Jackson List: Judge Jon O. Newman’s Jackson Lecture, Chautauqua Institution, August 16th

I am very pleased to report that the Honorable Jon O. Newman, United States Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, will deliver Chautauqua Institution’s 13th annual Robert H. Jackson Lecture on the Supreme Court of the United States, on Wednesday, August 16, 2017, at 4:00 p.m. in Chautauqua’s Hall of Philosophy.

Judge Newman is a giant of the U.S. judiciary.  In 1971, President Nixon appointed Jon Newman to serve as a U.S. District Judge in the District of Connecticut.  In 1979, President Carter elevated Judge Newman to the U.S. Court of Appeals, where he has served since then, including as Chief Judge from 1993-1997.  At the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year, Judge Newman received for lifetime judicial achievement the very prestigious Devitt Award.

Judge Newman also had many accomplishments before his judicial career, including:  graduate of Princeton University and Yale Law School; a veteran of the U.S. Army Reserve; law clerk to Judge George Washington of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; law clerk to Chief Justice Earl Warren at the Supreme Court; aide to Abraham Ribicoff as Governor of Connecticut, Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare, and U.S. Senator; attorney in private practice in Hartford; and U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut.

Judge Newman’s lecture title will be, “The Supreme Court—Then and Now.”

Chautauqua Institution is a special venue of arts, education, and recreation in western New York State.  Chautauqua was a very significant part of Robert H. Jackson’s life, his broad and self-directed education, his public speaking training and experiences, and his thinking.  (For an earlier Jackson List post on Chautauqua Institution, click here.)

The Jackson Lecture at Chautauqua Institution is a leading annual consideration of the Supreme Court of the United States, on which Justice Robert H. Jackson served from 1941-1954, in the weeks following the completion of the Supreme Court’s annual Term.  Chautauqua’s Jackson Lecturers have been:

  • 2005:  Geoffrey R. Stone, University of Chicago professor;
  • 2006:  Linda Greenhouse, New York Times writer and Yale Law School professor;
  • 2007:  Seth P. Waxman, WilmerHale partner and former Solicitor General of the United States;
  • 2008:  Jeffrey Toobin, staff writer at The New Yorker and CNN senior legal analyst;
  • 2009:  Paul D. Clement, Bancroft PLLC partner and former Solicitor General of the United States;
  • 2010:  Jeff Shesol, historian, communications strategist, and former White House speechwriter;
  • 2011:  Dahlia Lithwick, senior editor at Slate;
  • 2012:  Pamela Karlan, Stanford University professor;
  • 2013:  Charles Fried, Harvard University professor and former Solicitor General of the United States;
  • 2014:  Akhil Reed Amar, Yale University professor (click here for video);
  • 2015:  Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard University professor (click here for video); and
  • 2016:  Tracey L. Meares, Yale University professor (click here for video).

For further information on Judge Newman’s upcoming lecture, click here.

*             *             *

Judge Newman’s Jackson Lecture will culminate, at Chautauqua Institution this summer, extensive, expert consideration of the U.S. Supreme Court.

During Chautauqua’s Week Five (July 24-28), the Amphitheater lecture theme will be “The Supreme Court: At a Tipping Point?”  The 10:45 a.m. lecturers will be:

  • July 24:  Linda Greenhouse;
  • July 25:  Annette Gordon-Reed;
  • July 26:  Jeffrey Rosen;
  • July 27:  Akhil Reed Amar; and
  • July 28:  Theodore B. Olson.

The afternoon programs that week will feature the following lecturers, focusing on judicial lives and biography:

  • July 24:  Linda Greenhouse, on Chief Justice Warren E. Burger;
  • July 25:  Annette Gordon-Reed & Peter Onuf, on Chief Justice John Marshall;
  • July 26:  Jeffrey Rosen, on Justice Louis D. Brandeis; and
  • July 28:  John Q. Barrett, on Justice Robert H. Jackson & His Brethren.

For further information on all of this programming, to buy tickets, etc., please visit Chautauqua Institution’s website (click here).

—————–

This post was emailed to the Jackson List, a private but entirely non-selective email list that reaches many thousands of subscribers around the world. I write to it periodically about Justice Robert H. Jackson, the Supreme Court, Nuremberg and related topics. The Jackson List archive site is http://thejacksonlist.com/.  To subscribe, email me at barrettj@stjohns.edu. Thank you for your interest, and for spreading the word.

