Last month a court upheld Chicago’s ban on most handguns, while in April a California court completely disagreed on the constitutional issue. The differing opinions mean that the whole issue of city and state gun laws will probably head back to the Supreme Court for clarification, leading many legal experts to predict a further expansion of gun rights. Scott Drake interviews Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles on the issue of gun ownership rights and gun control, as well as the recent legal history and court decisions on the second ammendment.
Dr. Volokh is well known for his widely read blog, "The Volokh Conspiracy" and is a frequent guest on various talk radio shows nationally as a result of his expertise on both first and second ammendment issues. A noted liberatarian/conservative thinker, he clerked under Alex Kozinski and Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
This review by a noted national law professor, writer and commentator is a special edition of Speaking of Justice for the 4th of July holiday as we celebrate our independence and reflect on the documents and traditions that allow us to remain a free society. Enjoy your holiday, enjoy your freedoms, enjoy having the right to disagree and argue without fear or reprisal and keep coming back to The Legal Broadcast Network for more of this same kind of thoughtful analysis from both sides of the political spectrum.
The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that school officials violated the constitutional rights of a 13-year-old Arizona girl when they strip searched her based on a classmate's uncorroborated accusation that she previously possessed ibuprofen. The American Civil Liberties Union represents April Redding, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, whose daughter, Savana Redding, was strip searched by Safford Middle School officials six years ago.
"We are pleased that the Supreme Court recognized that school officials had no reason to strip search Savana Redding and that the decision to do so was unconstitutional," said Adam Wolf, an attorney with the ACLU who argued the case before the Court. "Today's ruling affirms that schools are not constitutional dead zones. While we are disappointed with the Court's conclusion that the law was not clear before today and therefore school officials were not found liable, at least other students will not have to go through what Savana experienced."
Savana Redding, an eighth grade honor roll student at Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona, was pulled from class on October 8, 2003 by the school's vice principal, Kerry Wilson. Earlier that day, Wilson had discovered prescription-strength ibuprofen – 400 milligram pills equivalent to two over-the-counter ibuprofen pills, such as Advil – in the possession of Redding's classmate. Under questioning and faced with punishment, the classmate claimed that Redding, who had no history of disciplinary problems, had given her the pills.
After escorting Redding to his office, Wilson demanded that she consent to a search of her possessions. Redding agreed, wanting to prove she had nothing to hide. Wilson did not inform Redding of the reason for the search. Joined by a female school administrative assistant, Wilson searched Redding's backpack and found nothing. Instructed by Wilson, the administrative assistant then took Redding to the school nurse's office in order to perform a strip search.
In the school nurse's office, Redding was ordered to strip to her underwear. She was then commanded to pull her bra out and to the side, exposing her breasts, and to pull her underwear out at the crotch, exposing her pelvic area. The strip search failed to uncover any ibuprofen pills.
"The strip search was the most humiliating experience I have ever had," said Redding in a sworn affidavit following the incident. "I held my head down so that they could not see that I was about to cry."
The strip search was undertaken based solely on the uncorroborated claims of the classmate facing punishment. No attempt was made to corroborate the classmate's accusations among other students or teachers. No physical evidence suggested that Redding might be in possession of ibuprofen pills or that she was concealing them in her undergarments.
Furthermore, the classmate had not claimed that Redding currently possessed any pills, nor had the classmate given any indication as to where they might be concealed. No attempt was made to contact Redding's parents prior to conducting the strip search.
In response to today's ruling, Redding said, "I wanted to make sure that no other person would have to go through this, so I am pleased by the Court's decision. I'm glad to have helped make students feel safer in school."
The case, Safford Unified School District v. Redding, was appealed from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which found the strip search to be unconstitutional. A six-judge majority of the appeals court further held that, since the strip search was clearly unreasonable, the school official who ordered the search is not entitled to immunity. In today's Supreme Court decision, despite deeming the strip search of Redding unconstitutional, the Court found that the school officials involved are immune from liability. The decision leaves open the possibility, however, that the Safford Unified School district could be held liable.
