Latest news with #StanfordLawSchool
San Francisco Chronicle
07-07-2025
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump wants to prioritize denaturalization. Why California could be a big target
California is home to 5.6 million of the country's naturalized citizens — a disproportionate share, even accounting for the state's large population. And in households around the state, conversations have become increasingly anxious since President Trump's Department of Justice announced that its civil division should 'prioritize and maximally pursue' denaturalization, the process of stripping a naturalized citizen of citizenship. Though the Justice Department said its focus would be criminals — and denaturalization has historically been extremely rare — the announcement rattled even those who were naturalized decades ago and have no criminal background. Here is what legal experts say about the risks. Under what circumstances can someone be denaturalized? A person can be denaturalized if the government finds that person's naturalization was 'illegally procured' — in other words, if the person's citizenship was granted based on an incomplete or falsified application. Two statutes govern denaturalization proceedings. The first, a criminal statute, says someone who 'knowingly procures or attempts to procure' naturalization illegally can have their citizenship revoked and face up to 25 years in jail. The second is a civil statute, which says the government can revoke naturalized citizenship if it finds evidence of 'concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation' in the application process. The government cannot denaturalize someone as punishment for acts committed after that person was naturalized, said Lucas Guttentag, a professor at Stanford Law School. Authorities also cannot use past convictions against someone if that person disclosed them properly when naturalized, he said. Do naturalized citizens in California have any special protections? Despite California's extensive efforts to protect immigrant rights, the state does not provide any special shield for individuals facing denaturalization. California, like all states, cannot pass laws barring the federal government from enforcing the law of the land. Even in California's many sanctuary cities, the most local governments can do is choose not to assist federal law enforcement. 'If (the governments) want to concentrate on denaturalizing Californians, they can do that,' said Bill Ong Hing, an immigration law professor at the University of San Francisco who founded USF's Immigration & Deportation Defense Clinic. 'No lawsuit, no sanctuary policy, is going to stop them if they really want to concentrate on investigating Californians.' Denaturalization cases are argued in federal court, but it is possible that Californians could benefit from more sympathetic jurors in a criminal case. For civil cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, headquartered in San Francisco, has a history of being protective of naturalized citizens, Guttentag said. But that history is not a surefire precedent. And California's high number of naturalized citizens — it has just 11% of the country's population but 23% of all naturalized citizens — could make the state a target for the Trump administration, Hing said. Who is at risk of being denaturalized? In theory, almost every naturalized citizen could be at risk, said Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia and director of the university's immigration, migration and human rights program. That's because error in the naturalization process could be construed broadly, and the labyrinthine road to naturalization is ripe for missteps. But it's unclear if the government would actually bring a case based on minor omissions or mistakes. Guttentag said most naturalized citizens shouldn't be alarmed, because of legal precedent and the relatively high burden of proof required to denaturalize. 'There's a big risk of abuse of the denaturalization power here, but the Supreme Court, the courts generally, have been very protective of naturalized citizens,' Guttentag said. Even under the broadest interpretation of the law, the lengthy judicial process would present a major hurdle to widespread denaturalization. 'Frankly, if you grab almost anyone's immigration file, you could find one at least arguable thing they did that didn't go by the book or didn't include every piece of information,' Frost said. 