Jackson List: Supreme Court “Opinion Dumping,” 1950 & Today

On Monday, June 5, 1950, the last day of its 1949-50 term, the Supreme Court of the United States announced its judgments and released written opinions in seventeen cases.  The Court then began its summer recess.  The public, beginning with the daily press, struggled to read and absorb such a quantity of Court decisions.

A week later, the Washington Post editorialized against what it called the Supreme Court’s end-of-term practice of “Judicial Dumping”:

Our courts have been notoriously backward in their public relations, and in none of them is this failing more conspicuous than in the Supreme Court of the United States.  Last week, for example, that high tribunal dumped 18 [sic] opinions into the lap of bewildered newspaper and radio reporters.  Some of these opinions were of great importance….  It was utterly impossible for the newsmen to read and digest so many opinions in so few hours, and if they could have done so most newspapers would have had great difficulty in giving adequate coverage to so large an output.

Such a heavy accumulation of cases usually occurs only at the end of the term.  But that is serious enough, for the justices have a habit of putting off until the last opinion day some of the most troublesome and important cases.  The result is that some momentous decisions go almost unnoticed by the public.  Perhaps it is of no concern to the court whether its output is properly communicated to the people.  Yet we do not see how any body in a democratic land could take such an attitude, and this seems to apply especially to the Supreme Court, which, lacking both purse and sword, is dependent upon the acceptance of its rulings by public opinion.

Even at the cost of some inconvenience to itself, we should think the court would abandon its dumping practice and regulate the flow of its opinions to the public more evenly.  It is difficult to see how any harm could be done by such a policy, and it would certainly facilitate understanding of the court and its opinions on the part of the public.

When the next Supreme Court term began in October 1950, the Post continued to make this argument.  Chalmers M. Roberts, a legendary Post reporter, privately surveyed his Supreme Court press corps colleagues and then reported their unanimous view that the Court should assist press and public understanding by “spreading the opinions over the entire week instead of dumping them all on Monday.”

The Supreme Court has, over time, to some degree, listened.  It now hands down decisions on multiple days of some weeks, especially toward the end of its term.  In the current month, for example, as this Court term headed to its end, the Justices announced decisions on six separate days, including three days last week.

But some Court work, like all human work, gets done against a final deadline, even if it is one that is self-imposed.  Each Court term will have a final “opinion day.”  And sometimes, such as today, it will be a Monday.

The Supreme Court today completed its scheduled work for the 2016-17 term.  It announced judgments and released opinions in three cases that had been argued in April.  It also vacated the lower court judgment in another case and sent it back for reconsideration in light of a major Court decision (Ziglar v. Abbasi—see below) that was announced last week.  The Court put two other cases, in which it had heard oral arguments last winter as an eight-justice Court, before Justice Gorsuch’s appointment, over for reargument next Fall.  And in two cases challenging President Trump’s “travel ban” executive order, the Court granted in part and denied in part the President’s request to stay lower court orders enjoining the executive order, and it ordered the parties to file briefs on a schedule that will permit the Court to hear oral arguments in the cases next October.

That is—today’s decisions are—a lot to digest.  As the justices prepare to relax, work on cases ahead, travel, and teach during their summer recess, the rest of us will work to catch up.  (For the decisions of the just-completed term, click here, and for orders, including some accompanied by opinions, click here.)

The Supreme Court’s latest decisions include many of legal significance and general public interest.  For students of Justice Robert H. Jackson’s career, one recent decision to note is Ziglar v. Abbasi (click here), where the Court, by a vote of 4-2, dismissed claims against federal officials who were accused of responsibility for the severe mistreatment of Middle Eastern men who were in the U.S. illegally at the time of the 9/11 attacks and were detained for immigration violations.  In his Ziglar v. Abbasi dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, quoted two of Justice Jackson’s most striking and enduring metaphors, and cautions:  that the Constitution should not be misinterpreted as a “suicide pact” (from Jackson’s dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. United States (1949)), and that mistakenly broad views of executive power under the Constitution can lie about “like a loaded weapon”…. (from Jackson’s dissent in Korematsu v. United States (1944)).

—————–

This post was emailed to the Jackson List, a private but entirely non-selective email list that reaches many thousands of subscribers around the world. I write to it periodically about Justice Robert H. Jackson, the Supreme Court, Nuremberg and related topics. The Jackson List archive site is http://thejacksonlist.com/.  To subscribe, email me at barrettj@stjohns.edu. Thank you for your interest, and for spreading the word.

