ZiefBrief

Hing on Arizona's Immigration Law, SB 1070

Professor Hing just contributed the following essay, "Like It Or Not, Arizona's SB 1070 Is About Racial Profiling," on Huffington Post.  An excerpt from his post:

In the Obama administration's challenge to Arizona's anti-immigrant SB 1070, Department of Justice lawyers avoided arguing that any of the law's provisions, including the requirement that state police check the documents of suspected undocumented immigrants, invite racial profiling.

The technocrat lawyer in me might understand this strategy, reasoning that it's too soon to know if Latinos will be targeted by SB 1070 (although there's plenty of evidence already). The cynic in me believes that the Obama administration stayed away from racial profiling allegations because that claim falls too close to home. The framework for SB 1070 mirrors the federal immigration enforcement laws and guess what, ICE engages in racial profiling every day. The immigration historian in me, however, understands that SB 1070 is in fact all about racial profiling given the institutionalized racism under which the law and its copycat statutes across the country have emerged.

 

Professor Freiwald Blogs About Cell Site Location Data

USF Law professor Susan Freiwald has just started a stint as a guest contributor at Concurring Opinions (ranked among the top 10 law blogs) this week. Her first blog post, Fifth Circuit Considers Constitutionality of Cell Site Location Data is a primer on topic that has grown more timely of late in light of information uncovered by the ACLU and reported extensively in the New York Times.

Prof. Freiwald specifically addresses a pending case before the Fifth Circuit which could add some clarity to the question of under what circumstances government agents will be required to seek a probable cause warrant for cell phone location data. She is eminently qualified to write on the subject having submitted an amicus brief in the case.

This blog post is only the first of a series of posts that will be appearing in Concurring Opinions by Prof. Friewald on the topic. Scholars and citizens with and interest in civil liberties and digital privacy will be interested in following what promises to be a lively series of posts.

Professor Julie Nice on Equal Protection for Gays and Lesbians

Professor Julie Nice, guest columnist for JURIST, explains the significance of a recent California federal district court case, Golinski v. United States Office of Personnel Management.  From the article: 

What is stunning about the Golinski decision is what it reveals about how far gay rights have come. In this rather run-of-the-mill employment benefits dispute, a federal district court's methodical application of judicial reasoning from recent gay rights victories has resulted in a sweeping ruling in Golinski's favor.

WSJ on Jurors' Social Media Use

The Wall Street Journal has a story today entitled, "Jurors' Tweets Upend Trials," which discusses the negative impact of social networking on jury trials. Interestingly, it appears that judges are becoming less tolerant of jurors who break the rules banning social media use during trials. The article reports that a Florida judge sentenced a juror to three days in jail after the juror friended the defendant in a personal injury case on Facebook.

Professor Hing on Lessons from Japanese Internment

Huffington Post published Professor Bill Hing's essay, Lessons to Remember from Japanese Internment: 

This Sunday, February 19, marked the 70th anniversary of Executive Order 9066, which authorized the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. On that day in 1942, then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, setting the wheels in motion for one of the largest violations of civil liberties in the country's history. The forced exclusion of those of Japanese descent from the West Coast -- most of whom were American citizens -- and their mass incarceration in American concentration camps provides a lesson in human rights abuse that, unfortunately, the nation tends to forget too conveniently.

Professor Hing on Prop 8 and Immigration Reform

Professor Bill Hing recently posted on Proposition 8, Perry v. Brown, and immigration reform on Huffington Post: 

The federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision striking down California's Proposition 8 attempt to take away marital rights from same-sex couples sends a strong immigration-reform message to Congress: it's time to allow U.S. citizens lawfully married to same-sex partners the opportunity to apply for lawful immigrant status. Under current law, prospective immigrants who want to immigrate through marriage can only do so if they are parties to a heterosexual relationship.

Ninth Circuit Rules That Prop 8 Is Unconstitutional

The Ninth Circuit issued its substantive opinion in Perry v. Brown this morning, ruling that Proposition 8 violated the federal Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.  Judge Reinhardt's majority opinion states:

Proposition 8 had one effect only. It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State, or any other authorized party, an important right--the right to obtain and use the designation of 'marriage' to describe their relationships. Nothing more, nothing less. Proposition 8 therefore could not have been enacted to advance California's interests in childrearing or responsible procreation.

We have uploaded a PDF of the Ninth Circuit opinion.

Federal Rules of Evidence Changes

There were changes to the Federal Rules of Evidence that went into effect on December 1, 2011, so Westlaw's Fall 2011 Federal Rules of Evidence books are no longer current.  You can download a PDF of the latest version of the FREs from the U.S. Courts website.

California Courts Crack Down on Social Media

The SF Chronicle reports today that, beginning on January 1, all California state judges will be required to warn jurors of the prohibition on using social media and the Internet during a trial. Jurors who ignore the warning may face contempt of court charges, which could include a jail sentence.  The text of the legislation can be found on the California legislative information website.

Death Penalty Conviction Overturned Due In Part to Tweeting Juror

The Arkansas Supreme Court overturned a death row inmate's murder conviction, finding that one juror napped during the trial and another juror tweeted during the trial and deliberations.  This juror tweeted, "Its over," nearly an hour before the jury announced it had reached a verdict.  In addition to overturning the conviction, the court asked the Arkansas Supreme Court Committees on Criminal Practice and Civil Practice to consider whether "jurors’ access to mobile phones should be limited during a trial."  My prediction? In a few years, if you're sitting on a jury, you are going to have to turn in your phone before you take a seat in the box or enter into deliberations.