OpEds

“The California Supreme Court’s limited oversight of the bar is a separation-of-powers violation, and the court should remedy that by taking direct control of the bar,” write David A. Carrillo and Stephen M. Duvernay of UC Berkeley Law’s California Constitution Center.

“Replace the corporate income tax with non-voting shares that corporations would issue to the fund,” writes UC Berkeley Law Professor Mark P. Gergen and Stanford Law School Professor Joseph Bankman.

“Less than a month into Donald Trump’s second term, a case involving his extreme claims of presidential power has already made it to the Supreme Court,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “It raises a question of profound importance: Can the president fire anyone who works in the executive branch even when a law limits his power to do so?”

“It is common for authoritarians to look for scapegoats,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “Sadly, trans individuals have been that for Trump.”

“For most of American history, it was conservatives who championed states’ rights. Now, the conservative Trump administration is trying to trample the authority of state and local governments — in clear violation of the Constitution,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky.

Professor Pamela Samuelson discusses arguments for/against California bill SB 1047, explains Governor Gavin Newsom’s veto, and considers whether government regulations are necessary to ensure safe development and deployment of AI.

“Indeed, presidential interference with Congress’ budgeted spending violates a federal statute, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “When a federal statute has been adopted that appropriates money, the president has no authority to refuse to spend it.”

“For decades, oil and gas companies have been allowed to mislead the public and profit from their products while sticking others with the bill for climate change,” writes Dave Jones, director of the Climate Risk Initiative at UC Berkeley Law’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment. “That must end.”

Dean Erwin Chemerinksy weighs in on the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship.

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky writes “when Trump acts unconstitutionally, the only plausible check will have to come from the courts. But will the judiciary, and especially the Supreme Court, enforce the Constitution against Donald Trump?”

Roxanna Altholz, director of the UC Berkeley School Law’s Human Rights Clinic, Medha Raman the Dale and James J. Pinto Fellow at Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, and Ricky Garza the Border Policy Counsel for Southern Border Communities Coalition argue that the Supreme Court case Barnes v. Felix is a long-overdue opportunity to address a systemic problem: the United States’ woefully inadequate standards for law enforcement use of deadly force.

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky weighs in on the legal status of the Equal Rights Amendment.

David A. Carrillo, executive director of the California Constitution Center at Berkeley Law and Brandon V. Stracener a senior research fellow at the California Constitution Center, ask President Biden to commute the sentences of the 40 inmates currently on federal death row to life in prison without parole.

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky weighs in on the free speech implications of the coming ban on TikTok in the United States.

“Underlying this case is the question of who should decide,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “Should it be left to transgender youths, their parents and their doctors to decide the course of medical treatment? Or should it be for state legislatures to make this decision?”

“Rubio may have good reasons for moving into the Cabinet, but improving his prospects in four years is not one of them. Indeed, the Cabinet has long been a graveyard for presidential contenders.,” writes Joshua Spivak a senior research fellow at Berkeley Law’s California Constitution Center.

Joshua Spivak, a senior research fellow at Berkeley Law’s California Constitution Center discusses how Nebraska uses a district-based system, where the state’s three congressional districts each get to cast their own separate Electoral College votes and how it could swing the election.

“Halloween 2024 is a reminder that the Food and Drug Administration is long overdue for taking an obvious action to make the holiday less scary: banning artificial food coloring,” writes Claudia Polsky, director of the Environmental Law Clinic at the University of California Berkeley School of Law.

“There is a strong argument that winner-take-all is unconstitutional because it effectively nullifies votes,” writes Dean Chemerinsky. “But if courts won’t declare it unconstitutional, Congress can adopt a law requiring that every state allocate its electors by the votes in some manner proportionate to the popular vote.”

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky considers the question, “What role, if any, will the Supreme Court play in the November presidential election?”

Joshua Spivak, a senior research fellow at Berkeley Law’s California Constitution Center weighs in on what voter turnout may look like in November.

“Protecting the public—not thrift—is the bar’s primary regulatory purpose, and its focus on cutting corners has arguably diluted the bar exam from the nation’s hardest to something that weakens public protection,” write Berkeley Law’s California Constitution Center’s Executive Director David A. Carrillo and Senior Fellow Stephen M. Duvernay.

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky discusses the false and misleading statements made by Donald Trump about abortion during debate with Kamala Harris.

“Campus officials and faculty must themselves model the discourse we want to teach our students to emulate,” writes Dean Erwin Chermerinsky.

“It may seem strange and frightening to suggest thinking of a new Constitution at a time of great partisan division,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “But that existed in 1787; in many of the states, the Constitution was just barely ratified.”

