Related posts:

1. Web Exclusive: Cardozo’s Immigration Justice Clinic Feature
2. Summer Report
3. Cardozo Reaches Out to Haiti

The Secure Communities program requires local law-enforcement agencies to take fingerprints then submit them to a database where the fingerprints are compared against FBI and Department of Homeland Security records. Secure Communities currently operates in 168 jurisdictions across 20 states, but the Obama administration intends to expand the program — originally enacted by President George W. Bush in 2008 — to cover the entire country by 2013. Peter Markowitz, director of the IJC, said Secure Communities represents the most aggressive and widespread role of local police in civil immigration. “Too often when local cops become immigration agents it exacerbates unconstitutional abuses such as racial profiling.”

“The program has been billed as a way to target the worst of the worst,” Markowitz said. “It was also sold to local law enforcement as a technical change in the tracking of fingerprints that won’t have any impact on their work.” These notions have turned out to be incorrect. 79 percent of people deported through the Secure Communities program were either picked up for low-level offenses or had no criminal records. Additionally, the program has made immigrant communities reluctant to cooperate with local law enforcement.

The case was filed by 3Ls Brooke Menschel and Morgan Russel, members of Cardozo’s IJC. Menschel said the lack of information available about the program made it necessary to file the case, “We needed information, but there was nothing out there.” Once made public, the information quickly drew national attention, including the eye of the editorial page of the New York Times.“It’s gratifying to think that our work on the project may have played some part in bringing greater national scrutiny to this secretive and poorly-understood program,” Russel said.

At this point the case remains open. The documents were released as part of a preliminary disclosure agreement. “This is just the tip of the iceberg,” Markowitz said. Should the case proceed, students again will act as lead counsel, appearing in the Southern District of NY to argue motions. The next step would be the filing of summary judgment motions.

Markowitz believes the failures of the Secure Communities program represent the weaknesses of the “enforcement only” immigration solution, which focuses on deportation and detention without addressing means for the more than 12 million undocumented immigrants living and working in the United States to have a path to legalization. The United States deported nearly 400,000 people last year, and for the first time ever nearly half of those people were detained during their immigration hearings. The fastest growing segment of Federal detention is immigration.

Markowitz says the problem with the Obama administration’s immigration policy is the same that plagued Bush: they have become trapped in the enforcement only scheme not because it’s a good policy but because it is misperceived as good politics. The Obama administration must approach this issue cautiously, as immigration could potentially be a game-changer at the midterm elections in November.

Related posts:

1. Cardozo Reaches Out to Haiti
2. Jeremy Davidson Exclusive
3. Arizona v. Gant

Please describe your current legal job. I’m the office assistant at Beigelman, Feiner & Feldman, P.C. They’re a terrific group comprised mostly of entertainment attorneys, several of who also produce for film and stage. (Fun fact!  Four of the attorneys at my firm have degrees from Cardozo.)

How did you first get involved in comedy? I’ve been a writer as long as I can remember—my first “masterpiece” is a picture book I wrote when I was six-years-old called I Love Dogs. I went to college for print journalism and started writing some funny columns for the local newspaper. Then, my first year at Cardozo, I was a bit frustrated and was looking for an outlet to harness my creative energy. That’s when I heard about Law Revue and learned that Jeff Marx (who co-wrote “Avenue Q”) had started the club when he was a student there. I LOVE that musical and I got hugely inspired, and I wrote some song parodies and ended up being a part of Law Revue all three years. I got involved with Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre and the People’s Improv Theater and just started writing and performing more and more, and at some point I realized that this was no longer a hobby… it’s what I want to be doing for a living.

Who are your comedic influences / favorite funny people? I’m a huge fan of Demetri Martin. He’s an excellent joke writer, and he’s never been afraid to be weird or experimental. Incidentally, he’s a law school dropout, so every time I have to sit through one of those well-meaning “you should really take the Bar Exam” speeches, I remind them that Demetri is probably doing better than 99 percent of his law school classmates. I also love watching old videos of Andy Kaufman… Kristen Schaal (she played the crazed fan on the TV show Flight of the Concords)… Eugene Mirman… Zach Galifianakis… there’s so many!  Josh Fadem is an L.A. comedian who is really fun and compelling and is just so different… oh yeah, and myself!  I’m definitely one of my favorite funny people.