'The hard part is bringing that to court.' How many people are usually denaturalized each year? Fewer than a dozen people a year are typically denaturalized, Frost said. For the last roughly five decades, Republican and Democratic presidents have used denaturalization sparingly and mainly in extreme cases, like for former Nazis who had committed war crimes, Frost said. That changed during Trump's first term, said Raquel Aldana, an immigration policy professor at the UC Davis School of Law, who noticed an uptick in denaturalized cases filed. By the end of Trump's first term, his administration filed 102 denaturalization cases, compared with the Biden administration, which filed 24 cases during his term. What due process exists for people subject to denaturalization proceedings? It depends on whether the case is criminal or civil. A criminal case, which could result in both denaturalization and in jail time, carries a higher burden of proof. The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the naturalized citizen intentionally acted illegally to procure naturalization. The defendant gets a court-appointed lawyer, and the government must argue its case to a jury. The bar is lower for a civil case, where the government has to produce 'clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence' that there was an error in the naturalization process. There's no jury, and there's no requirement for the court to appoint a lawyer, so the naturalized citizen has to hire their own lawyer or represent themselves. 'If the government proves its case, the judge has no discretion to deny,' Frost said. 'The judge must grant denaturalization if the government demonstrates it was not legally procured.' That said, because the courts have recognized the seriousness of losing one's citizenship, the burden of proof for a civil denaturalization case is higher than for non-immigration civil cases, where the standard is a 'preponderance of evidence.' 'In the cases of denaturalization, that's where the biggest highest threshold is, where the government's burden of proof is higher than it is for any other area of immigration law, including deportation,' Aldana said. 'So in theory, the evidentiary proof should be very difficult to establish.' Can we expect to see denaturalization efforts on the same scale as during the Red Scare era? The law has changed since the 1940s and 1950s, when the government moved to root out suspected Communist sympathizers via aggressive denaturalization. The Supreme Court in 1967 ruled that the government cannot denaturalize someone on the basis of their conduct or speech, and can only do so if there was an error or fraud in the naturalization process. But some experts worry that the government could still target people who speak out, just through different legal means. 'They couldn't engage in the overt, 'we-will-punish-you-for-your-speech' approach used in the Red Scare era,' Frost said. 'But they could de facto do the same thing by, for anyone who gives a speech they don't like, looking at their naturalization process to determine whether there's some error, and then denaturalizing them.' Even the threat of denaturalization could have a chilling effect. 'It's another attempt by the Trump administration to intimidate and frighten people into not opposing it, to acquiescing,' Guttentag said.
Chicago Tribune
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Dan Tully: I trust my fellow service members will abide by the Constitution
Having served as a captain and judge advocate in the Army Reserve, graduated from Stanford Law School and deployed overseas in Iraq, I have thought deeply about military command and the obligations incurred by swearing an oath to the Constitution. These concerns weigh especially heavily as President Donald Trump deploys active-duty military members as a show of force against peaceful demonstrations in Los Angeles and potentially here in Chicago. I want my fellow citizens to know something important. I trust the common sense and decency of my fellow American service members. I have served alongside them, some who consider themselves to be MAGA Republicans. I know they understand how grave and serious it would be to use force against their countrymen and countrywomen. Let me explain why. All service members swear an oath to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.' Enlisted service members continue swearing to 'obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me,' expressly conditioned by, 'according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).' With that condition, the enlisted oath is not absolute; if an order is unlawful, an enlisted service member is responsible not to obey. The obedience language is absent from the officer oath. Instead, officers swear to 'well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.' In short, while all members of the military must act in accordance with the UCMJ, each officer must exercise an even higher level of responsibility, remaining loyal not to a president but to the Constitution. No service member should ever follow a clearly unlawful command, especially when that command is to harm unarmed, peaceful citizens of their own country. It is infuriating that we are even in this situation. Trump doesn't care about members of the military, referring to fallen soldiers as 'suckers' and 'losers' for not escaping their obligations as he did during the Vietnam War. He denigrates the records of patriots such as the late U.S. Sen. John McCain, degrading his war hero status. He has saddled them with an incompetent secretary of defense in Pete Hegseth. Most dangerously, Trump intentionally disregards centuries of the military's most essential tradition of