The Supreme Court recently heard a pair of challenges to an Arizona law that provides public financing for candidates who agree to forgo private contributions. In a recent NY Times editorial, Harvard Law School Professor Fried argues that while it might appear that the court, based on Citizens United, will be inclined to wipe away all regulation of campaign finance, that view would be mistaken.
Read the full article HERE.
Congratulations to Professor @michelebgoodwin—author of CR-CL forthcoming article, "The Thirteenth Amendment’s Punishment Clause: A Spectacle of Slavery Unwilling to Die"—for winning the @ABAesq's 2022 Margaret Brent Women Lawyers of Achievement Award!
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/diversity/women/margaret-brent-awards/2022-brent-honorees/
Night 2 of the @Harvard_Law Ames Moot Court Competition Semi-Finals will be live tonight! Join us as we live blog here, starting at 6pm: https://harvardcrcl.org/ames-semi-final-round-march-9-2022/
The @Harvard_Law Ames Competition Semi-Final Round begins tonight, and we'll be liveblogging all the action! You can follow along with us here, starting at 6pm EST: https://harvardcrcl.org/ames-semi-final-round-march-8-2022/
The lives of #trans kids must be vocally celebrated & defended. In new @HarvardCRCL piece "Identity by Committee," I document barriers to students' gender freedom & examine if renewed emphasis on expressive aspects of #gender may create more lived freedom. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4045721
Or will SCOTUS follow decades of its own precedent, salvage its credibility, inspire public confidence and enable strong, well-litigated racial gerrymander challenges based on an unassailable record to advance? https://twitter.com/LeahLitman/status/1487507243021053953
***these cases are INCREDIBLY important to watch***
Is SCOTUS going to (continue to) act as an obstacle to voting rights? Will it take aggressive procedural maneuvers to block successful litigation that remedied voter suppression & the dilution of votes by racial minorities? https://twitter.com/RossDeuel/status/1487276284694642688
SCOTUSblog doesn’t seem to think the chances are good that the law will be upheld.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/03/argument-recap-kennedy-shows-his-hand/
I am in the camp that this law does not suppress speech; it equalizes. Kennedy seems to think that if a candidate’s speech triggers more speech by her opponents, that will chill speech. It seems like the candidate can still spend as much as she wants, she just can’t shout down less well-funded opponents, which in the end is good for democracy.