How does your work as a comic affect your legal work? It’s awesome! My friends are all entertainers or filmmakers, so there’s a lot of overlap between my day job and the things I do at night and on weekends. Here at my firm, it’s no big secret that I’m a comedian… in fact, I recently produced a TV pilot with financial backing from someone who works here. But the craziest thing of all was when I got to give a copy of the pilot DVD to one of our clients, an Emmy-nominated TV show director for one of the best shows on television. To me, that’s definitely more fun than spending hours of my life making sure legal documents are properly Bates stamped. But then again, maybe I just have a weird idea of “fun.”

What have been some of your most rewarding experiences since graduating Cardozo? I absolutely love writing, producing and performing, so every time I achieve some goal related to any of those things, it feels incredible. I mentioned how good it felt to pass along the pilot… basically, I was thrilled because my actors worked for next-to-nothing, and they were all incredible, and just to be able to get that in front of a TV show director was amazing. I am passionate about the arts and just being able to support people in what they’re doing makes me feel great, every time. I just want to make this world a better place!

Where do you see yourself, professionally, in 10 years? I plan to run a production house. I’d open it right now if I had financing. Want to loan me some cash? And if that doesn’t happen, maybe I’ll go for a career in competitive eating. Maybe we can have a hot dog eating competition at Cardozo sponsored by Hebrew National. Hebrew Nationals are 100 percent kosher!

Finally, just a few questions regarding law school.

What’s the most useful thing you learned in law school? The most important thing I took away from law school is that it’s important to follow whatever it is that drives you. I write, produce, or perform nearly every day of my life, and I absolutely love every second of it. Whether your goal is to be CEO of a Fortune 500 company or is simply to be the best burger flipper at your local McDonald’s, just do it! ‘m not judging you… I’d rather spend my time judging people who say they want to write for a living and then never actually put a pen to paper.

What advice do you have for current students who hope to pursue a career in the arts or entertainment world? Like anything else in life, it’s a matter of carving a path that ends up at the place where you want to be. Do anything you can to get there, even if it means emailing strangers and working for free at night and during the weekend. It’s a matter of delaying gratification… you might have to work for peanuts for a while, but with persistence and dedication, you’ll get there eventually. And also, listen to everyone’s advice, and then ignore it completely.

Know an alum who Jeff can interview? Email him at alumni_column@cardozojurist.com

Related posts:

1. Cardozo Alumnus Provides Comic Relief
2. The Key to Your Legal Success: Hustle
3. Cardozo Welcome Its Sixth Dean, Matthew Diller

DANIEL NOVICK, ‘12

What law-related work did you participate in this summer? Worked as an intern at Q2 Sports & Entertainment.

Was your legal position paid? (If public sector, did you receive a stipend from the school?) No.

What non-legal work did you do this summer? Played live music at various NYC venues.

Were you paid for your non-legal work? Yes.

Did you find it difficult to balance your legal and non-legal workload?

No, it wasn’t too bad since my performances were in the evening hours, so there was never really conflict of schedule. Although, late performances would occasionally cut into my designated sleep hours unfortunately.

Which work experience did you enjoy more?

I’ve always loved playing live music, and, though I’ve performed in several cities all over the U.S., getting to do so in the cultural and musical hub that is New York City has been a particularly special and rewarding experience.

How was your summer experience as a whole?

I managed to get out on a golf course at least once every couple weeks, made it out to the beach a bit, and spent a good amount of time with friends and family. All in all, I really had a fantastic summer.

JEFF ZEMAN, ‘12

What law-related work did you participate in this summer? I worked as an intern for Judge Bernard Friedman at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, in downtown Detroit. Judge Friedman is one of the more senior judges in the District, so he’s got some pull, and everyone knows and loves him. He organizes a trip every year to FCI Milan—a tour of the prison for interns and court staff, which was incredible. I wrote a number of opinions and memos and sat in on proceedings all over the court, including a death penalty case involving the murder of an armored car guard (MI doesn’t have the death penalty, so that was a particularly rare opportunity). We also had the opportunity to visit the U.S. Attorney’s office, the Secret Service, and several state courts around Detroit, not to mention food tours, courtesy of the Judge, in Mexican Village, Hamtramck (Polish), and Eastern Market.

