Amanda Tyler writes for USA Today, Jan. 24, 2018
As the Supreme Court reviews the latest iteration of the travel ban, it bears remembering that its deference to the executive during World War II and unwillingness to confront the constitutional problems raised by the Japanese American internment led the court down a path that we now view as anything but its finest hour.
Daniel Farber, Amanda Tyler, Bertrall Ross, James Dempsey quoted by California Magazine, Jan. 23, 2018
Farber: To function, government relies on the expertise of professionals whose skills and knowledge are developed over years or decades, says Farber, and these veteran employees are now leaving the federal government in droves. … Crucial agencies and departments are being hollowed out.
Tyler: “We’re 200 years into this experiment [of a constitutional republic], and its continued success depends in very great measure … on a fundamental respect each branch of government demonstrates for the roles the other branches play. His attacks on judicial decisions and judges are troubling in regard to this basic truth of our governmental structure.”
Ross: “Journalists have been the watchdog of government throughout history. … So when the nation’s leader attacks the media, makes a point about sowing doubt, it diminishes this crucial watchdog role. Also, the media itself is becoming polarized, and that can be seen as delegitimizing. Ultimately, leaders can be held less accountable.”
Dempsey: “We’ve devoted some private money [to funding AI research], but we have no national commitment. China has made such a commitment, and it worries me. Whoever gets there first will have significant control of the global economy, and probably the military edge as well.”
Amanda Tyler quoted by Fox 2 KTVU, Nov. 17, 2016
“There is no decision that ever upheld the internment as lawful, and there’s no decision on the merits on the registration issue either,” Tyler said. … “Even J. Edgar Hoover, the head of the FBI, said there was no factual basis supporting these policies, so there are both legal problems and factual problems with what happened during that period,” Tyler said, noting that the Hirabayashi and Korematsu convictions were later overturned and both men received Presidential Medals of Freedom.”
Amanda Tyler interviewed by Northern California Record, Sept. 27, 2016
“A big part of what keeps my interest about this particular area of law is that it touches on a lot of larger concepts having to do with the separation of powers and the emergency constitution. And it also invites a rigorous historical inquiry into the role that habeas corpus has played over time during periods of great constitutional stress.”
Amanda Tyler writes for The Sacramento Bee, August 25, 2016
In a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Endo challenged the internment policy as unconstitutional, correctly arguing that the government had no general authority to detain citizens without criminal charges. Notably, her case posed the first and only direct challenge to the internment camps to reach the Supreme Court.
Amanda Tyler quoted in Daily Journal (registration required) Feb. 17, 2016
“It’s an area where there’s a potential to see a shift in the court’s jurisprudence depending on who takes his place.”
Kristen Holmquist and Amanda Tyler quoted in The Daily Californian, September 4, 2013
“What happens in California if the court upholds the 6th Circuit and strikes down Michigan’s proposition?” said Kristen Holmquist, a lecturer at UC Berkeley School of Law. “Then, arguably, Prop. 209 is also unconstitutional. Then the schools would be free to use race-based or race-related considerations in admissions again. The amicus brief makes it very clear to me that they would.”
Berkeley Law professor Amanda Tyler speculated that the court will uphold Michigan’s proposal, overturning the 6th Circuit ruling. “If the court reverses, as many people think they are likely to do, they will be in effect saying that something akin to ‘Prop. 209 is fine,'” Tyler said. “That would give the law greater legitimacy.”
Amanda Tyler and Daniel Farber quoted in San Francisco Chronicle, July 5, 2013 (registration required)
“It was born of a concern about federal courts overreaching beyond the power given to them,” said Amanda Tyler, a UC Berkeley constitutional law professor. The courts, she said, are often reluctant to “interfere with the workings of the executive or legislative branch.”
The ruling hasn’t eliminated environmental suits but has made them harder to sustain. Courts have insisted that plaintiffs show they are suffering a definable harm that would be cured by a favorable ruling, said Daniel Farber…. “You have to have an injury that was caused by the (government), and the court has to be able to help you,” he said.