nonpartisanship, eroding American faith in our most trusted institution. What troubles many of us in the military — something I would advise my fellow soldiers and commanders to consider — is the terrifying prospect of an unlawful order coming down from this reckless president. Trump has openly mused about service members using lethal force to control protesters, portraying them as domestic enemies of the Constitution. In fact, it's the opposite: The protesters are exercising their First Amendment right to free speech and assembly in support of the 14th Amendment rights of people being kidnapped and deported without due process. To the extent that there have been acts of violence and vandalism in the vicinity of the protests, those acts are unlawful. Police in our cities are fully capable of addressing the situation. Protests — even ones that include civil disobedience — should not be met with violence unless there is no other option available. But this president believes violence against our citizens is an acceptable first choice because he doesn't value the rule of law or, by his own admission, his duty to uphold our Constitution. American military members are trained and proficient at understanding the conditions under which it is lawful to use force in the heat and exercise of war. They are taught to obey the chain of command, especially on a battlefield. Unit cohesion and effectiveness depend on the obedience of orders. But a service member is not a robot, blindly obligated to fulfill a command received from a superior with no application of context or thought. Especially if that command is given outside the theater of war, with no imminent danger to personnel, and even more so when present on the streets of an American city where the people those soldiers swore to defend are petitioning the actions of their government. American soldiers have misused lethal force in the past, and they have faced consequences. Second Lt. William L. Calley Jr. was convicted by court martial of the premeditated murder of 22 Vietnamese in the famous My Lai massacre. He was convicted because the threshold for disobeying an order is, according to the Manual for Military Courts-Martial and case law, 'a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.' With a president so intent on sowing chaos every day, it must be a difficult position for the American troops who have deployed to Los Angeles and are rumored to be on their way to other cities. But Americans stand up to do what's right in difficult moments all the time. We must not forget that there are numerous institutions available to us all to safeguard our rights. Our military, state and federal criminal justice systems are populated with true patriots who believe in the rule of law. This is, ultimately, why I trust that our service members will do the right thing when the time comes. They have been trained well, and they know their obligations to their country. I have sworn an oath to the Constitution three times — as a lawyer, an Army officer and a federal civil servant. The Constitution is not a suggestion; it is the supreme law of the land. Even if our president won't abide by it, I trust my fellow service members will.
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Former Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter dies at 85
Retired Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter, the shy and frugal small-town New Englander who was touted as a conservative but surprised his Republican backers and nearly everyone else by becoming a staunch liberal on the high court, has died, the court said in a statement Friday. He was 85. Souter stepped down in 2009 after nearly two decades on the court where he cast key votes to uphold laws on campaign finance, environmental protection, civil rights and church-state separation. He also played a crucial role in upholding a woman's right to choose abortion. As an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, Souter was expected to join with then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and other conservatives who were determined to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that expanded abortion rights. But when a Pennsylvania test case came before the court in 1992, Souter instead joined moderate Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy to affirm the right to abortion. Souter saw the issue as a matter of precedent. Repealing the constitutional right to abortion would be 'a surrender to political pressure,' he wrote. 'To overrule under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason to re-examine a watershed decision would subvert the Court's legitimacy beyond any serious question.' A second 5-4 decision that spring, with Souter in the majority, upheld the strict ban on school-sponsored prayers at graduations. The five justices who voted to uphold the abortion right and the ban on school prayers were all Republican appointees. But they no longer reflected the views of a more socially conservative GOP, and Souter was denounced by some in the party as a turn-coat. By the late 1990s, 'No more Souters' had become a rallying cry for conservative legal activists. 