Was your legal position paid? It was unpaid, and I did not receive a stipend (I was out of the running because I messed up on Symplicity while applying. OCS sucks—you can quote me. But, hey, at least I was out of the process early. Aaron Kleinman did the auction and everything, and he was booted in the last week of school. Ouch.)

What non-legal work did you do this summer? I worked a couple weekends as a counselor at a “Bubbie-Zaydie Camp” at Camp Tamarack in Ortonville, MI. Grandparents would bring their grandchildren, and we would play with the kids and facilitate activities over the course of the weekend—boating, fishing, swimming, arts & crafts, sports, a carnival, a talent show; I led a Snipe Hunt, which was sick awesome. Little kids are hilarious.

Were you paid for your non-legal work? Yeah, I got paid to play with little kids, plus they put us up for the weekend (my girlfriend would work too) and fed us. It wasn’t much money, but I was able to sublet my place in Manhattan, and I’ve been living with the parents—so costs haven’t been too great.

Did you find it difficult to balance your legal and non-legal workload? Since the family camp was only on weekends, balancing was easy. I just had to leave a little early on Fridays to get up there, which was no problem.

Which work experience did you enjoy more?

I can’t really pick. Clearly, my experience at the court was the more valuable—to my law career and just to my own, personal edification. It was also a lot of fun, and the work was really, really gratifying. On the other hand, I’ve always been a camp guy, and BZ Camp is the last little remnant I’m able to salvage while I dedicate the rest of my life to studying law.  There was even a bit of overlap—while at the Court, I helped facilitate a mock trial for the children of some of the court staff and lawyers from the U.S. Attorney’s office. I prepped U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade’s son, Steel, for oral argument in a case against the Onceler, for his crimes against the Lorax.

CHARLIE FURREY, ‘11

What law-related work did you participate in this summer? Summer Intern, Florek and Indres.

Was your legal position paid? Yes, just barely.

What non-legal work did you do this summer? Handyman and interior decorator: decorating and organizing apartments, assembling furniture, and other odd-ball jobs like installing dimmers, hiding cords to TVs, painting, etc. Our building has a tenants’ website where we can, among other things, post on the community board. So I made a posting saying I could do any household jobs they needed for $25. I typically have 2 to 5 jobs a week ranging anywhere from 30 minutes to a few hours.

Were you paid for your non-legal work? Yep.  $25 per hour.

Did you find it difficult to balance your legal and non-legal workload? No. I worked part-time at the law firm, so I usually had enough time to do both.

Which work experience did you enjoy more? The non-legal work. Working at the law firm was great, but you can’t beat being out of the office, being creative, and meeting new people.

How was your summer experience as a whole? It was incredible. We had friends stay at our place for more than 1/2 of the weekends this summer. Since I was working for myself doing the handyman jobs and only working two to three days per week at the law firm, I was able to take time off when I wanted to meet people for lunch or show friends from out-of-town around the city. While this summer was a lot of fun, I didn’t make nearly enough money to survive without the help of student loans. Oh well, it was worth it!

Related posts:

1. Where in the World Were Cardozo Summer Interns?
2. Cardozo Alumnus Provides Comic Relief
3. Three Cardozo Alumni Open Firm, Employ 3L

Before I begin, I would like to point out that the Editor-in-Chief of this newspaper usually has the honor of writing the Letter from the Editor. I asked our EIC, Rachel Kleinman, for the chance to write this school year’s first Letter from the Editor because I wanted to address something that is very close to my heart and something that I hope will become, if it hasn’t already, very close to yours as well. That something is The Cardozo Jurist.

I hope that, for you, the Jurist helps transform Cardozo from a place where you merely go to school to a place where you feel you are a part of a living, breathing community… especially for you 1Ls.

It’s easy for law students to fall into the habit of zipping around with a one-track mind. But, by limiting your focus only to casebooks and job searches, you can lose out on all that Cardozo can offer. You can lose out on making Cardozo more than a place where you just go to school. That’s where the Jurist comes in; let us be your lifeline to the Cardozo community.

The Jurist is here for you in a number of ways. In each issue of the Jurist, there will be news stories about what your classmates are doing. You’ll also find interviews with professors in which you can read about the projects they’re working on, and, by learning about their interests outside the classroom, you can discover what kind of people they really are. The newspaper’s editorial board will call your attention to issues it considers pressing at Cardozo. By reading the opinion columns, you can find out what’s on your classmates’ minds. Keep tabs on what our alumni are doing by reading our alumni column. Check out the Culture & Entertainment section to see if there are some new movies or TV shows that your classmates recommend.