"Neither the Constitution nor common sense permits school officials to treat a strip search the same as a locker or backpack search," said Steven R. Shapiro, the ACLU's national Legal Director. "Today's ruling eliminates any confusion that school officials may have had about this seemingly obvious point."
The ACLU and ACLU of Arizona were joined in the case by Bruce Macdonald, with the law firm McNamara, Goldsmith, Jackson & Macdonald, and Andrew Petersen, with the firm Humphrey & Petersen.
In addition, a broad constellation of adolescent health experts and privacy rights advocates filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of Redding, including the National Education Association, National Association of Social Workers (NASW), CATO Institute, Rutherford Institute, Goldwater Institute and Urban Justice Center, among others.
Jerome Kowalski, a legal consultant who tracks the New York Market discusses why major law firms are shrinking with LBN host Scott Drake. Kowalski says “The mood at White & Case — and at probably 15 or 20 more firms in New York — is kind of like sitting at a deathbed and watching a close relative wither away. It’s like you’re right there in the I.C.U. with the patient and you know that the condition is terminal.”
(NY Times)
While the legal industry is hardly battling the existential threat that is facing, say, the newspaper trade, Big Law — especially in competitive New York — is facing a potential paradigm shift as fundamental as the one that has hit investment banks and the auto industry. Big, as a business model (let alone as an expression of the national mood), seems bound for obsolescence.
The Hildebrandt index found, for example, that at the nation’s 20 top-grossing law firms — 12 of which are in New York — average profit per partner and revenue per lawyer both dropped in the first quarter of 2009, for the first time since 1991.
At the root of the law-firm crisis, legal experts say, is the credit crisis, which has pulverized the need for traditional practice areas like structured finance, mergers and acquisitions and private-equity transactions — the very things that have always kept a high gleam of polish on the city’s whitest shoes. The downward trend has been unrelenting: fewer Wall Street deals mean fewer Wall Street lawyers.
“I hear the stories all the time,” Mr. Kowalski, the consultant, said. “Real estate lawyers are honing their skills playing solitaire. Younger lawyers are gossiping all day and scaring the crap out of one another. The head of the corporate department of a major firm just told me that he hasn’t billed a minute’s worth of work in the last two weeks,” he added.
Valley police met recently to brainstorm how to build a system to extradite hundreds of felony suspects arrested in other states before the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office stops transporting prisoners in July.
The Sheriff's Office announced this month that 19 law-enforcement agencies from Phoenix to Wickenburg would have to find a way to handle the task without the support of deputies, who provided the service for decades. The decision forces cash-strapped agencies to fetch the prisoners or create a task force to share extraditing more than 700 fugitives annually. Citing its own budget woes, the Sheriff's Office estimated the county could save part of the $1.5 million it spent on extraditions in 2008 by freeing employees from performing the non-mandated duty.
Police agencies could also work with the U.S. Marshals Service to use the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System, known as "Con Air," to return suspected criminals to face charges in Maricopa County. "That would most likely be more cost-effective than transporting them ourselves," said Phoenix police Cmdr. Frank Milstead, who is part of the group meeting today in Chandler. Milstead estimated that Phoenix could pull officers from its Fugitive Apprehension Team to travel in two-man teams to transport prisoners from outside Arizona, though that would leave additional staffing questions. "It will take some of the officers off the streets, but we'd try to overstaff to compensate," Milstead said.
With officers projected to travel nearly every week of the year, Phoenix is researching how much it will cost to buy last-minute airfare, provide per diem expenses and purchase items like shackles for prisoners. Local officers would need additional training and could possibly be cross-deputized as U.S. marshals to transport prisoners over state lines.
In this interview, Phoenix police Commander Frank Milstead discusses the controversy, as well as the benefits of Arizona’s speed cameras.
