Latest news with #Akerman
Yahoo
14-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
How rights and citizenship under the 14th Amendment were tested in SC
The 14th Amendment, passed by Congress in June 1866 and ratified in July 1868, starts by declaring "All persons born or naturalized in the United States ... are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." (Photo illustrationPlus) The first words of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution tell us that 'all persons born or naturalized' in the United States are U.S. citizens. This is the law of 'birthright citizenship.' The amendment was ratified in 1868, and its initial purpose was clear. The Civil War had nominally ended 300 years of slavery, but the newly freed African Americans had neither citizenship nor civil or constitutional rights. The 14th Amendment was supposed to fix that. You're born here; you're a citizen. End of story. Except the story has never ended. In today's atmosphere of virulent political animosity and cultural conflict, it is useful to understand that 'birthright citizenship' is not so much about birth anymore as it is about citizenship and the rights that accompany it. This is what made the 14th Amendment a lightning rod in the civil rights movement. My new book set for release Tuesday, 'Grant's Enforcer,' follows the career of Reconstruction-era Attorney General Amos T. Akerman, the first federal lawman to understand the potential reach of the amendment in protecting the underserved. His immediate concerns were the predations of the Ku Klux Klan in the interior counties of South Carolina — especially York County, on the northern border. But he also believed the amendment could be used to blunt Americans' ugly and recurring tendency to demonize the 'other' in our society. In 1868, the 'other' were the freed slaves, but many groups have subsequently played this unenviable role: Chinese contract laborers; interned Japanese Americans; pregnant mothers crossing the border to give birth; Jews and Black Americans on countless occasions. Over the last decade this spotlight has focused on refugees and immigrants, Muslims generally and, most recently, anyone whose sexual orientation differs from the 'norm.' Akerman, a Republican from Georgia, knew that 'citizenship' was a hollow privilege without guaranteed rights. He made his case before a congressional committee late in 1868 when many states in the former Confederacy were being savaged by Ku Klux Klan terrorism. Local law enforcement mostly ignored these offenses, seldom tried them and never convicted anyone. Congress wanted to know what to do about it. Akerman had a simple answer: Prosecute the cases as federal crimes and try them in federal court. Under the 14th Amendment, no one could deny a citizen's voting rights, break into someone's house or take someone's guns. And if you murdered the father, beat the mother or raped the daughter during your home invasion, these crimes could be added to the case against you. Under the 14th Amendment, these offenses were now violations of the civil and constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. When President Ulysses S. Grant appointed him attorney general in mid-1870, Akerman set out to test his theory. In October elections, Republicans in South Carolina won both the governorship and both houses of the Legislature, benefitting from a solid voting majority of newly enfranchised Black voters. Democrats were enraged, and by the end of 1870 the Ku Klux Klan had ravaged parts of South Carolina to such a degree that its exploits had become national news. Akerman chose York County as his testing ground because the U.S. Army garrison in Yorkville (today's York) had collected massive amounts of intelligence and knew everyone in the county who was affiliated with the Klan — leaders, soldiers and sympathizers. By year's end, federal authorities had 200 York County Klansmen in custody, and 500 others had surrendered. Thousands more South Carolina Klansmen fled the state altogether, and Klansmen across the South ducked their heads. The final act played out in federal court in Columbia at the end of 1871. Akerman sought convictions for violations of civil and constitutional rights: voter intimidation, confiscation of firearms and home invasion. He failed, but he was not surprised. Akerman was proposing new law, while the defense relied on the canon of states' rights. In the end, the court declined to hear a 14th Amendment case. As a fallback, Akerman's prosecutors charged the defendants narrowly with conspiracy to deny the voting rights of their victims, invariably threatened with beatings — or worse — unless they abandoned the Republican Party. Akerman's team won these cases effortlessly: 55 York County Klansmen were either convicted or pleaded guilty. It was, however, a hollow victory. The Klan, as such, disappeared for 50 years, but white terrorism never abated. In 1876, former Confederate cavalry Gen. Wade Hampton, supported by paramilitary 'Red Shirts,' won a bloody gubernatorial race to restore white supremacy to South Carolina. In 1895, a new state constitution effectively disenfranchised Black voters. Full vindication for Amos T. Akerman only came a century later. Beginning with the 'Mississippi Burning' case in 1966, where seven Ku Klux Klan defendants were convicted in the murders of three civil rights workers, prosecutors have repeatedly called on the same laws that Akerman used in Columbia. The 14th Amendment today underpins rights cases ranging from hate crimes to human trafficking, disenfranchisement, and election fraud — exactly how Akerman would have wanted.