There’s also more. At the very least, the Jurist should be something that you read. But it can be so much more. It can serve as your—yes, your—soapbox. It can be your megaphone. It can be your way of making this school your school. Our door is open (most of the time, literally) and you—yes, you—are welcome to write for us, join the editorial board, author a recurring column, or draw a satiric cartoon. Really, you can contribute whatever you want. While we may oversee the Jurist’s production, this paper has always belonged to you. It is, after all, made for you.

Finally, if you see us giddily handing out freshly-printed papers at the start of a new month sometime this year, I apologize in advance for our utter exuberance. We simply love producing this paper, and I hope that you’ll love reading it as much as we love writing it.

Stay connected,

Dave Reap

Associate Managing Editor

Related posts:

1. The Cardozo Jurist 2008-2009 Staff
2. Letter from the Editor
3. Jurist Coverage of Gay Issue Unbalanced

Oh, fine. I’ll tell you what a Murtaugh List is. The concept comes from a How I Met Your Mother episode. The List gets its name from veteran detective Roger Murtaugh, Danny Glover’s character from the “Lethal Weapon” movies. Fans of those movies know Detective Murtaugh’s oft-repeated, signature line: “I’m getting too old for this shit.” So a Murtaugh List, then, is composed of shit you are getting too old for. Everyone with me? Ok, good. Let’s keep moving.

What’s on my Murtaugh List? (Yes, I actually do have a Murtaugh List. No, I don’t try to replicate everything I see on TV. Just most things.) Here, I’ll give you a small sampling.

• Eating frozen microwaveable White Castle hamburgers. (Why? I no longer have the digestive powers of a teen.)
• Drinking alcohol mixed with Red Bull. (Why? I no longer have the recovery powers of a college kid.)
• Skipping dinner because I don’t know how to make anything except frozen microwaveable White Castle hamburgers. (Why? No 20-something should have that embarrassing a level of culinary competence.)

Where is all this going? Well, you’re about to find out. So, three weeks ago I was begging people to accompany me to the midnight premiere of “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.” During this begging process, however, I encountered a pretty serious problem. Nobody wanted to come.

Then something happened. After my eleventh failed attempt to find a friend to bask in the awesomeness that the “Scott Pilgrim” midnight premiere surely was going to be, my stomach went cold as Hoth. “Shit,” I thought to myself. “Are we getting too old for this shit?”

And thus, a sad event ensued: I was forced to consider adding midnight premieres to my Murtuagh List. This was nothing short of a tragedy. Midnight premiers are special. There’s a palpable energy in the room that differentiates it from all other movie-going experiences; those in the audience are the very first members of the general public to see the movie. The audience is also composed of the most dedicated fans, and you’re pretty much guaranteed to see somebody dressed like a character from the movie being shown. High-fiving these people is a must. This isn’t like any old trip to the movie theater—this is an all-out celebration.

Yet, this celebration usually begins on a Friday morning at 12:01 a.m. (The standard time for a midnight premiere of a movie that comes out on a Friday.) For those who work nine-to-five jobs, or have any comparable commitment, this presents a real problem. And that’s why I had trouble getting even one of my friends to see “Scott Pilgrim” with me—they were all working.

I was fortunate, however, to be in-between the end of my internship and the start of my 2L year. (So, I was pretty much doing nothing.) A rare break from what is otherwise, as you all know, an untamed jungle of responsibilities. Would I have tried to see the “Scott Pilgrim” premiere were I still interning or back at school? It crushes my fan boy soul to say so, but I wasn’t so sure that I would have.

All this was running through my head that fateful night. When all hope seemed lost, however, a close friend caved. For a free slushie, a free popcorn, oh, and a free ticket, he would accompany me after all. “Yeah, I’ll be dead at work the next day,” he said, “but whatever.” I was elated. And for a while longer, midnight premieres would stay off my Murtaugh List—not yet ready to join the ranks of the frozen microwaveable White Castle hamburger.

What’s on your Murtaugh List? Email Dave at pop_culture_column@cardozojurist.com.

