Legal Education in Crisis?

Posted February 22nd, 2012
Shon R. Hopwood
Tagged , , , |

At the New York Times, Professor Stanley Fish discusses the state of legal education. Fish writes:

Uneasiness about the state of legal education has been around for some time, but in the wake of the financial meltdown of 2008, uneasiness ripened into a conviction that something was terribly wrong as law school applications declined, thousands of lawyers lost their jobs, employers complained that law school graduates had not been trained to practice law, and law school graduates complained that they had been led into debt by false promises of employment and high salaries. And while all this was happening, law schools continued to raise tuition, take in more and more students, and construct elaborate new facilities. 

Continue Reading

  ( Leave a comment)

Cockle Printing’s Healthcare Litigation Forum

Posted February 21st, 2012
Andy Cockle

Friday was the due date for amici filing in support of the Administration on the Medicaid question. You can find two briefs filed by Cockle Printing at our website:

Brief of Amici Curiae Health Law & Policy Scholars and Prescription Policy Choices in Support of Respondents on the Constitutional Validity of the Medicaid Expansion

Brief of David Satcher, M.D., Ph.D.; Alliance for Children and Families; American Association of People with Disabilities; American Association of University Women; Child Welfare League of America; Children’s Defense Fund; The Education Trust; League of Women Voters; Methodist Healthcare Ministries; National Association of Girls and Women in Sport; National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare; National Council on Independent Living; National Foster Parent Association; National Organization of State Associations for Children; North American Council on Adoptable Children; Paralyzed Veterans of America; Vet to Vet; Volunteers of America; Women’s Sports Foundation; YWCA USA; and 59 Other Organizations as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents (Medicaid)

Continue Reading

  ( Leave a comment)

Cockle Printing’s Healthcare Litigation Forum

Posted February 20th, 2012
Andy Cockle

Last week was a big one in the Supreme Court’s healthcare cases. Three different amicus due dates fell during the week, including a filing deadline for opponents of the controversial individual mandate. Here are some the amicus briefs we filed supporting the Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision Issue (and you can find links to each of these briefs over at our website):

Brief of Authors of The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Gary Lawson, Robert G. Natelson & Guy Seidman) and The Independence Institute as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents

Brief of Amicus Curiae Stephen M. Trattner in Support of Respondents

Brief of Amicus Curiae Landmark Legal Foundation in Support of Respondents on the Individual Mandate

Brief of Amici Curiae Catholic Vote and Steven J. Willis in Support of Respondents and Urging Affirmance on the Minimum Coverage Provision

Brief of Speaker of the House John Boehner as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision Issue

Brief of Members of the United States Senate as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision Issue

Brief of Amicus Curiae Egon Mittelmann, Esq. in Support of Respondents Mary Brown and Kaj Ahlburg on the Minimum Coverage Provision Issue, Supporting the Trial Court and Court of Appeals Decisions

Amicus Brief on Behalf of Citizens and Legislators in the Fourteen Health Care Freedom States in Support of Respondents

Brief of Amicus Curiae American Catholic Lawyers Association, Inc., in Support of Respondents

Brief of Amici Curiae American College of Pediatricians, Christian Medical & Dental Associations, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Catholic Medical Association, Physicians for Life, National Association of Pro Life Nurses, and Medical Students for Life of America in Support of Respondents and Affirmance on the Individual Mandate Issue

Brief of Amicus Curiae Institute for Justice in Support of Respondents

Amicus Curiae Brief of Mountain States Legal Foundation in Support of Respondents

We also filed a brief addressed to the Anti-Injunction Act Issue:

Amicus Curiae Brief of the American Center for Law & Justice in Support of Respondents Regarding the Anti-Injunction Act Issue and Urging Affirmance in Part, Reversal in Part

Continue Reading

  ( Leave a comment)

UCLA Law Professors Duel at the Supreme Court

Posted February 20th, 2012
Shon R. Hopwood
Tagged , , , , |

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in United States v. Alvarez. At issue in this case is whether the Stolen Valor Act, 18 U.S.C. § 704(b)–which makes it a crime to falsely represent that you have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States–is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

Interestingly, two amicus briefs were filed by two UCLA law professors, on opposing sides of the case. The first was filed in support of the government by Eugene Volokh, who explains how First Amendment doctrine could deal with restrictions on knowing falsehoods, if the Court concludes that the statements at issue here are not covered by the Constitution. The second brief was by law professor Jonathan Varat, who argues that the government’s approach to false statements is incompatible with the First Amendment.

I cannot ever recall a case where two solo amicus briefs were filed by two professors on opposite sides of a case at the same school. It makes you wonder what they talk about at the UCLA Law faculty lounge.