'Justice Souter was a judicial version of a disappearing phenomenon: the moderate New England Republican,' said Pamela Karlan, a professor at Stanford Law School. 'He was not a true liberal and would not have been a liberal on the court of the 1960s and '70s. But he believed in privacy and civil rights and precedents, and that made him a liberal on the court of his day.' He was unusual in other ways. Shortly after he arrived as a new justice in 1990, he was dubbed one of the city's 'most eligible bachelors' in the Washington Post, leading to a series of dinner invitations. He usually found himself seated between a single woman and a guest who spoke only Japanese, he later joked. Souter became adept at turning down invitations. He would dine with Justice John Paul Stevens and his wife, or with O'Connor, but mostly he worked and ate alone. He spent evenings jogging along the waterfront near his small apartment. Whenever the court took an extended break, Souter drove to the farmhouse where he grew up in tiny Weare, N.H., so he could hike. He was in good health and not yet 70 when President Obama moved into the White House in early 2009. Soon after, Souter passed word that he intended to retire. Obama chose Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina on the high court, to replace him. Souter was dubbed a 'stealth nominee' when he arrived in Washington in 1990, and he remained a mystery when he left. He did no interviews and made no public statements. Back in New Hampshire, he continued to serve part time as a retired judge on the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, deciding low-profile cases out of the public spotlight. Souter was not the first justice to surprise the president who appointed him, but he may be among the last. Since Souter's time — and indeed, partly in reaction to him — presidents have carefully selected court nominees with public records showing they shared similar views on legal issues. Souter had deep ties to the Republican Party. He carried a gold watch that was a prized possession of a great-great-grandfather who attended the Republican party convention of 1860 that nominated Abraham Lincoln as president. The GOP supported environmental conservation and the separation of church and state when Souter was growing up. But it grew increasingly more conservative over the decades, and Souter didn't always agree. In July 1990, he was a 50-year-old bachelor who lived alone in a farm house with peeling paint and books on the floor. He had just been named to the U.S. court of appeals in Boston. Until then, he had spent his entire career as a prosecutor, state attorney and judge in New Hampshire. His scholarly manner and devotion to the law had won him influential admirers, including then-Sen. Warren Rudman and former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu, who was then-White House chief of staff to the first President Bush. When the Supreme Court's liberal leader, William J. Brennan, suffered a stroke and announced his retirement, Souter's name made the president's short list of possible nominees. Bush was anxious to avoid a fight with Senate Democrats over abortion and civil rights. Republicans still smarted from the Senate's defeat in 1987 of Judge Robert Bork, whose strongly conservative writings convinced critics he was too extreme to be confirmed. Souter seemed an ideal nominee. He was conservative, or at least old-fashioned. He wrote with a fountain pen, not a computer. And he ignored television. He only learned Brennan was stepping down when a postal clerk in his town shared the news. Two days later, Souter stood in the White House press room as Bush announced his nomination. Souter was said to have no 'paper trail,' but Sununu privately assured activists that he would be a 'home run for conservatives.' Liberal Democrats, led by Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, were Souter's sharpest critics that summer, while the arch-conservative Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina led the fight to confirm him. In less than two years, it became clear that both sides had miscalculated. By the mid-1990s, Souter had allied himself with Stevens, another moderate Republican who also seemed to move left, and with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, the two appointees of President Clinton. They formed a liberal bloc in cases where the court split along ideological lines. David Hackett Souter was born in Melrose, Mass., on Sept. 17, 1939, the only child of Joseph and Helen Souter. His father was a banker and his mother a gift shop clerk. When he was 11, the family moved to the New Hampshire farm house in Weare that remained Souter's primary home until after his retirement. As a Harvard undergraduate, Souter dated a young woman and spoke of marrying her. But when he won a prestigious Rhodes Scholarship and went to England to study at Oxford University, she found someone else. Souter told friends he was disappointed he never married. After graduating from Harvard Law School in 1966, he eschewed the big-city law firms and returned to the small-town life and rugged mountains of the New Hampshire he loved. Friends and former clerks say Souter was never a true conservative as his early backers said, nor was he a solid liberal as he was portrayed years later. Souter was 'a judge's judge,' said Penn Law Professor Kermit Roosevelt, who clerked for him in 1999. 'He didn't have a political agenda. People had a mistaken idea of what they were getting when he was appointed.' Sign up for Essential California for the L.A. Times biggest news, features and recommendations in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Shannon Sharpe Refuses to View Alleged Sex Tape in $50 Million Civil Rape Lawsuit
