Tag: Supreme Court

Posted on

National Diverse Bar Associations Urge Senate to Hold Hearing and Vote on Supreme Court Nominee

For Immediate Release
March 10, 2016

For More Information, Contact​​:
Brett Schuster, Communications Manager
202-775-9555; bschuster@napaba.org

Download: Press Release
Download: Letter to Senators Grassley and Leahy

WASHINGTON — Today, the Hispanic National Bar Association (HNBA), the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA), the National Bar Association (NBA), the National LGBT Bar Association (National LGBT Bar), and the National Native American Bar Association (NNABA) — representatives of diverse bar associations — submitted a joint letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Ranking Member Patrick Leahy (D-VT) strongly urging the Senate to uphold its Constitutional duty by holding a fair hearing and timely vote on any Supreme Court nominee.

With a long history of supporting judicial nominees from both Democratic and Republican presidents, these five non-partisan organizations represent the interests of almost 200,000 lawyers, judges, and legal professionals of diverse backgrounds across the country.

As stated in the letter: “Delay in the Supreme Court’s ability to fulfill its duties caused by intentionally leaving the Court incomplete will have a direct impact on the legal rights of Americans, individuals and businesses of all backgrounds, across the country, and further erode public confidence in our legal system and in the functioning of our democracy.”

As professional legal membership organizations and representatives of diverse American attorneys, the five representative bar associations have consistently maintained that it is both the President’s and the Senate’s constitutional responsibility to ensure that our courts are fully functioning by nominating and fairly considering nominees as described in Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

“With so much at stake, this is not the time to allow our highest court in the land to operate without a full bench,” said HNBA National President Robert T. Maldonado. “As our Constitution outlines, the President should nominate a candidate and the Senate carries the responsibility to vet and confirm. To not fill that seat would be a denial of justice. Let’s give the American people what they want: a fully-functioning judicial branch that gives everyone fair and equal protection under the law.”

“It is imperative that the Senate fulfill their constitutional obligations by giving the President’s nominee fair consideration and a timely vote,” said Jin Y. Hwang, NAPABA president. “By depriving this nation of a fully functioning Supreme Court, the Senate is not only ignoring their constitutional duty, but taking historically unprecedented action. The Senate must do the job they were elected to do and not hamper the effectiveness of the judiciary.”

“When the American People reelected President Obama in 2012 they placed trust in him perform the job of President of the United States. One function of the job includes nominating individuals to fill vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court. Senate Republicans are correct when they say that the American People should have a voice in the matter, but what they are forgetting is that the American People spoke twice, in 2008 and 2012 when they voted for President Obama. Senate Republicans not only must allow the President of the United States to do his job, but they also must perform their duties under the U.S. Constitution. It is unacceptable that Senate leaders have hindered the functionality of the Federal Court system by obstructing the nominations process,” added NBA President Benjamin L. Crump.

“Regardless of which political party currently holds power in either the Presidency or the Senate, both have a constitutional duty to ensure that the Supreme Court vacancy is filled in a timely manner,” said Eduardo Juarez, president of the National LGBT Bar Association. “We urge all parties involved to fill the vacancy to ensure a properly functioning judiciary. For the Senate to abdicate its constitutional duty to advise and consent is not only wrong, but it is unprecedented.”

“The desire for an accessible, fair judiciary is a cornerstone of our democracy,” said Linda Benally, NNABA president. “Indeed principal criticisms of the King of England in the Declaration of Independence were that he ‘obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers;’ that he ‘made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.’ The people decided, in the Constitution, the process for ensuring that such tyranny would never again burden the United States, conferring upon the President the obligation to nominate Justices to serve on the Supreme Court and obligating the Senate to counsel the President on such nominees. This is not a partisan issue; it is an issue of each duly-elected public official honoring the public’s trust and fulfilling his or her obligations to the people of the United States as set forth in the Constitution.”