Brad Bannon's writes about the Sotomayor confirmation hearings in this commentary from US News and World Report:
Scott Drake interviews Brad Bannon in the accompanying video.
Brad Bannon is president of Bannon Communications Research, a political consulting and polling firm that works for Democrats, labor unions, and progressive-issue groups.
Sonia Sotomayor is exactly the person that the Supreme Court needs. She is a distinguished jurist and will be the first Latina to serve on the Supreme Court. As a bonus, she will improve female representation on the Court and, because of her background as a poor kid from the Bronx, she will give voice to the millions of Americans who are struggling economically to keep their heads above water.
President Obama's appointment of Judge Sotomayor to the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court will also begin the culture wars in earnest.
Actually, the first shot in the culture wars was President Obama's response to antiabortion advocates who boycotted his appearance at Notre Dame University's commencement ceremony. In his speech, the president tried to find common ground between the pro-choice and pro-life forces. His attempt to moderate the culture war contrasts with his economic program, where the president has gone full steam ahead without compromises that would lessen Republican opposition.
The contrast between the president's approach to social and to economic policy reflects Democratic confidence in its strength on bread-and-butter issues and a defensiveness on cultural issues.
Even though Democrats usually win battles on the economic front, their track record in culture wars are not nearly as good. Since the 1960s, Republicans have successfully used the social issues to drive a wedge between blue-collar union members and the Democratic Party with a steady diet of guns, God, and gays. And even now, after getting Congress to pass his stimulus program, the president not been able to prevent NRA supporters in the Senate from attaching pro-gun riders to important pieces of legislation.
But after three months of focusing on the economy like the proverbial laser beam, the Sotomayor confirmation hearings will force the president to fight the culture wars whether he wants to or not. Since Massachusetts legalized gay marriage four years ago, the focus of the culture wars has moved from abortion to gay rights.
This week, the California Supreme Court upheld the voter ban on gay marriage that passed last year. This case is likely to get to the Supreme Court, so the Republicans in the Senate will probably focus on Judge Sotomayor's positions on same-sex marriage. The judge will probably be noncommittal on the subject to avoid prejudicing future cases, but the left and right will press her on the ramifications of the California case.
The GOP is chomping at the bit for a fight over Judge Sotomayor, even though Republicans know they will lose the confirmation battle. They will fight the nomination anyway because it energizes the base, helps them raise money, and puts Democrats, including the president, on the defensive. So expect the Senate Republicans to fight Judge Sotomayor tooth and nail.
But the GOP should be wary of the demons that fly out of Pandora's box during the confirmation hearings. Although the culture wars have not been kind to the Democrats in the past, they may become an advantage for the party.
Support for gay marriage has increased significantly in the last few years and a clear majority of Americans under 40 support same-sex marriage. As the millennial voters make up more of the electorate, support for gay marriage will increase. Voters under 30 voted for Barack Obama last year, and the GOP is in danger of losing a group that could give Republicans fits for a whole generation. Young voters are very liberal socially and GOP opposition to gay marriage will drive a wedge between the party and the fasting-growing segment of the voter pool.
Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for four years and it clearly has not shaken the cultural foundations of the state. As more and more states like Vermont and Iowa legalize same-sex marriage, more and more voters will get used to the idea.
Cultural issues have backed the GOP into a corner. The problem for Republicans is that the party's base is shrinking because of moderate defections. As moderates leave the party, it becomes even more conservative, which in turn causes the GOP to lose even more moderates. So the GOP's focus on cultural issues during Judge Sotomayor's confirmation battle will make the party appear even more conservative and drive even more millennial voters out of the party.
If Republicans don't stop this vicious circle and get their act together, they party will go into the wilderness where Democrats have spent most of the last 40 years. The GOP's challenge starts with its handling of confirmation battle over Judge Sotomayor.
Monday, July 6, 2009 at 03:13PM 