Reuters
24-02-2025
- Business
- Reuters
Law firm Reed Smith opens in Denver as big firms look to smaller markets
Feb 24 (Reuters) - Reed Smith is opening an office in Denver, it said on Monday, becoming the latest large law firm to expand into a smaller legal market this year. A spokesperson for Pittsburgh-founded Reed Smith, which has 1,600 lawyers, said the firm hired 20 lawyers, including 11 partners, from rival firms Akerman; Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck; Dentons; Foley Hoag; and Greenberg Traurig to launch the new office. The partners' practices include corporate transactions, emerging technologies, insurance recovery, litigation and real estate, according to Reed Smith. At least four other large out-of-state firms opened Denver offices last year, including Fennemore Craig, Frost Brown Todd, Venable and Vinson & Elkins. Another firm, Taft Stettinius & Hollister, opened in Denver and seven other U.S. Mountain West cities when Taft merged with regional firm Sherman & Howard on Jan. 1. This year has already seen a handful of big national and global law firms hire groups from other firms to open new offices outside the largest U.S. legal markets of New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Reed Smith last month opened an office in Atlanta with a group of 37 lawyers, while Kirkland & Ellis opened in Philadelphia with five partners from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. London-founded Freshfields on Monday opened an office in Boston. Launching in small-but-growing markets like Denver can help law firms expand their access to talent without the costs and challenges of competing in a larger city, legal industry consultants said. Large law firms are searching for markets "that have not been thoroughly and entirely picked over," said consultant Bruce MacEwen of Adam Smith Esq. He also noted the COVID-19 pandemic showed that lawyers can work remotely and be successful. "A lot of people want to live in Denver, which is part of why the talent base is strong," Zeughauser Group legal industry consultant Kent Zimmermann said.
Yahoo
18-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Ex-Watergate prosecutor urges judge to reject request to drop charges against NYC mayor
NEW YORK (AP) — A former Watergate prosecutor on Monday urged the federal judge presiding over the prosecution of New York City Mayor Eric Adams to assign a special counsel to help decide how to handle the Justice Department's request to drop charges. Attorney Nathaniel Akerman told Judge Dale E. Ho in a letter filed in the case record in Manhattan federal court that he sought to intervene because nobody was representing the public's interest after three attorneys from the Justice Department in Washington made the request Friday. He urged the judge to reject the dismissal request, saying the court could look into how the Justice Department reached its decision and could require Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, who first directed prosecutors to drop the case, to appear in court and explain his position. See for yourself — The Yodel is the go-to source for daily news, entertainment and feel-good stories. By signing up, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy. Finally, the judge might appoint an independent special prosecutor to continue the case with access to grand jury materials and other evidence, Akerman said. He filed his letter as a lawyer for Common Cause, a nonpartisan advocacy group for U.S. elections integrity. Adams has pleaded not guilty to charges that while in his prior role as Brooklyn borough president, he accepted over $100,000 in illegal campaign contributions and lavish travel perks from a Turkish official and business leaders seeking to buy his influence. Akerman's request came after an unusual public fight between Bove, the second-in-command of the Justice Department, and two top New York federal prosecutors: interim Manhattan U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon and Hagan Scotten, an assistant U.S. attorney in Manhattan who led the Adams prosecution. On Thursday, Sassoon resigned, along with five high-ranking Justice Department officials. A day later, Scotten resigned, noting that Sassoon had properly resisted a demand that the charges be dropped and the possibility they could be reinstated after this year's election. 'No system of ordered liberty can allow the Government to use the carrot of dismissing charges, or the stick of threatening to bring them again, to induce an elected official to support its policy objectives,' he wrote. On Monday, Adams — amid calls to resign by some Democrats — confirmed that four of his top deputies had decided to resign in the fallout from the Justice Department's push to end the corruption case against him and ensure his cooperation with Trump's immigration crackdown. In his letter to Ho, Akerman echoed Sassoon's assertion that the Justice Department had accepted a request by Adams' lawyers for a 'quid pro quo' — his help on immigration enforcement in exchange for dropping the case. She called it a 'breathtaking and dangerous precedent." Akerman wrote that there was 'overwhelming evidence from DOJ's own internal documents showing that the dismissal of the Adams indictment is not in the public interest and is part of a corrupt quid pro quo between Mayor Adams and the Trump administration.' He said the internal documents show that in return for dismissal of the indictment, Adams agreed to improperly assist the Trump administration with immigration enforcement. Adams' lawyer Alex Spiro said Thursday that the allegation of a quid pro quo was a 'total lie.' When he directed Sassoon to drop the charges a week ago, Bove said the mayor of America's largest city was needed to assist in Trump's immigration crackdown and the dismissal of charges could enable Adams to campaign for reelection against multiple opponents unencumbered by criminal charges.