The HNBA is an incorporated, not-for-profit, national membership organization that represents the interests of the more than 50,000 Hispanic attorneys, judges, law professors, legal assistants, and law students in the United States and its territories. From the days of its founding three decades ago, the HNBA has acted as a force for positive change within the legal profession. It does so by encouraging Latino students to choose a career in the law and by prompting their advancement within the profession once they graduate and start practicing. Through a combination of issue advocacy, programmatic activities, networking events and educational conferences, the HNBA has helped generations of lawyers succeed.

NAPABA is the national association of Asian Pacific American (APA) attorneys, judges, law professors, and law students. NAPABA represents the interests of over 50,000 attorneys and over 75 national, state, and local bar associations. Its members include solo practitioners, large firm lawyers, corporate counsel, legal services and non-profit attorneys, and lawyers serving at all levels of government. NAPABA engages in legislative and policy advocacy, promotes APA political leadership and political appointments, and builds coalitions within the legal profession and the community at large. NAPABA also serves as a resource for government agencies, members of Congress, and public service organizations about APAs in the legal profession, civil rights, and diversity in the courts.

Founded in 1925, the NBA is the nation’s oldest and largest national network of minority attorneys and judges. It represents approximately 60,000 lawyers, judges, law professors and law students and has over 80 affiliate chapters throughout the United States and around the world. The organization seeks to advance the science of jurisprudence, preserve the independence of the judiciary and to uphold the honor and integrity of the legal profession. For additional information about the National Bar Association, visit www.nationalbar.org.

The National LGBT Bar Association is a national association of lawyers, judges and other legal professionals, law students, activists and affiliated lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender legal organizations. The LGBT Bar promotes justice in and through the legal profession for the LGBT community in all its diversity.

Founded in 1973, the NNABA serves as the national association for American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian attorneys, judges, law professors and law students. NNABA strives for justice and effective legal representation for all American indigenous peoples; fosters the development of Native American lawyers and judges; and addresses social, cultural and legal issues affecting American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians.

Posted on

From the White House: Conference Call on the Supreme Court

Friends,

You are invited to join a conference call for Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) leaders to discuss the Supreme Court with Tina Tchen, Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to the First Lady,TOMORROW, Thursday, March 3 at 5:00 PM ET.

Here are the conference call details:

  • Date: TOMORROW, Thursday, March 3
  • Time: 5:00 PM ET, but please join 5-7 minutes early to avoid connection delays
  • RSVP: To participate in this conference call, please visit this link, which will give you unique dial-in instructions
  • Captioning: To access captioning, please visit this link at the beginning of the call

Please note that this call is off-the-record and not for press purposes.

We look forward to speaking with you soon!

Alissa Ko | The White House

Posted on

Press Release: NAPABA Statement on Today’s Arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas

For Immediate Release
Dec. 9 , 2015

For More Information, Contact:
Brett Schuster, Communications Manager
bschuster@napaba.org, 202-775-9555

Today,
the Supreme Court heard arguments in Fisher v. University of
Texas-Austin, a challenge to the University’s race-conscious admissions
policy. As the arguments demonstrated, the Court should continue to
uphold the long-standing precedent that diversity is a compelling
interest in college admission policies, and uphold the University of
Texas-Austin’s admissions plan.

The
National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA), along with
its fellow members of the Coalition of Bar Associations of Color, filed
an amicus brief demonstrating the importance of building a diverse
pipeline of students who will enter the legal profession. As future
leaders and custodians of the legal system, it is important that
students have wide-ranging experiences, engage with diverse populations,
and be representative of varied backgrounds. As current events
demonstrate, it is equally imperative that today’s students develop
empathy, understanding, and acceptance — traits which will become
essential throughout their lives and careers.

Diversity
and inclusion benefit all communities. Asian Pacific Americans, like
other groups, have endured discrimination and a lack of opportunities
that continue to impact us today. NAPABA urges the Court to recognize
that race-conscious admissions policies ultimately benefit the American
community as a whole.

For more information, the media may contact Brett Schuster, NAPABA communications manager, at 202-775-9555 or bschuster@napaba.org.

