Follow HLS on
The New York Times
Plan to Bar Foreign Muslims by Donald Trump Might Survive a Lawsuit
When Donald J. Trump called on Monday for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” many legal scholars were aghast and said that such a ban would certainly be struck down by courts as blatantly unconstitutional. But on Tuesday Mr. Trump clarified his proposal, saying that he would exclude only foreign Muslims, not Muslim American citizens who travel abroad and then seek to come home. That distinction, legal specialists said, made it far less likely the courts would strike it down...Several legal scholars who specialize in immigration, international and constitutional law said a policy of excluding all foreign Muslims from visiting the United States would still be “ludicrously discriminatory and overwrought,” as Gerald L. Neuman
, a Harvard Law School professor, put it. But he said that it was far from clear that the Supreme Court would block it.
‘Odious’ – but is it legal? Legal experts say Trump would try to ban Muslims using ‘most reviled’ decision in Supreme Court history which upheld Japanese internment
It is widely regarded as one of the most shameful episodes in America's history. But the internment of Japanese citizens during WWII would be Donald Trump's best hope of passing his ban on Muslims entering the US. Constitutional experts said that internment was the closest precedent that Trump could turn to were he to try and implement his policy - even though it would be 'constitutionally dead on arrival'...Laurence H. Tribe
, the Carl M. Loeb University Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard University, said that the attempt to use the 'shameful and now universally reviled' internment of Japanese-Americans showed 'just how desperate Trump's supporters are to find some precedent for his wild idea'. He said: 'The court of history has long since condemned both that decision and Justice Black's pretense that the removal of Japanese Americans from their homes on the West Coast was truly a 'pressing public necessity' rather than an egregious example of the 'racial antagonism' that Black purported to condemn. The US government, through the Solicitor General, has since formally apologized for its role in getting the Supreme Court to uphold the racist curfew and expulsion orders.'
The Harvard Crimson
Law School Students Protest Minow’s Response to Demands
After making a series of demands they say will improve Harvard Law School’s treatment of minority students, more than 100 students gathered on the campus’s Kumble Plaza on Monday to protest what they said was Law School Dean Martha L. Minow’s failure to adequately address their concerns...“One thing we’ve been getting a lot is that we haven’t given the administration enough time,” said Rena T. Karefa-Johnson
, a third-year Law student who spoke after Sells. “Students have been asking for these things for decades... We’re not going to stop.” According to the president of the Harvard Black Law Students Association, Leland S. Shelton
, student activists had begun to formulate a response ahead of monday Morning in case Minow failed to respond to their demands by the deadline they set. “I don’t think any students realistically expected her to in 48 hours give a really deep detailed response to those demands,” Shelton said. The aim of the demands, according to Shelton, was “forcing her to say something.”
Catholic News Service
Group wants meeting with Kerry before State Dept. genocide findings
A group of 30 Christian leaders, including Cardinal Donald W. Wuerl of Washington, has asked for a meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry in advance of the State Department's declaration of genocides taking place around the world. ..In arguing for a meeting, the letter said it was "critically important that the State Department consider the best available evidence before making any official pronouncement that rejects allegations that Christian are, along with Yazidis, targets of ongoing genocidal acts." Other Catholic signatories to the letter include Chaldean Bishops Gregory J. Mansour and Sarhad Y. Jammo of the Chaldean eparchies of St. Maron of Brooklyn, New York, and St. the Apostle of San Diego, respectively; Carl Anderson, supreme knight of the Knights of Columbus; former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican Mary Ann Glendon
, who now teaches at Harvard Law School; and Thomas F. Farr, director of the Religious Freedom Project at Georgetown University.
Yes, the Justices Read the Headlines
An op-ed by Noah Feldman
. On Monday, just a few days after the shootings in San Bernardino, California, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it won't hear a challenge to a Chicago suburb’s ban on semiautomatic weapons. On Wednesday, in the wake of a semester’s turmoil over race on campuses from Missouri to New Haven, the court is hearing a challenge to affirmative action. Coincidence? Well, sort of. The court’s actions -- refusing to hear the gun challenge while considering affirmative action -- are case studies of judicial timing that raise a broader question: How is the court influenced by day-to-day headlines and current events? The answer turns out to be more complicated, and more interesting, than you might think.