Jackson List:  Commencement, and Cowslip, Season

For the Jackson List:

Robert H. Jackson’s deep ties to Jamestown, New York, the city he came to call his adult hometown, began in 1909.  That June, Jackson, age seventeen, graduated as valedictorian from the high school in Frewsburg, New York.  He lived—he had grown up—in that small, rural hamlet with his parents and two younger sisters.  Frewsburg is located six miles southeast of Jamestown, and it drew Jackson to its opportunities.

In Fall 1909, Robert Jackson began to commute from Frewsburg to Jamestown by streetcar.  He enrolled as a post-graduate student at Jamestown High School—it was, for him, a second senior year of high school.  At JHS, Jackson found some very strong and special teachers (who of course deserve credit for finding him).  They took deep interests in cultivating his talents and, in effect, devising tutorial programs for his special studies in literature, history, and economics.

One of Jackson’s two crucial, life-launching teachers at Jamestown High School was Miss Mary R. Willard, age 53, who taught English.  She lived near the school with her sister Miss Vesta Willard, age 47, who was a teacher at the elementary school.

Robert Jackson soon became the Willard sisters’ shared protégé.  He became, after school and often long into the evening, a member of their literary reading groups, their music listening groups, and their discussions with each other and many friends in the community.  He became a colleague in their environmental activism, including their fundraising to acquire for Jamestown, as a public preserve, a wild and beautiful “100 Acre Lot” on the edge of town.  In time, Robert became a regular dinner guest and sometimes an overnight guest in the Willard home, which the sisters nicknamed “Bohemia.”  To Jackson, then and for the rest of their lives, the Willard sisters were family—in effect, they were his second and third mothers.

Following Jackson’s June 1910 graduation from Jamestown High School, he did not go to college.  Instead, he stayed in Jamestown and became an apprentice to two very talented lawyers, Frank H. Mott and Benjamin S. Dean, who also were politically active, and literary, and friends of the Willards and other Jamestown leaders.

In Fall 1911, following Jackson’s year as a law office apprentice, these mentors persuaded him to go to a law school for a year of classroom learning and book study.  He chose Albany Law School because it was located in the New York State capital, because it was a leading and venerable independent law school, because it awarded law degrees after only two years of study, and because it would give him credit for his apprentice year—it admitted Jackson as, in effect, a transfer student into the “senior” class of 1912.

At Albany Law School during 1911-1912, Jackson worked hard and excelled.  By springtime, he wrote to the Willards, on the opposite side of New York State, that he soon would be graduating, and then returning to Jamestown for another year of apprenticeship, until he turned twenty-one and would become eligible to take the New York bar examination.

Vesta Willard responded by sending Jackson a notecard printed with a poem:

Congratulations

The world and I to you extend

Heartfelt Congratulations

May fortune’s favors have no end

Exceeding all your expectations

 

On the other side of the card, Vesta penned this note:

Tuesday Morning, May 7 [1912]

Dearest Bobbie – So you’re going to GRADUATE!  (See other side)

Probably you’ll see Bohemia in about a

month and then we’ll have a “Halleluyah Windup”

which will be merely the beginning of things.

Harry [a friend] and I “did” the hundred acre lot last

Saturday afternoon, and brought home all the

flowers we could carry, and incidentally, a

basket of cowslip greens.  These we immediately

“looked over” and cooked for supper.  Marywog [Mary Willard] was

too tired to go with us but she enjoyed the greens.

[Another friend] made us a visit Sunday night, but

he came too late (8:45) to catch Marywog.  She had

“turned in.”  So it was “up to me” until 11 P.M.

I rose to the occasion and listened attentively and

with a most misleading show of interest.

I’m “holding down” the [school] Study Hall just now but they [the students] are

“under control” and I wish this card was longer—I feel talkative.

The fifth chicken on the Easter card [apparently a previous mailing]

is merely the shadow of the Good Times coming.

Do try to be good —  Yours – V.W.

So what are cowslip greens?  As Vesta Willard knew, they were one of Robert Jackson’s very favorite foods.  Cowslip, or Primula Veris (“truly spring”), is an herb.  It is used for healing and cooking.  It usually grows, as its Latin name suggests, in the springtime, blooming from April to June.  Cowslip is native to Europe and Asia but in the United States it grows wild in fields and meadows.  Cowslip flower petals are used in pudding, creams, tea, jam, and wine.  The Willards seem to have liked cooked—I assume boiled—cowslip leaves as a supper vegetable.  Fresh, young cowslip leaves, which have a sweet but bland taste, also can be eaten as a green, or in salads, or—Jackson’s preference—in sandwiches.

