Latest news with #SandraDayO'Connor
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - An independent judiciary isn't a sexy issue, but it's an important one
Judicial independence may seem like an esoteric subject, the kind of stuff that excites judges and lawyers but means little to the rest of us. Whether courts are free from political influence or judges follow the law rather than political dictates seems to have little to do with the price of groceries or the fate of our children. That is why many Americans don't put the maintenance of an independent judiciary anywhere near the top of the list of the issues that matter most to them. In fact, as the late Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor once noted, 'more than three-fourths of Americans believe that state judges should represent the views of the people of their state.' President Trump seems to hold a similar view. On May 29, reacting to a judicial decision that he exceeded his authority by imposing tariffs, the president said courts 'always must do what's right for the country!' This, of course, was not the first time the president has criticized judges when they do not rule in his favor. Judges and commentators bemoan these attacks and worry they are eroding judicial independence. If critics of the president are to have any hope of enlisting the public to defend judicial independence, they must do more than make inspiring speeches on Law Day or the Fourth of July and show how it matters in their lives, in simple, easy-to-understand messages. So far, those who hope to bring the judiciary to heel have done a far better job of making their case than have its defenders. It is time for those of us working to support the judiciary to up our game. Americans need to be reminded repeatedly that if they get divorced and have a battle over child custody, are involved in a property dispute with their neighbor, or have problems with creditors, their fate and that of their family might well depend on having a judge who will decide their cases based on the law and facts — not on political pressure or fear of losing their job. For example, an ad campaign could be launched showing a young person being arrested and brought to court for participating in a protest. The tagline: 'If this were your child, would you want the judge to follow the Constitution or do what they thought would please the president?' But judicial independence is not only a cornerstone of fairness and freedom — it is essential to having a vibrant and growing economy. It helps keep people employed and wages up. Another ad: A businessperson saying, 'I was thinking of investing millions in building a new factory in the United States. I would have employed a thousand people in good-paying jobs. But lately,' the ad might continue, 'I am having second thoughts. I am beginning to wonder what would happen if I had a dispute with a federal regulatory agency that went to court. Would the judge want to decide my case in a way that would please the president? I can't take that chance.' This is not a fiction. A reliable and attractive market for business investment and job creation is undermined if courts cannot be relied on to protect property, make sure people live up to their agreements, and stand up to government agencies that exceed their power. The World Bank, in its periodic Doing Business reports, shows that 'Economic and social progress cannot be achieved without respect for the rule of law and effective protection of rights, both of which require a well-functioning judiciary.' Political scientists Michael Touchton and Michael Tyburski put it simply: 'A robust and independent judiciary contributes significantly to a nation's economic well-being by fostering legal predictability, protecting property rights, enhancing investor confidence, and curbing corruption.' Others point out that it is not enough for countries like the United States to say their judicial system is free from political interference by the incumbent regime. They must demonstrate it. What the courts do and how political leaders react to adverse rulings is what matters most. Countries where that is true are more prosperous than those where it is not. That is why in places like Venezuela and Hungary, where there is a history of political interference in the judiciary, economic performance has been adversely affected. If Americans don't want this nation to end up like them, they need to make clear in every way they can that the president must keep his hands off our courts and judges. However, they will only do so if supporters of an independent judiciary do their part. They need to get the message out that, sooner or later, every American will pay the price for the Trump administration's repeated attacks on the courts. Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
An independent judiciary isn't a sexy issue, but it's an important one
Judicial independence may seem like an esoteric subject, the kind of stuff that excites judges and lawyers but means little to the rest of us. Whether courts are free from political influence or judges follow the law rather than political dictates seems to have little to do with the price of groceries or the fate of our children. That is why many Americans don't put the maintenance of an independent judiciary anywhere near the top of the list of the issues that matter most to them. In fact, as the late Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor once noted, 'more than three-fourths of Americans believe that state judges should represent the views of the people of their state.' President Trump seems to hold a similar view. On May 29, reacting to a judicial decision that he exceeded his authority by imposing tariffs, the president said courts 'always must do what's right for the country!' This, of course, was not the first time the president has criticized judges when they do not rule in his favor. Judges and commentators bemoan these attacks and worry they are eroding judicial independence. If critics of the president are to have any hope of enlisting the public to defend judicial independence, they must do more than make inspiring speeches on Law Day or the Fourth of July and show how it matters in their lives, in simple, easy-to-understand messages. So far, those who hope to bring the judiciary to heel have done a far better job of making their case than have its defenders. It is time for those of us working to support the judiciary