U.S. News & World Report
Top Scholars Say Trump Muslim Immigrant Ban May Be Constitutional
Almost every public figure appraising Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump’s proposed moratorium on Muslim immigration and travel to the U.S. has reacted with horror, but the ban would not necessarily be unconstitutional, experts say...Harvard Law School professor Gerald Neuman
, co-director of the school’s human rights program, says the idea is “discriminatory in a fashion that’s totally inconsistent with constitutional principles." But, he says, “I can see the courts saying the plenary power requires such relaxed judicial review that they would uphold it – it’s possible.”
Harvard professor Laurence Tribe explains what Trump gets wrong
Since Republican front-runner Donald Trump called Monday for a “complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” he has been met with widespread criticism from politicians, policymakers and experts. Rivals slammed the discriminatory proposal as “reprehensible,” “unhinged,” and even “fascist” — while legal scholars noted it is almost certainly unconstitutional. While a blanket plan for religious discrimination violates several general provisions of the U.S. Constitution, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe
stresses that Trump’s attempts to justify his plan’s legality Monday actually further revealed its shortcomings. The legal scholar had the following exchange with MSNBC chief legal correspondent Ari Melber.
Would Donald Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims in the U.S. be constitutional?
Spoiler alert: no. Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump’s call to bar Muslim immigrants from the United States, a nation founded by immigrants, does not just offend American sensibilities — it would violate U.S. and international law, according to experts. Laurence H. Tribe
, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School and co-founder of the American Constitution Society, said Tuesday that Trump’s proposed ban would be illegal, exceptionally difficult to implement and damaging to national security. “Donald Trump’s plan to ban all Muslims from entering the U.S. — even as recently pulled back to make exceptions for U.S. citizens abroad, whether in the military or otherwise, who happen to be Muslims — would be illegal and therefore unconstitutional, as well as being a nightmare to administer,” Tribe said in an email to Yahoo News.
Trump’s Muslims Plan: Inflammatory? Definitely. Unconstitutional? Maybe
Donald Trump has faced a torrent of criticism after releasing a policy proposal that would ban all Muslims from entering the United States. His fellow Republicans haven't held back: Marco Rubio called it "offensive," and Jeb Bush called it "unhinged." A number of others — politicians, pundits, experts and regular folks — have called it unconstitutional. ..Laurence H. Tribe
, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard University, says he's certain that Trump's proposal would violate the Constitution. Yes, he says, some court decisions have found that the some parts of the protective mantle of the Constitution don't extend to foreigners. But according to Tribe's interpretation, some of the most well-known protections — such as theFirst Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom and the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process — are not limited by nationality or geography. "The [Fifth Amendment] applies to U.S. conduct with regard to any 'person,' wherever located and of whatever citizenship," Tribe writes in an email. "And [the First Amendment] is a flat prohibition on actions that the U.S. government may take, including those actions that respect 'an establishment of religion' or prohibit 'the free exercise thereof.' "
Food waste bill introduced
Rep. Chellie Pingree (D., Me.) introduced a bill in Congress aimed at reducing the amount of food that is wasted each year in the United States. The Food Recovery Act includes nearly two dozen provisions to reduce food waste across the economy....Emily Broad Leib
, director of Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic, said Pingree's bill tackles an important problem with the nation's food supply. “Food waste is one of the most pressing environmental and economic issues facing our food system, yet so much of the food we waste could go to better use in our households or shared with people in need. This groundbreaking legislation offers assistance to farmers and retailers, supports food recovery organizations, and helps consumers by clarifying the senseless date labels that appear on foods. It thus achieves many of the goals our clinic has advocated over the past few years and we are thrilled to work in support of its passage," Broad Leib said.