NFL Hall of Famer and prominent media figure Shannon Sharpe is facing a $50 million civil lawsuit filed by a woman using the pseudonym 'Jane Doe,' who accuses him of rape and coercion during a relationship she claims was non-consensual. Central to the case is a controversial video recording allegedly showing one of the encounters in question. The footage has reportedly been offered for viewing to Sharpe, who has refused to watch it despite multiple opportunities. Below is a detailed breakdown of the case, key evidence, legal arguments, and the public discourse surrounding this high-profile litigation. Jane Doe filed the civil suit earlier this year, asserting that she was subjected to repeated sexual assault and manipulation by Shannon Sharpe beginning in 2023 when she was 19 years old. Her legal team contends that Sharpe exploited a significant power imbalance, using his celebrity and financial influence to dominate and degrade her in a series of non-consensual encounters. According to the complaint, the conduct occurred over several months and caused lasting psychological harm. The suit includes claims for sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and unlawful restraint, among others. Sharpe has denied all allegations and characterized the relationship as consensual. He argues that the interactions described in the lawsuit were part of a mutual BDSM dynamic involving role-play and fantasy scenarios. A pivotal element of the plaintiff's case is a video allegedly depicting one of the encounters described in the lawsuit. According to Attorney Tony Buzbee, who is representing Jane Doe, the video demonstrates a lack of consent and is 'central' to the civil claims being pursued. Buzbee confirmed that the video was reviewed in a confidential mediation setting by Sharpe's legal team, but Sharpe himself declined repeated invitations to view it. He emphasized that the footage will not be released publicly, citing both legal and ethical considerations. 'The only reason the public knows this video exists is because Mr. Sharpe brought it up on Instagram,' Buzbee said in a statement. 'At no point have we ever threatened to release it, and we will not. It is evidence, nothing more, nothing less.' Sharpe has publicly described the video as a '30-second clip designed to make me look guilty,' asserting that it was taken out of context and crafted to play into damaging racial and sexual stereotypes. Legal analysts have taken note of Sharpe's refusal to personally review the video, describing it as a potentially risky decision in a civil case where perception and credibility can significantly impact the outcome. 'Although he has no legal obligation to view the footage, his refusal may be viewed unfavorably by a jury,' explained Professor Lena Hartwell of Stanford Law School. 'It may suggest avoidance or unwillingness to confront evidence that could challenge his narrative.' Sharpe's legal team has not publicly elaborated on his refusal. However, individuals familiar with the defense suggest that Sharpe believes the clip is misleading and was deliberately recorded to distort the nature of the relationship. Public reaction to the lawsuit has been shaped not only by the legal filings but also by Sharpe's high-profile status and previous controversies. In September 2024, Sharpe mistakenly broadcasted explicit audio of a sexual encounter during an Instagram Live session. Initially claiming he was hacked, Sharpe later admitted the incident was accidental, citing confusion over the platform's features. Critics have pointed to that episode and his subsequent remarks as evidence of reckless behavior. Supporters argue it has no bearing on the current case and represents an unrelated personal mistake. Sharpe has used his social media platforms and appearances on First Take to publicly denounce the lawsuit as a baseless attempt to extort him. He has also accused Attorney Buzbee of targeting Black public figures, referencing Buzbee's past cases against athletes, including former NFL quarterback Deshaun Watson. The woman identified as Jane Doe has kept her identity confidential, citing concerns for her safety and mental well-being. Buzbee maintains that his client came forward not for publicity but because she believes a grave injustice occurred, and she has a right to seek redress through the legal system. 