Related posts:

1. Summer, Where Art Thou? Student Reflects on a Busy Break
2. Dipping into the Community Chest: Make an Event Happen at Cardozo
3. Student Life Committee Announcements

Flash forward ten years. It’s the summer after my first year in law school. I had this idea in my head: work would be fun, on weekends I’d come to New York City and barbeque and hang out with my friends and party it up. But, boy, was I wrong.

Work during the week is interesting. I like it. I get to witness the criminal process. I see some pretty interesting drama. It’s like Law and Order, except this experience won’t last twenty seasons (although, if I could recast myself as Anthony Anderson, that would be pretty awesome). However, once I leave work, that’s when the real work starts.

I come home and handle Fall recruitment, or internships for the Fall, or internships for the Spring, or course selection. It is never ending. And, for the most part, it’s a no-win situation (it feels like I’m on the Knicks). First, Fall recruitment is completely emotionally exhausting. I spent hours looking at firms that pretty much only take the top 10 percent of the class and also partake in Fall recruitment at Ivy League schools. To be frank, I’m not in the top 10 percent (unless you add .10 to my GPA for me being awesome and another .10 for every other time I’ve complimented myself in this article), so fall recruitment is almost a complete waste of time. Then, I go onto the NALP Directory website. With this list of firms, I’m likely as successful as Snooki is at not getting punched in the face. These firms don’t even come to interview on campus at Cardozo, because they are too good for us. Lastly, there is course selection. However, I’ve been used to being disappointed with this. In college, I would never get the courses I wanted. I would attempt to sign up for interesting courses like Massage Therapy or any course that had a lot of University of Maryland basketball players in it (helllloooo automatic A), but instead I would end up with Third World Policy. So, I figured Cardozo would be no different. However, I was wrong. Although I got the courses I wanted, I did not consider the fact that being in law school has made me a neurotic, obsessively compulsive student (check my iCal for proof). So, since about the second week of June, I have been thinking about my courses and worried that I would be subjected to a dry subject. This has driven me insane.

There is also the disappointment with the weekends in the city. Shocking as it seems, the MTV show The City portrays nightlife here incorrectly (okay, I watch a lot of MTV in my free time during the summer). Although I love hanging out with my friends, getting to the city from New Jersey is a pain. First, I have to get on the NJ Transit, where I see my entire high school class going to Hoboken. Then I get off the train, and I sweat profusely for the five blocks I have to walk to my apartment. By the time I get to my friends’ apartments, I am so tired that I would rather just watch a movie or lay down (although I have acquired a finer appreciation for chick flicks).

To conclude, summer isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Besides that one week of celebration in between finals and the writing competition, this summer has been all business. So, I guess I’m looking forward to getting back to the grind of law school. Who would have thought that highlighting until my textbook looks like a box of Lucky Charms would have been a better alternative to summer break?

Related posts:

1. Bem-vindo! Cardozo Student Reflects on Brazil Summer
2. Summer Loving Not Such a Blast
3. Students Head to China

On July 20, 2010, the Art Law Group of Herrick, Feinstein LLP proudly announced settlement of this seminal art law case, commenced in 1998. A 1912 painting by Egon Schiele was stolen from Austrian Jewish art dealer and collector Lea Bondi Jaray by a Nazi agent in the late 1930s, and it was erroneously restituted to a different family after World War II, making its way into the Austrian National Gallery in the Belvedere Palace in the 1950s. Subsequently, under disputed circumstances, Rudolph Leopold, an Austrian collector of Expressionist paintings, acquired Wally for his own collection. In 1994, together with the companion painting of Schiele’s self-portrait and other important works, Wally became part of the newly formed Leopold Museum.