Continue Reading

  ( Leave a comment)

Law Man: My Story of Robbing Banks, Winning Supreme Court Cases, and Finding Redemption

Posted February 20th, 2012
Shon R. Hopwood
Tagged , , , |

Most of you who read the CockleBur frequently know that I have a memoir that Crown/Random House is publishing. Well, we now have a definitive publication date: August 7th. Annie and I will be busy between now and then promoting the book from a number of angles. If major promotional stuff comes up, I will post those here at the Bur. For relatively minor stuff, I will post them on my Facebook author page, which I recently launched. Check it out here.

We also have a finished book cover, below. And you can pre-order the book at a number of online locations:

Barnes and Noble: http://bit.ly/wHSU4V
Amazon: http://amzn.to/zXohlg
Indie Bound: http://bit.ly/y1sFgw

Thanks to everyone who has already ordered the book. More importantly, thank you to all those who helped me along the way. You simply don’t have things like memoirs being published without some serious help from others.

Continue Reading

  ( Leave a comment)

New Merits Briefs Filed by Cockle Printing

Posted February 17th, 2012
Andy Cockle

Brief for Respondent in Jackson v. Hobbs, No. 10-9647, filed on February 14, 2012

Brief of Respondent in Miller v. Alabama, No. 10-9646, filed on February 14, 2012

Petitioners’ Reply Brief in Elgin v. Dept. of the Treasury, No. 11-45, filed on February 15, 2012

Continue Reading

  ( Leave a comment)

The Rise and Decline of Miranda

Posted February 17th, 2012
Shon R. Hopwood

I completely dropped the ball on this one. Back in October, University of Michigan Law Professor Yale Kamisar came to UW to talk about Miranda. If you have gone to law school in the past two or three decades, you have probably heard of the professor. His Modern Criminal Procedure book is the standard bearer of legal textbooks.

You can watch the lecture on the rise and decline of Miranda at this link.

I was reminded of the lecture after reading Orin Kerr’s post at the Volokh Conspiracy.

Continue Reading

  ( Leave a comment)

My Son’s First Sadness

Posted February 17th, 2012
Shon R. Hopwood
Tagged , |

When people have their first children, they tend to remember the big things, like first steps, words, bumps on the head. Me, I tend to remember the little things.

My son, Mark, usually has two standard emotions. When well fed, rested and receiving attention, he is generally a happy kid. When hungry, tired, or sick of dad writing boring blog articles on the computer, he tends to display anger. There is not a lot in between.

So it was surprising to see my son sad for the first time.

My Mom was in town from Saturday to Wednesday morning. My kids love her even more than the usual kid-grandparent love. She just has a way with them. So we took Mom to the airport on Wednesday morning. As I unloaded her bags from the trunk she was saying her goodbyes to Annie, Gracie and Mark. I looked up and there were tears in my Mom’s eyes. I thought she was just sad to be leaving all of us.

I jumped in the car and Annie told me to look in the back seat. There, sitting silently, was my son with two huge alligator tears streaming down his cheeks. He was missing his grandma, already.

He has moped around the house the last two days.

I don’t like to see my two-year old son sad. But cherish I will that memory.

Rebecca and Mark

Continue Reading

  ( 1 Comment)

Oral Arguments But No Briefs

Posted February 17th, 2012
Shon R. Hopwood
Tagged , , , |

In between reading gems, such as first-year law school textbooks, I’ve been reading David C. Frederick’s book, Supreme Court And Appellate Advocacy. The book starts with a historical narrative of the Supreme Court. Surprisingly, the first decades of Supreme Court practice were geared around oral argument, and not written briefs. In fact, there were no written briefs!

And oral argument was not the one hour affairs that they are today. In Gibbons v. Ogden, one of the first Court cases to discuss the Commerce Clause, the attorneys argued for six days. That’s right, six DAYS. It makes the five and a half hours of argument on the Affordable Care Act seem downright terse.

My guess is that with six days of argument even Justice Thomas would have to ask at least one question.

Continue Reading

  ( Leave a comment)

The due process debate continues

Posted February 14th, 2012
Timothy Sandefur

The discussion over my article, In Defense of Substantive Due Process, is continuing at Cato Unbound. Prof. Gary Lawson has posted his response here, and now the general discussion is beginning. I responded to David Bernstein’s questions this morning, and I’ll have some further thoughts soon. Please join the discussion!

Update: Is my position true to the original intentions of the framers of the Constitution? The question was raised by Professors Ryan Williams and Michael Rappaport, and I answer it here.

(Cross-posted at PLF Liberty Blog.)

Continue Reading

  ( Leave a comment)