“I worry that our reverence for the constitution, and the understandable fears of the unknown, cause us to ignore the ways in which our governing document is contributing to the crisis now facing American democracy,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky.

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky writes about the October 2023 term Supreme Court cases he regards as “sleeper cases” that will have lasting impact.

“No Supreme Court reform that has a chance of being adopted anytime soon is likely to make a difference in the court’s composition,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “But the presidential election will, and the focus in the months ahead should be on the enormous difference between who Mr. Trump and Kamala Harris would appoint to the court.”

“I am frequently asked about the most important thing to do in regard to changing the Supreme Court,” writes Dean Chemerinsky. “The answer is easy: win presidential elections.”

“The legal issues being raised by Republicans about a possible Harris nomination are just noise to generate confusion,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “They have no legal merit.”

“Judge Aileen Cannon’s stunning ruling dismissing the federal indictment against Donald Trump for mishandling classified documents is just wrong as a matter of constitutional law, but it can be easily overcome,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky.

“Solving the problem of homelessness is difficult and expensive,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “But putting people in jail for sleeping in public does absolutely nothing to solve homelessness or help people in need.”

At times, some have referred to the Supreme Court as “nine scorpions in a bottle,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. That metaphor seems especially appropriate this year, though I would describe them as “nine angry scorpions in a bottle.”

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky weighs in on the Supreme Court’s Trump vs. United States decision.

“The Supreme Court just ripped away the biggest incentive that cities had to build more shelters and supportive housing for the homeless,” write Berkeley Law Professor Jeffrey Selbin and Jamie Suki Chang, associate professor of Social Welfare at UC Berkeley. 

“Two Supreme Court rulings on Friday that dramatically change the law are profound reminders that presidential elections matter enormously for all of us,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky.

“My hope is that the Supreme Court won’t overrule Stone v. Graham and that it will instead apply it to declare the Louisiana law unconstitutional,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky.

“The Supreme Court’s decision will have an immediate and devastating effect on those who would have benefited from the $6 billion fund,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “It would have provided compensation to over 100,000 victims of the opioid crisis, and the plan also would have provided significant funding for thousands of state and local governments to prevent and treat opioid addiction.”

“In Rahimi, the Supreme Court made the right decision for the wrong reasons,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky.

“The Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday finally brought common sense to analyzing gun rights under the 2nd Amendment,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “It will save lives.”

“Whatever you might think of the outcomes of any particular case, the role of the jury in assigning blame or protecting the innocent is fundamental to the American understanding of justice,” write Berkeley Law professor Andrea Roth and Rutgers University professor of law J.D. King.

“Donald Trump will decry the verdict as being nothing but a political vendetta,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “But nothing he says can erase the fact that a jury heard all the evidence and found him guilty on all counts.”

“Of course, the law of the First Amendment must be the starting point and must be adhered to, for public universities and for private schools that choose to follow it,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “But we also must realize that it is often just the starting point and do a better job of thinking through how to apply it and what to do in these enormously difficult circumstances.”

“To limit and undo that damage and restore the rule of law, Republicans may have no choice but to respond in kind.” writes Professor John Yoo.

“AB 886 would create an arbitration process with newsrooms to establish a fee that the companies would pay to carry news articles,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “The experience of other countries shows that this type of legislation works.”

“The issue in Trump v. United States is whether Donald Trump can be prosecuted for his conduct in attempting to undermine the results of the 2020 presidential elections,” writes Dean Erwin Chemerinksy. “The case should be easy and decided upon the most basic principle of the rule of law: no one, not even the president, is above the law.”

“If the Ninth Circuit panel’s ruling in favor of Uber is allowed to stand despite AB 5’s reasonable distinctions, it would open the door to countless challenges to laws regulating the workplace and endanger the ability of legislatures to pass laws protecting workers,” write Christina Chung, executive director of the Center for Law and Work at Berkeley Law and Erwin Chemerinksy, dean of Berkeley Law.

“Rather than making a clear choice between the charter or the state rules, the county clerk used both,” write Joshua Spivak and David A. Carrillo of the California Constitution Center at Berkeley Law.

“The Supreme Court should not further criminalize homelessness,” writes Laura Riley, the director of the clinical program at Berkeley Law, and the author of “Homeless Advocacy.” “But whether it does or not, this case should put governments at all levels on notice that humane policies can help to reduce homelessness. We don’t have to let this crisis continue.”

Chesa Boudin, the founding executive director of the Criminal Law & Justice Center at Berkeley Law School, Brendan Cox , and Miriam Aroni Krinsky write about the Supreme Court case City of Grants Pass v. Johnson.