Boston Globe
18-02-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Ex-Watergate prosecutor urges judge to reject request to drop charges against NYC mayor
Advertisement Finally, the judge might appoint an independent special prosecutor to continue the case with access to grand jury materials and other evidence, Akerman said. He filed his letter as a lawyer for Common Cause, a nonpartisan advocacy group for US elections integrity. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Adams has pleaded not guilty to charges that while in his prior role as Brooklyn borough president, he accepted over $100,000 in illegal campaign contributions and lavish travel perks from a Turkish official and business leaders seeking to buy his influence. Akerman's request came after an unusual public fight between Bove, the second-in-command of the Justice Department, and two top New York federal prosecutors: interim Manhattan US Attorney Danielle Sassoon and Hagan Scotten, an assistant U.S. attorney in Manhattan who led the Adams prosecution. On Thursday, Sassoon resigned, along with five high-ranking Justice Department officials. A day later, Scotten resigned, noting that Sassoon had properly resisted a demand that the charges be dropped and the possibility they could be reinstated after this year's election. 'No system of ordered liberty can allow the Government to use the carrot of dismissing charges, or the stick of threatening to bring them again, to induce an elected official to support its policy objectives,' he wrote. On Monday, Adams — amid calls to resign by some Democrats — confirmed that four of his top deputies had decided to resign in the fallout from the Justice Department's push to end the corruption case against him and ensure his cooperation with Trump's immigration crackdown. Advertisement In his letter to Ho, Akerman echoed Sassoon's assertion that the Justice Department had accepted a request by Adams' lawyers for a 'quid pro quo' — his help on immigration enforcement in exchange for dropping the case. She called it a 'breathtaking and dangerous precedent.' Akerman wrote that there was 'overwhelming evidence from DOJ's own internal documents showing that the dismissal of the Adams indictment is not in the public interest and is part of a corrupt quid pro quo between Mayor Adams and the Trump administration.' He said the internal documents show that in return for dismissal of the indictment, Adams agreed to improperly assist the Trump administration with immigration enforcement. Adams' lawyer Alex Spiro said Thursday that the allegation of a quid pro quo was a 'total lie.' When he directed Sassoon to drop the charges a week ago, Bove said the mayor of America's largest city was needed to assist in Trump's immigration crackdown and the dismissal of charges could enable Adams to campaign for reelection against multiple opponents unencumbered by criminal charges.
The Independent
18-02-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Ex-Watergate prosecutor urges judge to reject request to drop charges against NYC mayor
A former Watergate prosecutor on Monday urged the federal judge presiding over the prosecution of New York City Mayor Eric Adams to assign a special counsel to help decide how to handle the Justice Department's request to drop charges. Attorney Nathaniel Akerman told Judge Dale E. Ho in a letter filed in the case record in Manhattan federal court that he sought to intervene because nobody was representing the public's interest after three attorneys from the Justice Department in Washington made the request Friday. He urged the judge to reject the dismissal request, saying the court could look into how the Justice Department reached its decision and could require Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, who first directed prosecutors to drop the case, to appear in court and explain his position. Finally, the judge might appoint an independent special prosecutor to continue the case with access to grand jury materials and other evidence, Akerman said. He filed his letter as a lawyer for Common Cause, a nonpartisan advocacy group for U.S. elections integrity. Adams has pleaded not guilty to charges that while in his prior role as Brooklyn borough president, he accepted over $100,000 in illegal campaign contributions and lavish travel perks from a Turkish official and business leaders seeking to buy his influence. Akerman's request came after an unusual public fight between Bove, the second-in-command of the Justice Department, and two top New York federal prosecutors: interim Manhattan U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon and Hagan Scotten, an assistant U.S. attorney in Manhattan who led the Adams prosecution. On Thursday, Sassoon resigned, along with five high-ranking Justice Department officials. A day later, Scotten resigned, noting that Sassoon had properly resisted a demand that the charges be dropped and the possibility they could be reinstated after this year's election. 'No system of ordered liberty can allow the Government to use the carrot of dismissing charges, or the stick of threatening to bring them again, to induce an elected official to support its policy objectives,' he wrote. On Monday, Adams — amid calls to resign by some Democrats — confirmed that four of his top deputies had decided to resign in the fallout from the Justice Department's push to end the corruption case against him and ensure his cooperation with Trump's immigration crackdown. In his letter to Ho, Akerman echoed Sassoon's assertion that the Justice Department had accepted a request by Adams' lawyers for a 'quid pro quo' — his help on immigration enforcement in exchange for dropping the case. She called it a 'breathtaking and dangerous precedent." Akerman wrote that there was 'overwhelming evidence from DOJ's own internal documents showing that the dismissal of the Adams indictment is not in the public interest and is part of a corrupt quid pro quo between Mayor Adams and the Trump administration.' He said the internal documents show that in return for dismissal of the indictment, Adams agreed to improperly assist the Trump administration with immigration enforcement. Adams' lawyer Alex Spiro said Thursday that the allegation of a quid pro quo was a 'total lie.' When he directed Sassoon to drop the charges a week ago, Bove said the mayor of America's largest city was needed to assist in Trump's immigration crackdown and the dismissal of charges could enable Adams to campaign for reelection against multiple opponents unencumbered by criminal charges.