'She is not hiding. She is protecting herself,' Buzbee said. 'This case is about her right to be heard, her right to be believed, and her right to justice.' The plaintiff is reportedly cooperating fully with legal proceedings, has submitted medical documentation supporting claims of psychological trauma, and has expressed her willingness to testify under appropriate conditions. The case is currently in the discovery phase, during which both sides exchange evidence, conduct depositions, and prepare expert testimony. No criminal charges have been filed at this time, and the matter remains strictly within the civil legal arena. Sharpe's attorneys are expected to file additional motions in the coming weeks, potentially including a countersuit for defamation and an effort to seal sensitive materials. A trial date has not been scheduled yet, but pre-trial hearings are expected to begin in late summer. Observers anticipate that the outcome of the case will rest heavily on how the video is interpreted in court, the credibility of both parties under oath, and how jurors assess the power dynamics described in the complaint. As the lawsuit against Shannon Sharpe continues to unfold, the stakes remain extraordinarily high for both parties. For the plaintiff, the case represents a pursuit of justice for alleged abuse at the hands of an influential figure. For Sharpe, it is a battle to protect his name, career, and future in both sports media and public life. The decision not to view a key piece of evidence has raised legal and public scrutiny, potentially influencing how Sharpe's defense is received if the matter proceeds to trial. In a case defined by opposing interpretations of consent and power, the months ahead will likely determine not only the legal outcome but the broader narrative surrounding one of sports media's most prominent voices. The post Shannon Sharpe Refuses to View Alleged Sex Tape in $50 Million Civil Rape Lawsuit appeared first on Where Is The Buzz | Breaking News, Entertainment, Exclusive Interviews & More.
News18
27-04-2025
- Politics
- News18
Indian-origin Politician Jenifer Rajkumar Faces Criticism Over ‘Racist' Meme
Last Updated: Jenifer Rajkumar has gained significant attention in the Public Advocate race for New York City as she takes on Jumaane Williams. News18 Indian-American politician and lawyer Jenifer Rajkumar, running for the Public Advocate for New York City, recently landed herself in hot water, sharing a controversial meme about her meme on social media. Jenifer, a graduate from the Stanford Law School and the University of Pennsylvania, earlier made history by becoming the first South Asian-American woman to get elected to the New York state office. On Wednesday, she shared a meme on Elon Musk-owned X in which the incumbent Public Advocate Jumaane Williams can be seen passed out in bed, New York Post reported. The cartoon image also shows a social media quote from Williams that reads, 'Maaaaan, last batch edibles took me somewhere else". Next to Williams' cartoon is a schedule which lists only 'nap' on his agenda for the day. On the other side, Jenifer showed herself as a hard-working lady following a packed work schedule that starts at 7 AM. Alongside the meme, Jenifer wrote that their campaign has 'woke up Jumaane Williams," highlighting that he held at press conference at 11:55 AM. She dubbed it as his 'earliest appearance in recent memory." She added that even the 'Public Absentee" is forced to set an alarm when she is running for the post. The state Assembly member's soon went viral on the platform, with Opposition leaders calling her out for being 'racist". Another person criticised her for saying 'nonsensical or racist things," adding that they will continue to 'ignore her". Arvind Sooknanan, spokesperson for Jenifer's campaign, came out in support of the controversy and claimed that people criticising her were using the Public Advocate's own words against him. Sooknanan said they used Jumaane's own X post in the image and have reflected on something that 'New Yorkers already know". He later reminded Jumaane about how he worked from a 'remote" office and remained 'unresponsive and missing in action" during the last six years. Jenifer's post came after Mayor Eric Adams slammed Williams at an event earlier this week. He claimed that Williams wakes up at noon and even 'takes a nap until 2." He goes looking around the fort to make sure the guards are awake. And then he goes back and takes another nap. 'Then he looks at the press and says, 'My job for over $200,000 is to find a way to criticize Eric or something.'" The mayor, though, didn't pin Williams' alleged no-show record on being high. The campaign also doubled down, posting the meme again Thursday afternoon, and replying to one of Williams' social posts. 'It's f–ked up," said one city politician. An Honan Strategy Group poll found this week that Rajkumar was polling at 6 per cent of likely Dem voters, while Williams, who has barely campaigned, was comfortably at 51 per cent. About a third of voters are still up for grabs, according to the poll. First Published:
