whose confirmation was blocked by Republican senators, he didn’t have any particular preference about who Trump nominated. “I regard Justices as largely fungible votes. Any Trump appointee would vote the same way on abortion, affirmative action, gun control, etc., as any other,” Klarman wrote.

  • Law School Dean Search Panel Solicits Student Input

    February 9, 2017

    After some Harvard Law School students requested more rigorous involvement in the search for the school’s next dean, University President Drew G. Faust has organized a series of panels to hear student perspectives on desirable characteristics of the next dean and the state of the school...Three members of the faculty committee and about a dozen students attended the first panel, which was closed to the press, on Wednesday, according to Law School student attendee David D. Heckman [`17]. At the meeting, Heckman said students voiced opinions about what they would like to see in the new dean, discussed issues at the school they hope the next dean will address, and asked about the selection process itself...Following the panel, the Law School Student Council unanimously passed a resolution requesting that candidates for the deanship complete a ten-point questionnaire prepared by the Council. The Council is sending the resolution to Faust and the advisory committee.

  • ISIS Detainees May Be Held at Guantánamo, Document Shows

    February 8, 2017

    The Trump White House is nearing completion of an order that would direct the Pentagon to bring future Islamic State detainees to the Guantánamo Bay prison, despite warnings from national security officials and legal scholars that doing so risks undermining the effort to combat the group, according to administration officials and a draft executive order obtained by The New York Times...“It raises huge legal risks,” said Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and former senior Justice Department official in the Bush administration. “If a judge says the Sept. 11 authorization does not cover such a detention, it would not only make that detention unlawful, it would weaken the legal basis for the entire war against the Islamic State.”

  • How President Trump Could Seize More Power After a Terrorist Attack

    February 8, 2017

    ...for more than two weeks, President Donald Trump and his top White House aides have been obsessed with highlighting a threat that does not exist: jihadist refugees and immigrants from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. It’s true that both worldwide terrorist attacks and terrorism-related cases against plotters in the United States have spiked since 2013, an increase largely attributed to the fallout from the Syrian civil war and the rise of the Islamic State...Jack Goldsmith, a former senior Justice Department official in the George W. Bush Administration, who helped design the post-9/11 anti-terror legal architecture, recently suggested that Trump might actually want his travel ban to be overturned. That way, in the wake of an attack, he can use the judiciary as a bogeyman and justify any new efforts to push through more extreme measures. I asked Goldsmith and others what the menu of options might be for a President Trump empowered by the justifiable fears Americans would have in the aftermath of a serious attack. “If it is a large and grim attack, he might ask for more surveillance powers inside the U.S. (including fewer restrictions on data mingling and storage and queries), more immigration control power at the border, an exception to Posse Comitatus (which prohibits the military from law enforcement in the homeland), and perhaps more immigration-related detention powers,” Goldsmith wrote in an e-mail. “In the extreme scenario Trump could ask Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, which would cut off the kind of access to courts you are seeing right now for everyone (or for every class of persons for which the writ is suspended).”

  • Blue-state attorneys general lead Trump resistance

    February 8, 2017

    With Washington, D.C., in turmoil during the opening weeks of the Trump administration, state attorneys general have emerged as the vanguard of resistance to the new presidency...“The AGs consider themselves a thin blue line against federal overreach, there’s no question about it,” said James Tierney, the former attorney general of Maine who runs a blog about state attorneys general...Tierney advises many of the Democrats coordinating their efforts against Trump. The group is braced to file more suits in coming months. “It’s actually an essential part of federalism in that attorneys general will hold the president’s feet to the fire,” Tierney said.

  • What do sanctuary cities really offer? At what cost? (audio)

    February 8, 2017

    By signing an executive order, President Trump has created confusion for many so-called "sanctuary cities" regarding their roles in enforcing federal immigration laws. Many cities, including a few here in Minnesota, are left to wonder what it might mean in terms of federal funding and community safety. MPR News host Marianne Combs spoke with...Phil Torrey, supervising attorney for the Harvard Immigration Project, about the confusion and the potential outcome for families, neighborhoods, communities and their safety.

  • ‘Not Welcome Here’

    February 8, 2017

    The call was long distance. Niku Jafarnia [`19], a student at Harvard Law School, dialed her mother and father in the Bay Area, where the couple, who emigrated from Iran in the 1970s, has lived for over twenty years. Jafarnia asked them about President Donald Trump’s immigration suspension: A few days earlier, the president had signed an executive order barring immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Iran, for 90 days. She hoped for reassurance. In the past, her parents had always told her not to worry about “these types” of things. They had been through much worse, they said. This call was different. “For the first time in her life, my mother said, ‘You know what, maybe it’s a good idea for us not to be living in this country,’” Jafarnia says. Since its passage almost two weeks ago on Jan. 27, Trump’s order has sparked protests, lawsuits, administrative turmoil, and widespread uncertainty among United States residents with ties to the seven countries—Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—on the president’s list.