In this season of commencements, I hope that you and yours have chances to celebrate the academic accomplishments of people you’ve raised or taught or otherwise love, and to find and eat some favorite foods, and then to keep on celebrating.  Indeed, if it’s your style, have a great “Halleluyah Windup”!

—————–

This post was emailed to the Jackson List, a private but entirely non-selective email list that reaches many thousands of subscribers around the world. I write to it periodically about Justice Robert H. Jackson, the Supreme Court, Nuremberg and related topics. The Jackson List archive site is http://thejacksonlist.com/.  To subscribe, email me at barrettj@stjohns.edu. Thank you for your interest, and for spreading the word.

A Professional Responsibility Exam Question?

Don (“D”) serves in the District of Columbia as Counsel to the President of the United States.  On January 26, Sally (“S”), the senior federal law enforcement official, contacted D and requested a meeting.  He agreed and they met privately.

In the meeting, S explained to D that:

  • a senior adviser to the President has misled the Vice President of the U.S., and perhaps other government officials as well, about the substance of the adviser’s private communications with a foreign government official;
  • the foreign government is aware of this misleading through its public and private sources of information; and
  • this situation makes the senior adviser extremely vulnerable to influence by the foreign government.

In follow up meetings, S showed D the substantive information underlying her concerns.  D became convinced that this was a serious situation that the President needed to address, probably by dismissing the senior adviser.

During the next few weeks, D discussed this situation a number of times with the President and other officials.  (We do not know what the President responded, including whether he directed D to take any subsequent action.)

On February 17, D arranged for a local reporter to learn that, back in January, S had warned the White House through D that the senior adviser had misled the Vice President and perhaps others, and that this made him subject to influence by the foreign government.  The next day, the reporter’s newspaper published this information.  Public outcry ensued, leading the President to dismiss the senior adviser.

Assume that the foregoing comes to light, and that appropriate authorities are now working to determine if D should be subjected to professional discipline for his conduct.

The question:  Please discuss whether D should be disciplined under D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6.  Please include assessments based on various assumptions, which you should state explicitly, about what the President decided, ordered, or authorized at various times, including with regard to the D-arranged transmission of information to the reporter.

Extra credit:  If times permits, please also discuss whether, on any set of assumed facts, D and/or whoever transmitted the information to the reporter deserves recognition and praise as a patriot.

 

On Judge Curtin, Judge Sharp, and Judicial Discretion in Criminal Sentencing

Judge John T. Curtin, who died last week in Buffalo, New York, at age 95, was a giant of the Western District of New York bench—he served with great distinction for almost fifty years.  Judge Curtin also was a gentleman.  I knew him a little bit and had the privilege of learning from him some wonderful, direct memories of western New York people, politics, cases, and law practice in the 1940s and 1950s.

I was pleased to see yesterday’s New York Times obituary for Judge Curtin (click here).  It recounts some of the significant cases that he handled, and the wisdom and values he showed as he exercised his judicial power.

The Times obit concludes with this story about a non-incarceration sentence that Judge Curtin imposed in the 1970s on Vietnam War protesters who had burglarized a federal building and destroyed military draft records:

Judge Curtin … presided over a Vietnam War-era case involving five protesters who had broken into Buffalo’s Old Post Office to destroy Selective Service records in 1971.  At their trial, they refused to stand when Judge Curtin entered the courtroom, and justified their actions as a legitimate response to the war.

A jury found them guilty of conspiracy to destroy draft records and intent to commit third-degree burglary.  But instead of sending them to prison, Judge Curtin gave them suspended one-year sentences and put them on probation.

 “Each of you,” he told them, “is free to speak your mind, associate with your friends, attend meetings, travel and continue your efforts in a peaceful manner.”

One of the protesters, Jeremiah Horrigan, called Judge Curtin last year….

Mr. Horrigan, a recently retired newspaper reporter, asked the judge why he had granted him freedom.

“I just followed procedure,” Mr. Horrigan quoted him as saying in a retrospective article he wrote about the case.  “I took into account your background, the fact that you had no criminal record, your family situation.”

Mr. Horrigan went on to marry and have two children and four grandchildren. “I tried to tell him how much I owed him [in] the only way I knew how,” he wrote of the judge, “by describing the barest outlines of a life of the luckiest man I know, a life he allowed to happen.”