The
National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) is the
national association of Asian Pacific American attorneys, judges, law
professors, and law students. NAPABA represents the interests of
approximately 50,000 attorneys and approximately 75 national, state, and
local Asian Pacific American bar associations. Its members include solo
practitioners, large firm lawyers, corporate counsel, legal services
and non-profit attorneys, and lawyers serving at all levels of
government.

NAPABA
continues to be a leader in addressing civil rights issues confronting
Asian Pacific American communities. Through its national network of
committees and affiliates, NAPABA provides a strong voice for increased
diversity of the federal and state judiciaries, advocates for equal
opportunity in the workplace, works to eliminate hate crimes and
anti-immigrant sentiment, and promotes the professional development of
people of color in the legal profession.

To learn more about NAPABA, visit www.napaba.org, like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter (@NAPABA).

Posted on

Jan. 22: AABANY and NYCLA present “Patents 101”

 imageimage

On January 22, 2014, the AABANY Intellectual Property Committee and the NYCLA Entertainment, Media, Intellectual Property and Sports Committee presented a CLE entitled “Patents 101: What Can be Protected by Patent Rights."  Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP hosted the event at their office at 601 Lexington Avenue.  Wan Chieh (Jenny) Lee moderated the panel featuring: Sapna Palla (Counsel at Kaye Scholer), and Annie Huang (Counsel at Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP).  The panelists addressed the developing Supreme Court jurisprudence on the requirements for patent eligible subject matter, particularly focusing on the impact of the recent Myriad decision on the life science industry, and the highly anticipated Alice v. CLS case relating to patent eligibility of computer implemented inventions, for which oral arguments will be heard by the Supreme Court at the end of March this year.  The presentation was well-received, and the audience members actively engaged in questions and discussions with the panelists.  Despite the weather condititions, a total of 13 attorneys attended this event.  Attendees received 1.0 credit in Areas of Professional Practice.

Posted on

From the Empire Mock Trial Association: 8th Annual Downtown Mock Trial Tournament

Earn 3 free CLE credits while educating top collegiate mock trial competitors! 

The nonprofit Empire Mock Trial Association (“EMTA”), in conjunction with NYU Mock trial, is pleased to invite you to our eighth annual Downtown Invitational mock trial tournament on January 25-27 at Kings County Supreme Court in Brooklyn. Each year the Downtown brings together sixteen of the top collegiate trial advocacy teams. This year’s field includes Harvard, Columbia, NYU, Virginia, and the defending national champion, Florida State University.

You can help teach talented, motivated college students about the law by volunteering just a few hours of your time. In exchange, we’ll provide you with free non-transitional CLE credits in the category of skills. 

I’ve included general information about the event below, and you can register to judge here:  http://www.empiremocktrial.org/site/judge.  
  • Features four preliminary rounds of competition, and you can judge as many or as few as you like—no litigation experience is required
  • Please free to invite a friend or colleague to co-judge with you at the tournament.  We’ll pair you together!
  • 16 top trial advocacy teams will compete including Harvard, Columbia, NYU, Virginia, and defending national champion Florida State University
  • We’ll serve complimentary food and beverages as a token of our appreciation
  • Registering takes less than a minute – just visit our site
We’d be happy to answer any questions you may have.  Feel free to call (917-426-EMTA) or e-mail us (admin@empiremocktrial.org)
Posted on

JOINT MINORITY BAR ASSOCIATION JUDICIAL SCREENING PANEL REPORTS QUALIFICATION RATINGS

PRESS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 14, 2013 – New York

JOINT MINORITY BAR ASSOCIATION JUDICIAL SCREENING PANEL REPORTS QUALIFICATION RATINGS

(NY, NY) The Joint Minority Bar Association Judicial Screening Panel recently interviewed and rated judicial candidates for the Civil Court of the City of New York and the Supreme Court of the State of New York. Interviews were conducted by representatives of the Asian American Bar Association of New York, Dominican Bar Association, LGBT Bar Association, Metropolitan Black Bar Association, Puerto Rican Bar Association and the South Asian Bar Association of New York.

