FINDLAW COLUMNISTS

• With the Supreme Court Poised to Redefine the Right to Bear Arms, Far-Reaching Questions Loom

• A Recent Supreme Court Decision on the Vienna Convention Reaffirms that Justice Stevens, at Eighty-Eight, Remains A Force to Be Reckoned With

• A Remarkable New Jersey Decision Holds a Bar Broadly Responsible For Protecting Passengers of Drunk Drivers Whom the Bar Never Served, and Who Did Not Seem Drunk

• Patriots, Refugees, and Terrorists

• The National Popular Vote Plan: If Ohio, Virginia and Florida Alone Sign On, They Will Change Primary Politics Profoundly, and Greatly Increase the Chance that the National Popular Vote Winner Will Prevail


GUEST COLUMNISTS

• About Face: The Roberts Court Sets the Stage for Shrinking Voting Rights, Putting Poor and Minority Voters Especially In Danger

• The House of Representatives' Contempt Citation Against White House Officials: Why the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Should Opt for En Banc Review

FINDLAW COLUMNISTS:

WITH THE SUPREME COURT POISED TO REDEFINE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, FAR-REACHING QUESTIONS LOOM
(Michael Dorf) - A discussion of the issues, and the recent oral argument, in one of the blockbuster cases of this Supreme Court term -- District of Columbia v. Heller. In Heller, as Dorf explains, the Court has the chance to decide the scope of the Second Amendment's right to bear arms in a modern context. Does the right apply only to militia service, or to every individual? Does it apply against the federal government alone, or the states as well? Does it differ with respect to different types of firearms? And can the Court reach a narrow holding in Heller, as it seems Chief Justice Roberts would prefer, or must it reach a broad one? Read more...

A RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISION ON THE VIENNA CONVENTION REAFFIRMS THAT JUSTICE STEVENS, AT EIGHTY-EIGHT, REMAINS A FORCE TO BE RECKONED WITH
(Edward Lazarus) - A discussion of a recent Supreme Court decision regarding the Vienna Convention, to which the U.S. is a signatory, but upon which Congress has not acted. The complex case before the Court involved not only the Convention, but also the U.N. Charter, a decision by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the rights of foreign arrestees in the U.S., and a Presidential Memorandum directing Texas courts to comply with the ICJ decision. As Lazarus explains, in the midst of all the complexity, Justice John Paul Stevens distinguished himself with a concurrence that was both insightful and ingenious -- showing the eighty-eight-year-old Justice's continuing excellence as a jurist. Read more...

A REMARKABLE NEW JERSEY DECISION HOLDS A BAR BROADLY RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING PASSENGERS OF DRUNK DRIVERS WHOM THE BAR NEVER SERVED, AND WHO DID NOT SEEM DRUNK
(Anthony Sebok) - A discussion of a New Jersey appellate court's decision interpreting the state's Dram Shop Law. (The Dram Shop Law states that a licensed bar shall be deemed negligent only when it serves alcohol to someone it knew, or should have known, to be a minor, or to someone who is visibly intoxicated.) As Sebok explains, the case was unusual in that it involved a fatal car accident in which the bar had not served the driver alcohol -- yet the court still found the bar liable, because it had served the passenger alcohol. Sebok discusses whether the court's broad interpretation of the Dram Shop Law is defensible. Read more...

PATRIOTS, REFUGEES, AND TERRORISTS
(Joanne Mariner) - An argument that the way U.S. immigration law currently defines terrorist activity is misguided, wrongly excluding would-be immigrants who are not remotely like terrorists, and who are legitimately fleeing persecution. Mariner explains that the definition -- as expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act and the REAL ID Act -- has been interpreted to extend even to people who acted under duress from dangerous persons, or who supported groups in their home countries that the U.S. also supported. Despite some recent Congressional action to allow waivers to be granted on a case-by-case basis, she contends, the situation remains deeply unjust. Read more...

THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE PLAN: IF OHIO, VIRGINIA AND FLORIDA ALONE SIGN ON, THEY WILL CHANGE PRIMARY POLITICS PROFOUNDLY, AND GREATLY INCREASE THE CHANCE THAT THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE WINNER WILL PREVAIL
(Vikram Amar) - A discussion of an interesting variant on the National Popular Vote (NPV) plan. Under this variant, only the anticipated 2008 battleground states of Ohio, Florida, and Virginia would agree to cast their 2008 electoral college votes for president in favor of the candidate who wins the national popular vote. Amar explains why the battleground states alone might, in practice, be able to ensure that the President is the national popular vote winner, and why they might logically choose to do so. He also explains how radically Democratic primary politics could change if an NPV plan adopted by battleground states meant that the Electoral College dropped out of the equation, and all that mattered was winning the allegiance of a majority of voters nationwide. Read more...

GUEST COLUMNISTS:

ABOUT FACE: THE ROBERTS COURT SETS THE STAGE FOR SHRINKING VOTING RIGHTS, PUTTING POOR AND MINORITY VOTERS ESPECIALLY IN DANGER
(Richard Hasen) - A discussion of the Supreme Court's most recent election law decision, Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, which increased voters' ability to decide upon the kind of primary system they want for their states. Hasen applauds the result, but finds the Court's reasoning troubling. He argues that, in the long run, the decision's reasoning, combined with that of prior precedents, may actually harm voters, while expanding states' ability to defend even dubious voting regulations. Read more...

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES' CONTEMPT CITATION AGAINST WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS: WHY THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHOULD OPT FOR EN BANC REVIEW
(Carl Tobias) - An interesting approach to the clash between the White House and the House of Representatives over charges of politicization in the firings of nine U.S. Attorneys, during the time Alberto Gonzalez was Attorney General. Currently, the House of Representatives is seeking to enforce subpoenas in the matter against a number of White House Officials, by filing an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Tobias contends that, while the case is currently before a single judge, the magnitude and nature of the matter counsel that there should be en banc review by the full sixteen-judge court instead. Read more...