Coincidentally, on the day following Judge Curtin’s death, Judge Kevin H. Sharp, age 54, resigned from the federal bench in Tennessee.  Sharp had been a federal judge for almost six years.  His reasons for resigning include his desire to return to private law practice.

Judge Sharp also was motivated to retire, however, by his frustration with federal mandatory minimum prison sentence laws.  Enacted mostly in recent decades, these laws require federal judges to impose harsh sentences, sometimes up to life sentences.  In Judge Sharp’s personal view, more merciful sentences would have been appropriate and just in some of his cases, but the law did not permit him to exercise such discretion in his sentencing decisions.

In a post-retirement interview (click here), former Judge Sharp put the problem in its human terms:

“The ‘drugs-and-guns cases’ — you say it like that and it sounds like they’re all dangerous [criminals].  Most of them are not.  They’re just kids who lack any opportunities and any supervision, [they] lack education and have ended up doing what appears to be at the time the path of least resistance to make a living.”

A wiser, more decent country would have federal laws that permit judges to exercise discretion not to impose harsh prison sentences on individuals who do not deserve them.

Such laws would encourage more people of the humane type that Kevin Sharp appears to be to become federal judges, and to remain on the bench for longer, even lifetime, terms of public service.

Such laws would give the U.S. more judges of the type that Judge Curtin was, in his time, able to be.

 

Jackson List: Lawful, Political, Deplorable Senatorial Behavior (1954)

This post, edited a little bit and enhanced with footnotes and photographs of John M. Harlan and the Supreme Court in 1955, now is on the Jackson List archive site in PDF file form.

Jackson List: Alma Soller McLay (1920-2017), Nuremberger

This post, including two December 1945 photographs of Alma Soller in Nuremberg, now is on the Jackson List archive site in PDF file form.

Jackson List: Judge Gorsuch’s Admiration for Justice Jackson’s Writing … and Justice White, Dubitante

 

This post, edited a little bit and enhanced with a couple of citation footnotes and a *great* 1946 photograph of Byron White as a U.S. Supreme Court law clerk, now is on the Jackson List archive site in PDF file form.

Jackson List: 125th Birthday

Tomorrow, February 13, 2017, will mark the quasquicentennial of Robert Houghwout Jackson’s 1892 birth, in his family’s farmhouse in Spring Creek Township, Warren County, Pennsylvania.

For your Jackson Birthday reading, here are some previous Jackson Birthday-related posts:

These and many more posts are on the Jackson List archive site, which is word-searchable and, using quotation marks, phrase-searchable:  http://thejacksonlist.com/.

—————–

This post was emailed to the Jackson List, a private but entirely non-selective email list that reaches many thousands of subscribers around the world. I write to it periodically about Justice Robert H. Jackson, the Supreme Court, Nuremberg and related topics. The Jackson List archive site is http://thejacksonlist.com/.  To subscribe, email me at barrettj@stjohns.edu. Thank you for your interest, and for spreading the word.

Women in Senior Government Ranks, and Not

Notice the women.   In three of the U.S. court cases that were filed challenging the legality of President Trump’s January 27th Executive Order seeking to deny entry to the United States to nationals of seven specified countries, the Federal Judges are women:  Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria); Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the District of Massachusetts (Boston); and Judge Ann M. Donnelly of the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).

Each Judge was assigned to her respective case by her Court’s random assignment system.  But each is there on the federal bench because recent Presidents, advised by U.S. Senators in the particular state, have made it a point, and at times a high priority, to appoint more women.  President Clinton appointed Judge Brinkema, who previously served as a federal prosecutor and then a federal Magistrate Judge, in 1993.  President Obama appointed Judge Burroughs, also a former federal prosecutor and then a lawyer in private practice, in 2014.  And he also appointed Judge Donnelly, a long-time New York City prosecutor and then a New York State judge, in 2015.  Women are still underrepresented on the federal bench, from the Supreme Court through the courts of appeals and the district courts, but the U.S. has made some progress in this area towards fairness, representation, and equal opportunity.

For National Women’s Law Center data from October 2016 on women on the federal bench, click here.

In related news, the New York Times reports today that the U.S. Department of State is losing, to retirements, two of its highest-ranking women:  Anne W. Patterson, until earlier this month the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, and before that U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador, to Colombia, at the United Nations, and to Egypt; and Victoria J. Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European & Eurasian Affairs until earlier this month.

For a March 2016 Foreign Service Journal report on women in the U.S. Foreign Service, click here.