The Committee convened to determine whether candidates were qualified for the judicial office using a three-tiered rating system of “qualified,” “well qualified,” and "exceptionally well qualified."  A candidate was rated “Qualified” if the candidate satisfied the basic criteria to be considered a viable candidate for the judicial position sought. A rating of “Well Qualified” was given if the candidate met the basic criteria and demonstrated a level of skill, experience, sound judgment, and excellence in his or her professional career, which would sustain or improve the quality of the bench or judicial position sought. An “Exceptionally Well Qualified” rating reflects that the candidate has fulfilled the requirements necessary for a “Well Qualified” rating and demonstrated outstanding accomplishments. The ratings were decided during a closed-door vote after review of the each candidate’s background, professional ability, experience, character, judicial temperament, and other pertinent qualities. The Panel’s findings were as follows:

New York Supreme Court – Bronx County
Hon. Larry S. Schachner – Exceptionally Well Qualified

New York Supreme Court – Kings County
Hon. Desmond A. Green – Exceptionally Well Qualified

New York Supreme Court – New York County
Hon. Peter H. Moulton – Exceptionally Well Qualified

Judge of the Civil Court, 1st Municipal District, Bronx County
Lucianna Locorotondo – Well Qualified
Armando Montano – Well Qualified

Judge of the Civil Court, Kings County
Hon. ShawnDya L. Simpson – Exceptionally Well Qualified

Judge of the Civil Court, New York County
Dakota Ramseur – Well Qualified

Judge of the Civil Court, 2nd Municipal Disctrict, New York County
Hon. Kathryn E. Freed – Exceptionally Well Qualified
Hon. Marcy S. Friedman – Exceptionally Well Qualified
Adam Silvera – Well Qualified

For more information contact R. Nadine Fontaine at president@mbbanyc.org.

Posted on

AABANY Law Review Announces Winners of the Scholarly Paper Prize and Student Note Competition

The AABANY Law Review is pleased to announce the winners of its inaugural Scholarly Paper Prize and Student Note Competition:
 

  • Greg Robinson (Professor of History at l’Université du Québec à Montréal) for his article, In Defense of Birthright Citizenship: The JACL, the NAACP, and Regan v. King. The Article tells the story of Regan v. King, in which West Coast nativists brought suit in federal court to disenfranchise American citizens of Japanese origin. The case reaffirmed the birthright citizenship of all Americans (first recognized by the Supreme Court in its 1898 decision Wong Kim Ark) and represents a pioneering instanceof multiracial coalition-building as the NAACP allied itself with the Japanese American Citizens League to fight for their constitutional rights. 
  • Daniel Bowman (Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law) for his note, Justifying Disparate Impact: Why a Discriminatory Effect Standard is Essential to the Fair Housing Act. Daniel’s note examines the historical development of the disparate impact standard under Title VII and the Fair Housing Act, and considers the upcoming Supreme Court case of Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., which will address the question of whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. 

In addition to a cash prize, both authors’ pieces will appear in the AABANY Law Review’s winter issue, and Prof. Robinson will be speaking about his paper at the NAPABA Northeast Regional/AABANY Fall Conference. Congratulations to both, and thanks to everyone who submitted! For more information about the AABANY Law Review, please visit http://www.aabanylawreview.org/ or contact lawreview@aabany.org. 

Posted on

Special Offer for AABANY Members–Get NYCLA Member Rate for NY Civil Practice Guide

Special Offer for Asian American Bar Association-NY Members–Get NYCLA Member Rate 

Attorneys’ Guide to Civil Practice in the New York County Supreme Court–Print and eBook Available

An essential tool for civil practice in Manhattan, the Attorneys’ Guide, produced by NYCLA’s Supreme Court Committee, provides important information practitioners need to know in order to master the complexities of the New York County Supreme Court in a painless but effective way. 