In late 1997, the painting was loaned to the Museum of Modern Art (the “MoMA”) in New York by the Leopold Museum. In 1998, Robert Morgenthau, then Manhattan District Attorney, subpeonaed the painting in connection with an investigation into whether Wally was stolen property and thus was imported into the United States in violation of U.S. law. The Estate of Lea Bondi Jaray asserted a claim to the painting in the action, and the U.S. agreed that upon forfeiture of the painting, it would transfer to the Estate all right and title to the painting. Thus commenced civil forfeiture action, whereby the U.S. government tried to prove that the painting was knowingly stolen and was imported property in violation of the National Stolen Property Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2314.
Both MoMA and the Leopold Museum objected to the seizure and forfeiture proceedings by alleging that the painting was not stolen, that they did not knowingly import stolen property, and that the seizure was in violation of the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law, which grants immunity from seizure for international loans.
For 12 years, in accordance with a federal seizure warrant, the painting was held in U.S. custody during numerous negotiations, depositions, discovery proceedings, hearings, brief submissions and revisions, and finally settlement talks. The case and the fate of the painting, as well as the repercussions of the case on the museum community, has been the subject of countless articles, conferences and debates.
Ultimately, the U.S. government, the Bondi Estate, and the Leopold Museum reached a settlement agreement just days before the New York Supreme Court commenced a trial to decide whether Leopold did not know that the painting was stolen property when the museum imported it into the United States. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Leopold Museum agreed to pay the Bondi Estate $19 million in exchange for the release of all claims to the painting. Before returning to Austria, the painting was displayed in New York City once again, this time at the Jewish Museum of Heritage, not as evidence of Schiele’s painterly prowess but as a token and a small victory in the international efforts to recover art and other cultural property stolen during World War II.
Cardozo students and faculty played a small role in bringing the case to its apparent end. Together with Professor Lucille Roussin, the founder and director of the Holocaust Restitution Claims Practicum, students assisted the Art Law Group of Herrick, Feinstein LLP by performing minor legal research.
In March 2011, Cardozo will host a two-day international conference organized by the American Society of International Law and the Cardozo Art Law Society to examine the continued need for restitution of cultural valuables including but not limited to those seized during World War II. The Wally decision will certainly encourage future legitimate claims. Wally and countless other cases have demonstrated the increased emphasis and need for return of property and reunification of cultural valuables. The Cardozo conference will bring together legal practitioners and academics to discuss recent developments and contemporary approaches to restitution. The panels will represent many sides of the debate: individual claimants, museums, national interests fighting recovery, collectors, developing nations, and auction houses. By focusing on the topic of restitution, the conference will draw upon various areas of law as they manifest themselves in the burgeoning field of Art law.

Related posts:

1. Art Law Society Paints a Vivid Picture for Practice
2. 1L Art Exhibit Graces Second Floor
3. IP Panel Presents: Future of Digital Music

Despite this vitriolic targeting of the Court, there were no signs of retaliation. In Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), the Court addressed the constitutionality of the PCAOB audit board created by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect to the degree of removal control the President has. The Court expanded the power of a president that only six months ago chastised the Court during the State of the Union Address. Under Sarbanes-Oxley, the PCAOB members could only be removed for good cause by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and given that members of the SEC could only be removed by the President for good cause, “two layers of tenure protection” existed between the President and PCAOB. The Court found this level of insulation unconstitutional, and further defined the outer bounds of their decision in Morrison v. Olsen.

The Court also attempted to streamline a major aspect of civil procedure in Hertz v. Friend. In that case, the Court espoused a preference for the “nerve center” test in determining a corporation’s “principal place of business” under 28 USCA § 1332. The Court reasoned that the nerve center test is the most consistent with Congress’ expressed intent for a corporation to have citizenship in a “principal place” of business, i.e. a singular location. This preference amounts to a tacit rejection of the “brawn” test, i.e. whether sufficient aggregate activities are conducted in the state so as to render a corporation a citizen of that state for diversity purposes. In its decision, the Court noted that its preference for the “nerve center” test was informed by a desire to set forth a bright-line rule and streamline the diversity test among the federal courts.

Perhaps the most notable aspect of the 2009-10 term is the extent to which it defines the contours of First Amendment protections. In Citizens United, the Court found the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) unconstitutional insofar as it suppressed free speech, rather than regulated it through disclosure and disclaimer requirements. Though the reception of the decision was contentious given its interpretation as a pro-business decision, a common misconception is that the decision extends not only to for-profit entities, but to trade associations, labor unions, and non-profit organization as well. Furthermore, since the Court left the door open to speech regulation through disclosure and disclaimer requirements, the potential for surreptitious manipulation of the political process by corporate America seems to be lessened, at least in theory if not in practice. In another major decision in furtherance of First Amendment protections, the Court in United States v. Stevens struck down a federal law criminalizing animal cruelty depictions. To quote the Chief Justice, “The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it.”