to up our game. Americans need to be reminded repeatedly that if they get divorced and have a battle over child custody, are involved in a property dispute with their neighbor, or have problems with creditors, their fate and that of their family might well depend on having a judge who will decide their cases based on the law and facts — not on political pressure or fear of losing their job. For example, an ad campaign could be launched showing a young person being arrested and brought to court for participating in a protest. The tagline: 'If this were your child, would you want the judge to follow the Constitution or do what they thought would please the president?' But judicial independence is not only a cornerstone of fairness and freedom — it is essential to having a vibrant and growing economy. It helps keep people employed and wages up. Another ad: A businessperson saying, 'I was thinking of investing millions in building a new factory in the United States. I would have employed a thousand people in good-paying jobs. But lately,' the ad might continue, 'I am having second thoughts. I am beginning to wonder what would happen if I had a dispute with a federal regulatory agency that went to court. Would the judge want to decide my case in a way that would please the president? I can't take that chance.' This is not a fiction. A reliable and attractive market for business investment and job creation is undermined if courts cannot be relied on to protect property, make sure people live up to their agreements, and stand up to government agencies that exceed their power. The World Bank, in its periodic Doing Business reports, shows that 'Economic and social progress cannot be achieved without respect for the rule of law and effective protection of rights, both of which require a well-functioning judiciary.' Political scientists Michael Touchton and Michael Tyburski put it simply: 'A robust and independent judiciary contributes significantly to a nation's economic well-being by fostering legal predictability, protecting property rights, enhancing investor confidence, and curbing corruption.' Others point out that it is not enough for countries like the United States to say their judicial system is free from political interference by the incumbent regime. They must demonstrate it. What the courts do and how political leaders react to adverse rulings is what matters most. Countries where that is true are more prosperous than those where it is not. That is why in places like Venezuela and Hungary, where there is a history of political interference in the judiciary, economic performance has been adversely affected. If Americans don't want this nation to end up like them, they need to make clear in every way they can that the president must keep his hands off our courts and judges. However, they will only do so if supporters of an independent judiciary do their part. They need to get the message out that, sooner or later, every American will pay the price for the Trump administration's repeated attacks on the courts. Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College.
New York Times
02-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Harvard's Trick for Fighting Trump? A Deep Bench of Conservative Lawyers.
A former Texas solicitor general who argued in favor of abortion restrictions. Two former clerks to Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the Supreme Court's most conservative members. And a one-time adviser to the Trump Organization. These are a few of the conservative legal heavyweights Harvard University has hired to win a lawsuit against the Trump administration. The A-list squadron of Republican-aligned lawyers is a departure from the last time Harvard faced a headline-seizing legal fight. Back then, in 2022, Harvard was defending affirmative action and turned to a firm long associated with the university, WilmerHale. But the Trump administration has scrambled the legal landscape. Now WilmerHale is under attack by the administration itself and is fighting its own battle. And Harvard is facing down a fundamental threat after refusing a list of administration demands that included eliminating professors 'more committed to activism than scholarship' and banning international students who oppose 'American values.' Unlike last time, it has billions of dollars in federal funds on the line if it loses. Legal observers have said that Harvard stands a good chance of winning on the legal merits. Although the case could face headwinds if it reaches the Supreme Court, the roster of conservative-aligned lawyers was designed to give the university a boost in front of a court with a supermajority of Republican-appointed justices. 'This fits with a long tradition of clients trying to signal to the Supreme Court through the counsel that they hire that this is not Harvard liberal versus conservative administration,' said Aaron Tang, a law professor at the University of California, Davis. 'This is academic freedom. It ought to appeal to someone across the political spectrum.' Lee C. Bollinger, a former president of the University of Michigan, said he had used the same strategy when choosing a lawyer to argue an affirmative action case before the Supreme Court in 2003. 'I understand exactly what Harvard is thinking in employing these lawyers,' he said. The Supreme Court's swing vote at the time was Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a Reagan appointee. Michigan chose as its lawyer Maureen E. Mahoney, who had served as a clerk for William H. Rehnquist, a Republican appointee who was chief justice when the Supreme Court heard the case. 