Take advantage of NYCLA Member Pricing–Purchase  the Guide–at a full 50% discount off the non-member price

*The eReader versions of this publication can be accessed using either an eReader or eReader app such as Nook (which is Barnes & Noble’s format) or Kindle (which is Amazon’s format). These apps are readily available through the app store for most mobile devices including tablets and phones. eReader versions of this publication cannot be opened using any other software, including but not limited to Good Reader or Adobe. We do not offer this publication in PDF format. Please email Natalie Wimbush atnwimbush@nycla.org for assistance obtaining the eBook format you need.

Highlights include:
• Comprehensive listing of locations and phone number of all Justices, offices, and Office of the County Clerk along with descriptions of each back office and roles
• Recent developments that will directly affect practitioners
• Court’s approach to preliminary conferences and other conferences
• Differentiated Case Management and the discovery process, pre-trial proceedings, Mediation I and II, and other ADR projects
• Key litigation-related functions of the County Clerk’s Office
• Extensive biographical information about and photographs of Justices
• New Chapters on References and Article 81 cases.
 

Posted on

Amistad Long Island Black Bar Association Expresses Disappointment with the Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act Opinion

(NEW YORK, June 28, 2013)  This week the Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling, rendered its opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. __ (Jun. 25, 2013).  The Shelby decision involved Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.*  Section 4 of the Act established a “coverage formula” to determine which states and local governments properly fall under Section 5 of the Act, and thus were required to get approval before changing their voting laws.  The justices ruled that Section 4 of the Act is unconstitutional, and that the formula, which has been used for decades, can no longer be used to establish preclearance requirements.  Chief Justice John G. Roberts, who delivered the Court’s opinion stated: “Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”  In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated “the Court today terminates the remedy that proved to be best suited to block that discrimination.” Justice Ginsburg’s dissent articulates the continued need for Section 5 preclearance for those states with poor voting rights records, and noted that in July 2006, the House and Senate passed the reauthorization of preclearance by overwhelming margins (House 390 to 33; Senate 98 to 0).

The ruling has already had potentially adverse consequences.  Shortly after the decision, Texas announced that a voter identification law that had previously been blocked is now free to take effect immediately.  Also, redistricting maps will no longer need federal approval, and “changes in voting procedures in places that had been covered by the law, including those concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to ‘after-the-fact’ litigation.” See “Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act,” New York Times, June 25, 2013.

Attorney General Eric Holder expressed his disappointment in the decision and stated: “Let me be very clear: we will not hesitate to take swift enforcement action – using every legal tool that remains available to us – against any jurisdiction that seeks to take advantage of the Supreme Court’s ruling by hindering eligible citizens’ full and free exercise of the [voting] franchise." 

Amistad echoes the disappointment of the nation’s leaders with the Supreme Court’s decision. 

Considering that Long Island is the home of the seminal voting rights decision Goosby v. Town of Hempstead, the organization would be remiss if we did not declare our opposition to rulings that potentially marginalize voters of color.  In Goosby, a federal judge ordered the Town of Hempstead to replace its at-large voting system with six geographic districts, stating that the system then in place “invidiously excludes Blacks from effective participation in political life.” The Goosby Second Circuit decision is available at this link: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1437220.html.

Amistad, an affiliate of the National Bar Association (the “NBA”) fully intends to stand alongside the NBA in its efforts to bear pressure on policy makers and on Congress to enact a viable Section 5 coverage mechanism that deals with continuing impediments to the fundamental right to vote. We stand in solidarity with organizations committed to ensuring that the right to vote is not impeded for anyone, particularly various members of communities in our backyard. 

Submitted on behalf of the

Amistad Institute of the Amistad Long Island Black Bar Association

*The Court’s complete opinion is available at this link: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/717250-supreme-courts-voting-rights-act-decision.html

****

The Amistad Long Island Black Bar Association was founded in 1996. Formerly, the organization was known as the Amistad Suffolk Black Bar Association before it expanded to both the Nassau and Suffolk regions. Amistad was created to foster community, professional development, and growth among attorneys of color in the Long Island area.

Amistad is an affiliate of the National Bar Association.

Proudly powered by WordPress