Nevertheless, a number of decisions implicating the First Amendment went the other way. In Christian Legal Society (CLS) v. Martinez, the Court vindicated UC Hastings’ refusal to officially recognize CLS as a student group due to their discriminatory, faith-based policies, in accordance with relevant state law. Here, the same four justices that voted in favor of free speech for corporations in Citizens United were of the opinion that to permit even this indirect restraint on speech was to provide the government with a “handy weapon” for suppressing the speech of unpopular groups in the future. The Court also limited free speech in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, affirming the constitutionality of a statute criminalizing all forms of aid to designated terrorist groups, including advice pursuant to legal, non-violent activities.

A final note on the 2009-10 term is due with regards to the McDonald v. Chicago decision, where the Court found that the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. This decision followed the Court’s 2005 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller and sought to clarify the uncertainty that remained in the wake of Heller, which struck down a D.C. handgun prohibition as an unconstitutional abrogation of the Second Amendment without taking the incorporation step found in McDonald.

To put it succinctly, the 2009-10 term clarified several areas of law that have been undergoing reification for decades. The contours of presidential removal power, the modern-day relevance of the Second Amendment, and the means for determining corporate citizenship in federal diversity suits have undergone substantial clarification. Nevertheless, the Court’s holdings have left many questions unanswered, particularly with respect to the First Amendment decisions. If one were to brave enough to offer a prediction, it would not be entirely surprising to see the issues raised in Citizens United find their way to the Court once again some time soon.

Related posts:

1. Citizens United: A Threat to Democracy or Liberal Ideology?
2. SCOTUS: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
3. Joel: Gay Panel ‘Could Send the Wrong Message’

And this media portrayal of the Tea Party is why I tend to ridicule them as “tea baggers.” Why I sneer at their ideas as crazy. Why I dislike them for their assumptions. Yet, I’ve never actually spoken to one. I’ve never thoroughly investigated the benefits of a trimmed-down government, and I’ve never cared to understand why they feel so anxious about everything. So, why do I automatically stereotype them? Why do I automatically assume that everyone in the Tea Party hates blacks and Mexicans? Shouldn’t a law student engage in a more careful analysis before jumping to such conclusions?

The problem most likely stems from the technological ease with which we can all confirm and then reconfirm our biases. The Republicans go to the Drudge Report; the Democrats go to the Daily Beast. If you already believe Obama is a commie, you go to Michelle Malkin’s blog. If you still can’t get over Michael Dukakis, you go to the Daily Kos. It’s a lot easier to corroborate our deeply held suspicions these days.

So maybe there is a teachable moment here, after all. Writing about the Tea Party has made me realize that I shake my finger at them without knowing what I’m shaking my finger at. I’m intolerant—maybe not of gay marriage, or amnesty programs, but of other people’s legitimate differences in opinion.

It is easier that way. It’s easy to shut off Fox News and turn on Rachel Maddow. It’s comfortable to hear the same viewpoint over and over, to shrug my shoulders and say about the other side, “Well, they’re just crazy.” True, some people are just crazy—particularly in the South. But, some views deserve measured inquiry, irrespective of how I feel about them emotionally. Glen Beck might be an exploitative showman, but his weepy soliloquies articulate a feeling that runs deep in certain parts of this country. I’m not saying that we should support that feeling. But it should at least be explored, not shunned. Otherwise, the divide between left and right in this country will just continue to grow.

I understand that that’s a naïve and very “liberal” thing to say. Perhaps I can allow myself to be hopeful for once. If we all tried to understand each other better, the Tea Party, for all its faults, could lead to a closing of the wide gap between what has become two opposing, and seemingly intransigent, camps. It won’t happen easily, because it’s our natural inclination to shut down when we hear something we don’t like. And, many in the Tea Party don’t make it easy. I wouldn’t want to have a beer summit with a guy holding a sign that says “Tea Bag the Liberal Dems before They Tea Bag You!” But, what’s the alternative? We can continue to watch our national schism grow. Hatred, fear, and racism do not naturally abate.

Do we reach out to the Tea Party before they tea bag us? Maybe we should. Something needs to happen. Something needs to shake up the so-called stagnant waters of our political landscape. Perhaps that something is the Tea Party.

Related posts:

1. Tea Party Can’t Escape Racist Roots
2. Voters Frustrated at Failure to See Change
3. Party on the High Seas: Barrister’s Boat