'I knew that Sandra Day O'Connor was likely to be the critical vote, and I wanted somebody who would really understand how she thought and how she might think about this case,' Mr. Bollinger, who subsequently became Columbia University's president, said in a telephone interview. The strategy worked. The Supreme Court ruled in Michigan's favor. Harvard did not comment for this article. Its case against the government argues that the Trump administration orders violate the First Amendment in several ways. The university's arguments also rely on a more arcane law, the Administrative Procedure Act, which drives the process for federal agencies to develop rules and impose penalties. The university said the government had ignored its own requirements in order to cut federal funds. Justin Driver, a professor at Yale Law School who clerked for Justice O'Connor, said Harvard's roster of lawyers 'underscores how deeply fractured the right is during this fraught moment in our nation's history.' And for the lawyers involved, taking on Harvard as a client carries some risks. One of the lawyers, William A. Burck, advised the Trump Organization until recently, when Mr. Trump moved to fire him because he had agreed to represent Harvard. Seventeen lawyers have officially registered for Harvard's team, and there are most likely others working behind the scenes. Not all of them are known for being aligned with conservative causes. Joshua S. Levy, for example, was the U.S. attorney in Boston for part of Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s presidency. He is now a partner in the firm Ropes & Gray. (Harvard still works with WilmerHale on other matters.) But Mr. Burck, a partner in the firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, is a Yale Law graduate who clerked for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a Reagan appointee who retired in 2018. Mr. Burck had also served as a deputy to Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh in the George W. Bush White House and was once castigated by Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, as a Republican partisan warrior. At least seven other lawyers in the group have clerked for Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices, including four sitting justices, before or during their tenures in Washington. In addition to Mr. Burck's firm, at least three other firms are working on Harvard's case, including Lehotsky Keller Cohn. Steven P. Lehotsky, a Harvard Law graduate who clerked for former Justice Antonin Scalia, worked in the Justice's Department's Office of Legal Counsel during Mr. Bush's administration and had a central role in building Harvard's legal team, according to a person familiar with the strategy who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. Mr. Lehotsky, who was among the lawyers who appeared on Harvard's behalf in court on Monday for a conference in the case, did not respond to emails. One of Mr. Lehotsky's partners, Scott Keller, is a former solicitor general for the State of Texas who defended the state's tough restrictions on abortion clinics and who sees Republican Senator Ted Cruz as a mentor. Another, Jonathan F. Cohn, a Harvard Law graduate, clerked for Justice Thomas. The Harvard team also includes Robert K. Hur, a partner in the firm King & Spalding. Mr. Hur, who clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist, is perhaps best known for investigating Mr. Biden in a classified documents case. Mr. Hur, who was the U.S. attorney in Maryland for much of Mr. Trump's first term, concluded that there were insufficient grounds for prosecution but nevertheless set off a firestorm by referring to Mr. Biden as 'an elderly man with a poor memory.' Harvard's strategy has been successful before, but it also has risks. 'You have to be really careful,' Mr. Bollinger said. 'If the people you're arguing to feel like you're trying to manipulate them by the type of lawyer that you have, that can turn them against you.'
Associated Press
28-02-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
Sandra Day O'Connor Institute Announces Winners of 6th Annual Civics Challenge
Hundreds of civics education entries submitted from middle, high school students nationwide PHOENIX, ARIZONA / ACCESS Newswire Sandra Day O'Connor Institute for American Democracy is pleased to announce the ten winners of the 6th Annual Civics Challenge. This online civics competition, open to students in grades 6 through 12, invites them to choose a civics education topic and express their knowledge through an essay, short video, or original Challenge O'Connor Institute Civics Challenge 'We are amazed by the knowledge, creativity and talent these students have demonstrated,' Institute President and CEO Sarah Suggs said. 'Justice O'Connor was committed to civics education and the tremendous interest in our Civics Challenge is inspiring as we look to future generations to lead our nation. We congratulate all of the winners and honorable mention recipients for their commitment to civics.' The winners of the middle and high school categories are listed alphabetically below. Each student earned a $500 cash prize. Middle School Winners: High School Winners: Jonathan C., 11th Grade, Phoenix, Arizona Maddox L., 12th Grade, Roswell, Georgia Rory D., 12th Grade, Simi Valley, California Shai R., 11th Grade, Burlingame, California Tucker E., 9th Grade, Westport, Connecticut The Institute created a brief highlights video featuring clips showcasing the prize-winning students' talent. In addition, the Institute is pleased to commend the following honorable mentions in each category. Middle School Honorable Mentions: David U., 8th Grade, Manhattan Beach, California David W., 8th Grade, Desoto, Texas Elane F., 8th Grade, Laguna Niguel, California Maria B., 8th Grade, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania Sonya V., 8th Grade, Parisippany, New Jersey High School Honorable Mentions: Amelia N., 9th Grade, Stamford, Connecticut Frances A., 12th Grade, Napa, California Laila S., 11th Grade, Washington, D.C. Matilda F., 9th Grade, Montpelier, Vermont Naina D., 11th Grade, San Jose, California Ronan P., 12th Grade, Metuchen, New Jersey Rudra P., 12th Grade, Tampa, Florida Travis D., 11th Grade, Mazomanie, Wisconsin Winning entries and additional information on the Civics Challenge and other Institute programs are available at Details for the next Civics Challenge will be announced in September 2025. About the Sandra Day O'Connor Institute for American Democracy Founded in 2009 by retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the O'Connor Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan 501(c)(3), continues her distinguished legacy and lifetime work to advance civil discourse, civic engagement, and civics education. The Institute's programs serve individuals of all ages from 50 states and six continents through educational digital platforms and events, as well as original research. The Institute also catalogs the life and work of the first female Supreme Court Justice through the Sandra Day O'Connor Digital Library. Additionally, the Institute is the conservator of her former home, O'Connor House, listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Visit to learn more.
